4 ms·

> Chrome's sandbox [...] on Windows 10 [...] prevents exploitation of this sandbox escape vulnerability. the Windows version is an important part of that state

> Chrome's sandbox [...] on Windows 10 [...] prevents exploitation of this sandbox escape vulnerability. the Windows version is an important part of that statement since it's unclear from this what versions of Windows are affected by the vulnerability.

eganist 10y ago
> since it's unclear from this what versions of Windows are affected by the vulnerability. If anything, this just makes it worse, since it tells me Windows 7 users are SOL.
- magicalist 10y ago
  > If anything, this just makes it worse Makes what worse? There's no mention of other browsers (so how could this be an ad for Chrome? Is Edge vulnerable? Is Firefox?) and the plain implication is that Chrome on Windows 7 is indeed SOL.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - eganist 10y ago
    > There's no mention of other browsers (so how could this be an ad for Chrome? Is Edge vulnerable? Is Firefox?) If this wasn't an ad and was merely a security disclosure, I'd have expected appropriate research into which configurations mitigate the risk, not just a single configuration which happens to favor the browser maker. Add on top of that the trivialization of "Windows 10" as the noun in a second-order preposition of place as well as the reference to Chrome as the primary subject of the sentence, and even basic analysis of the sentence in question shows a bias.
    - holtalanm 10y ago
      The disclosure came from Google. Of course there's a bias if they spent time coming up with a mitigation within their software. They aren't responsible for other browsers, so why would they research fixes within those browsers? That assumption is just plain idiotic. They are under NO responsibility to research each and every possible fix. Hell, they technically didn't even have to come up with a mitigation for Chrome.
      - eganist 10y ago
        > They are under NO responsibility to research each and every possible fix. Hell, they technically didn't even have to come up with a mitigation for Chrome. Then they should've waited until an official fix was out. They know one's being actively worked on. They know the primary exploit path (via Flash) was patched. To my earlier point: they should've just waited. > That assumption is just plain idiotic. That's not necessary. You might not see my face, but I'm still a person deserving of some amount of respect.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Exactly what is the benefit of them waiting until an official fix is released if they have evidence of actual exploitation? How is anyone better off not knowing the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already? I'm having trouble making sense of your arguments on this thread, and I really am trying.
        eganist 10y ago
        > How is anyone better off not knowing the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already? This question is strange. On the one hand, the disclosure scares users into switching to Chrome even though Microsoft asserts Edge offers protection. On the other hand, the disclosure actually does not disclose the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already. Would you rather have had the disclosure include the exact vulnerability? I've addressed your other questions surrounding the benefits and drawbacks in other threads. No point in re-hashing them.
21 10y ago
What they mean is that in Windows 10 a process can opt-in to some security features which mitigate this attack. Firefox/others will still be affected if they don't opt-in. Just in case anybody wonders, this mitigation is opt-in because what it does is it disables all win32k.sys calls (GDI, ...).

eganist 10y ago

> since it's unclear from this what versions of Windows are affected by the vulnerability. If anything, this just makes it worse, since it tells me Windows 7 users are SOL.

magicalist 10y ago
> If anything, this just makes it worse Makes what worse? There's no mention of other browsers (so how could this be an ad for Chrome? Is Edge vulnerable? Is Firefox?) and the plain implication is that Chrome on Windows 7 is indeed SOL.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eganist 10y ago
  > There's no mention of other browsers (so how could this be an ad for Chrome? Is Edge vulnerable? Is Firefox?) If this wasn't an ad and was merely a security disclosure, I'd have expected appropriate research into which configurations mitigate the risk, not just a single configuration which happens to favor the browser maker. Add on top of that the trivialization of "Windows 10" as the noun in a second-order preposition of place as well as the reference to Chrome as the primary subject of the sentence, and even basic analysis of the sentence in question shows a bias.
  - holtalanm 10y ago
    The disclosure came from Google. Of course there's a bias if they spent time coming up with a mitigation within their software. They aren't responsible for other browsers, so why would they research fixes within those browsers? That assumption is just plain idiotic. They are under NO responsibility to research each and every possible fix. Hell, they technically didn't even have to come up with a mitigation for Chrome.
    - eganist 10y ago
      > They are under NO responsibility to research each and every possible fix. Hell, they technically didn't even have to come up with a mitigation for Chrome. Then they should've waited until an official fix was out. They know one's being actively worked on. They know the primary exploit path (via Flash) was patched. To my earlier point: they should've just waited. > That assumption is just plain idiotic. That's not necessary. You might not see my face, but I'm still a person deserving of some amount of respect.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Exactly what is the benefit of them waiting until an official fix is released if they have evidence of actual exploitation? How is anyone better off not knowing the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already? I'm having trouble making sense of your arguments on this thread, and I really am trying.
        eganist 10y ago
        > How is anyone better off not knowing the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already? This question is strange. On the one hand, the disclosure scares users into switching to Chrome even though Microsoft asserts Edge offers protection. On the other hand, the disclosure actually does not disclose the details of a vulnerability that people are exploiting already. Would you rather have had the disclosure include the exact vulnerability? I've addressed your other questions surrounding the benefits and drawbacks in other threads. No point in re-hashing them.

21 10y ago

What they mean is that in Windows 10 a process can opt-in to some security features which mitigate this attack. Firefox/others will still be affected if they don't opt-in. Just in case anybody wonders, this mitigation is opt-in because what it does is it disables all win32k.sys calls (GDI, ...).