Printable View
Keep an eye on gears.google.com/chrome/?hl=en - today (at 6PM GMT), Google's own browser ("Chrome") should be available through that link.
Here's an article on the pending release: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9850
Here's the comic book (!?!) that accompanies the release: http://books.google.com/books?id=8Us...tcover#PPP1,M1
Too late!
http://antionline.com/showthread.php...769#post941769
However, by posting in "security news" you did manage (by implication) to get Google and "security" almost in the same sentence.:eek:
Given their track record for respecting customer privacy I consider that to be quite a feat!
So, what information is this crap going to collect and send back to the mothership? to be stored forever and a day :rolleyes:
If you want my trust you have to earn it............... Google has one hell of a way to go yet.
Im using Chrome right now. Its an interesting take on how a web browser should be designed. At first glance, it seems somewhat featureless, but I am quite sure that Google was intending for the browser to be that way. For a company building some of the most powerful web based applications today, it makes sense to take some of the complexity out of the tool being used to view the sites. Too soon to make my mind up yet, but my eye has been caught.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for the first exploit to be released?
Has anyone done any sniffing to see what is sent home to Google? (I'm thinking that since they make their cash off of clicks and hits..)
Damn this is a nice clean and simple browser. :)
and from what i've experienced so far it loads up quicker then ie and ff3, and displays pages a lot quicker also.
Hopefully there will be other tiny features available in the future, but at the moment im really enjoying this Browser. :thumbsup:
heres the direct link (for now)
http://dl.google.com/update2/installers/ChromeSetup.exe
Hopefully will get to see the mac and linux versions soon.
The multiprocess approach to browsing is interesting, it was really the only thing that interested me in Chrome. I have only used it for a couple hours but haven't managed to crash a tab to see if it really works the way they said it would. But I have run into a couple of bugs, one is that it can get really weird when your typing text into a text box, for some reason it doesn't display it properly and will overwrite text when in reality its still there.
On the security side of things, I noticed they have a save user/passwords feature but its completely open and cannot be locked by a master password. So even if your browser is closed, anyone can open it up and just click "show password" and look at any of the saved passwords you have in plain text. At least in FF3 you have the option to lock it with a "master" password.
Also, I've had some trouble with it on some ssl logins where it doesn't send the password correctly.
Using it right now. I'm impressed so far.
O
I think i read earlier it was meant to be 4months away or something like that, i'll try to dig up the page i read it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwk9
It's been up for a few hours and already someone found a flaw.. One that bit Apple and Firefox before...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843
Was sent to me via email by a person i work with. :)Quote:
The source code is at:
http://code.google.com/chromium/
http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/
Developer docs:
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/h...etting-started
Build instructions for linux:
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/h...ructions-linux
I haven't had a chance to try building it yet - however:
Note: If you want to use a Chromium-based browser on Linux, you should look elsewhere. Although many Chromium submodules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, all that runs is a command-line "all tests pass" executable.
Personally, I don't think there is a good browser for linux atm. Konqueror takes first place on design/flexibility/features, Firefox on site compatibility.
As such I'm extremely excited to see this uses webkit, and even if it never becomes useable on linux, I hope konqueror can make good use of the webkit improvements.
I will be watching this like a hawk...
side note: there is a GPL violation in the code (I didn't find it, a co-worker did), the cygwin binaries have a broken link to their sources... tsk tsk
So.. took a while for it to import all my bookmarks and such from Firefox. What I found interesting was that I couldn't visit my usual cigar forum (http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?act=idx) as it pulled an error. Not sure if it's an Invision error or what (haven't looked yet). I can see the site no problem with Firefox but Chrome doesn't like it.
I'm also finding it loads AO slightly different (there's no user drop down to select things from).
Have been sniffing most of the day.. both off the router and local .. sofar have not noticed anything out of hand.. yet to do a closer inspection of the logs.. and see what happens in the 2nd and 3rd day of installation.. surely it must do a check for update connection at some timeQuote:
Originally Posted by MsMittens
Anyone read the EULA? I saw this snippet on another forum and it did raise some eyebrows:
(bold and underline added to highlight specific area).Quote:
You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
This means, particularly those that are mods or admins, you may not want to use Chrome if they can "publish" or "reproduce" your info (technically -- one would hope that ethically they wouldn't).
Ok. Found the issue with the Invision Boards. For some reason, the VPN (Proxy detection combo) was interfering with me logging into any Invision Boards (weird)
If you take it literally, that license is evil. It has already produced
controversy when applied to online services and apps.
http://computing.msu.edu/msd/documen...line_apps.html
It is an outrageous stretch to apply it to a browser. It will
be interesting to see if enough people complain to make them
back down. I can't use software that perpetually binds
me to terms like that. It's different when you give a forum
or chat room the right to content you post, but Google seems
to be claiming a right to whatever passes through the browser!
Yeah, I get that same feeling..
It looks like they slapped their Google Video/Photo web service license (it makes sense there) on Chrome.
Not the type of license I expect (or want) on a browser.
i'm using Google Chrome at the moment, and i really like it. the interface is clean and pages seam to load much faster than i've become used to with Firefox and IE.
the licence is a bit of a concern, but hopefully the licence is also in Beta and will be changed for the stable release. does anyone know where someone can make a complaint to Google about the licence, if one wishes to do so?
- user0182
I haven't downloaded it yet but the early reports mostly seem to say it's very fast, but bare-bones in terms of features, and a bit of a memory pig. It's JavaScript parser blows away every other browser in terms of speed. That may be why it's a memory pig. Of course it may also not be why.
Here is a bit I caught this morning..
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1847&tag=nl.e550
So chrome is nothing more than a repackaged Safari 3.1, oooh, I'm impressed. Way to go Google. Way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KorpDeath
from here http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843Quote:
The Google Chrome user-agent shows that Chrome is actually WebKit 525.13 (Safari 3.1), which is an outdated/vulnerable version of that browser.
Apple patched the carpet-bombing issue with Safari v3.1.2.
do we sing.. we are better than Ms .. we are better than MS.. lets do the same as MS
Oh.. and recent update on the License thing: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google...nse-agreement/
I suspect that they were not too worried about the terms and conditions given that it is a beta?
I also don't think that there is much to worry about it phoning home for the same reason.
What I would keep an eye on is what the final version does ;)
Johnno you took the words well text right out of my mouth/keyboard. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by nihil
It's Beta for a reason, and they can only improve it and have a more fine tuned Browser when it leaves "Beta". :)
So they have updated their policy on Content, but what about our privacy? Are they logging the sites we visit? I believe so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMittens
I believe there is a checkbox in the download process "allow the collection of usage statistics". Or something very close to that. Of course that doesn't mean if you don't check it that they won't track your usage anyway.
Guys.... Gmail is still listed as Beta.
By listing a product as Beta you are free to keep modifying it
I'm still waiting to be able to jack in ala William Gibson
Not really..Quote:
Originally Posted by fourdc
As a Beta.. if an account gets hacked or 5TB of data vanishes into the cyber WPB.. Google have the excuse of.."Hey it is only Beta..and isn't ready for production use yet"
Beta implies: IF your using this in a production environment your a fool..
Now if we could convince MS that a certain OS should still be in Beta.. my Vista Enema would not feel so bad
Absolutely! I was always taught that you test betas in a test environment. Once they move into RC (release candidate) you would move on to a "reference machine" to see if it plays nice with your other applications.Quote:
Beta implies: IF your using this in a production environment your a fool..
Then you go to UAT (user acceptance testing) which is typically done in an instance of the users' training environment.
Personally, I shan't be testing this until they move onto a version of the rendering agent that is not known to be vulnerable.