Discussion in 'Security and Anti-Virus Software' started by Hungry Man, May 9, 2011.
I wonder how many gems like this are not public.
Probably not a lot. In fact probably none. You can make a lot more money by selling these than somehow hoarding them for yourself.
I think system should have protection layers set like this:
1. Edit: blacklisting (useless for 0-day exploits, but good and fast for known malware)
2. Sandbox (give me a chance to react and decide - but the way how Comodo does it - all is untrusted despite signings and trusted installers)
3. HIPS (something is rotten in the system - let me investigate)
So if sandbox failed HIPS should catch it and stop it.
If HIPS failed then the Cleaning tools come in (CCE, MBAM and other heavy guns).
If that failed - reformat disk .
So if Chrome sandbox was breached, either some other sandbox or HIPS should catch it.
Exactly that is being discussed (on Chrome) at WildersSecurity forum; link
Looks like you mean blacklisting, not whitelisting. Whitelisting would work perfectly fine for any known or unknown threats, but it is usually considered too cumbersome in practical use.
Thanks - blacklisting was what I meant. I must be a negative man
i just updated my chrome to 11.696.68
dont know if that fixes this exploit tho
big failure of google: they state it's not a chrome exploit, as they used flash.
does that matter? it's software i downloaded from google, called chrome, and it has, bundled with it, a special from-them verified version of flash with a special sandbox handling it. so it's still their problem.
Do you have a link?
I'm not surprised that it's flash and while I understand that it's not Google's product I do agree with you.
An interesting article on the subject:
Chrome Hack Denied By Google Engineers
It is in fact a flash exploit. Naturally the Google engineers are a bit peeved.
Vupen was making it out to be a flaw in Chrome's code but the fact is this was a flash issue and a flash sandbox issue.
Separate names with a comma.