Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Google engineers have denied Vupen’s claim of a Chrome vulnerability. They state it’s an Adobe Flash problem. The Chrome browser comes bundled with Adobe Flash.

"Vupen misunderstood how sandboxing worked in Chrome, and only had a Flash bug. It's a legit pwn, but if it requires Flash, it's not a Chrome pwn," tweeted Chris Evans, a Google security engineer and Chrome team lead.

"We will not help Google in finding the vulnerabilities," said Chaouki Bekrar, Vupen's CEO and head of research, in an email reply to questions. "Nobody knows how we bypassed Google Chrome's sandbox except us and our customers, and any claim is a pure speculation." – Computer World

Bekrar refused to reveal the information to Google stating they only do that for customers (viz. “pay to play”)

"The Flash sandbox blog post went to pains to call it an initial step," said Evans. "It protects some stuff, more to come. Flash sandbox (does not equal) Chrome sandbox."

The blog Evans referred to was published in December 2010, where Schuh and another Google developer, Carlos Pizano said, "While we've laid a tremendous amount of groundwork in this initial sandbox, there's still more work to be done."

Chrome’s sandbox is present only in the Windows version. Bekrar also wrote, "Chrome's built-in plug-ins such as Flash are launched inside the sandbox which was created by Google, so finding and exploiting a Flash or a WebKit vulnerability will fall inside the sandboxes and will not circumvent it. A sandbox bypass exploit is still required."

This is the critical point, because Chrome is a ‘secure’ browser because of it’s sandboxing technology. In the “Pwn2Own” contest, Google offered a $20,000 prize to the hacker who could break it, but no one took it on. That’s not the same as ‘everyone tried, but couldn’t do it’.

I guess Bekrar figures his researchers’ work is worth a far more lucrative contract with Google. I also think he’s probably right.

Source: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216627/Google_engineers_deny_Chrome_hack_exploited_browser_s_code?taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=2


Comments
on May 12, 2011

Interesting, although the situation has the potential to generate a lot of bad will quickly between the parties depending on how it's played.

Are there any legality issues involved in scenarios like this? Are the "hackers" breaking any laws, or does google have any legal claim to their findings? Obviously this is a blow to the image of chrome as a safe browser, can that be interpreted as a form of slander?

on May 12, 2011

The hackers aren't really breaking any laws because the results are private as to the nature of any successfu;/unsuccessful hacks.

More like an open consultancy... Don't know but don't believe Google has a claim on someone else's work, because they obtained the browser freely. The very nature of Vupen's work makes what they do 'legal', and they don't publicize results, so Google can't claim it's being discriminated against.

The fact that they found something doesn't mean they have to give it away, since they aren't under any contractual obligation.

"Slander" refers only to the "spoken" word. I believe you're referring to "Libel"  which applies to the written word, and the claim isn't libellous if it's true. If it isn't, then libel might apply, but I believe 'actual damages' would have to be proven.

Remember, I'm a non-lawyer, so you're getting an 'amateur' (if not amateurish) explanation. A more Pro amateur would be Jafo.  

on May 12, 2011

DrJBHL
A more Pro amateur would be Jafo.

Pro Amateur?  So he is a jumbo shrimp?

on May 12, 2011

 

Dr Guy

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 2A more Pro amateur would be Jafo.

Pro Amateur?  So he is a jumbo shrimp?

Dr Guy has sealed his own fate, I believe.

Jafo The Dark Prince shall be visiting you. Bwah hah hah.

on May 12, 2011

I are Jafo of Borg......you will be ass-imilated. Resistance is......oops......wrong thread. Sorry.