Vulnerabilities / Threats
3/5/2012
12:30 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Chrome Shines Bright In Controversial Security Fight

Major browsers have all made solid strides in security in the past few years, but Chrome's sandbox makes Google's browser a harder target, researchers say at RSA.

RSA CONFERENCE 2012--San Francisco--The major browsers have all made solid strides in security in the past few years, but Chrome's sandbox makes Google's browser a harder target for attackers to exploit with malicious code, four researchers said Thursday in a presentation at the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco.

The group of researchers--all current or former employees of security consultancy Accuvant--gave conference attendees an in-depth tour of their results, which were published late last year. Some controversy has surrounded the security comparison because Google--the maker of the Chrome browser--funded the study.

Microsoft Internet Explorer's and Google Chrome's countermeasures made both browsers more secure on the metrics used by Accuvant, with Google's browser edging out Microsoft's in sandboxing technology, Shawn Moyer, practice manager for Accuvant, said.

"We focused heavily on exploitation mitigation in this paper," Moyer said. "We accepted that users will click on things and the browser will be exploited, but if you have something that you can use to contain the hack, you are going to raise the bar for attackers."

[ Catch up on our complete RSA 2012 Security Conference coverage. ]

The survey has been criticized by NSS Labs, a security testing firm that came to a different conclusion in a paper last year: Microsoft's SmartScreen URL reputation system helped Internet Explorer catch 96% of all malicious websites. Google's Chrome came in a distant second place, catching about 13% of websites.

At the RSA Conference, the researchers repeatedly stressed that their paper and methods are open. Anyone can review and redo the testing, Moyer argued. Moreover, they also pointed out that they could not replicate NSS Labs' findings. They found all three browsers were equally poor at catching malicious pages.

Chrome distanced itself from other browsers mainly because of its sandbox technology--a virtual playpen in which the browser runs but cannot impact other applications' data or the operating system. Internet Explorer has some sandboxing, but not as completely as Chrome, the researchers said. A strong sandbox helps keep the operating systems secure because a malicious program that runs inside the sandbox cannot access any system resources outside of the virtual machine.

Read the rest of this article on Dark Reading.

It's no longer a matter of if you get hacked, but when. In this special retrospective of news coverage, Monitoring Tools And Logs Make All The Difference, Dark Reading takes a look at ways to measure your security posture and the challenges that lie ahead with the emerging threat landscape. (Free registration required.)

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
eohippus
50%
50%
eohippus,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/5/2012 | 7:10:30 PM
re: Chrome Shines Bright In Controversial Security Fight
as interesting as the info is it google chrome allowed a parasite in and attacked my computer while using that browser it had to be removed by an outside source that parasite /malicious program came from a company called I Livid why did it not protect me from that if its sandtrap is so good ?
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web