Vulnerabilities / Threats
3/5/2012
12:30 PM
50%
50%

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
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-4403
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Zen Cart 1.3.9h allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) delete a product via a delete_product_confirm action to product.php or (2) disable a product via a setflag action to categories.ph...

CVE-2012-2930
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add a user via an adduser action to admin/index.php or (2) conduct static PHP code injection attacks in .htusers...

CVE-2012-2932
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) selitems[] parameter in a copy, (2) chmod, or (3) arch action to admin/index.php or (4) searchitem parameter in a search action to admin/...

CVE-2012-5451
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in HttpUtils.dll in TVMOBiLi before 2.1.0.3974 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (tvMobiliService service crash) via a long string in a (1) GET or (2) HEAD request to TCP port 30888.

CVE-2015-0297
Published: 2015-04-24
Red Hat JBoss Operations Network 3.3.1 does not properly restrict access to certain APIs, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java methos via the (1) ServerInvokerServlet or (2) SchedulerService or (3) cause a denial of service (disk consumption) via the ContentManager.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.