Chrome 102 clown world - 32 security fixes, 12 feature changes, and broken uBlock

[andyprough]

I guess they introduced the 12 feature changes and broke uBlock to ensure they would have more dozens of security fixes to roll out in the near future? Job security??

https://www.ghacks.net/2022/05/25/googl ... -critical/

One critical security issue and several high severity security issues. Anyone using Chrome as a backup browser should update ASAP - or just stop using it.

[Moonraker]

Pure propaganda..
Seems to leak like a bust tap and google is the plumber.

For a secure codebase it sure needs a lot of patches and welding together..

One exploit in the wild and the googleverse goes into panic mode over nothing..

scare tactics and google is fighting the bogeymen for you..??..
Feel secure.??

[Eduardo Lucas]

i find the same about sandboxing, complex permission systems and sophisticated security chips that promise to make data invulnerable to kernel explots

[gepus]

Contrary to the hype Chrome is the most insecure browser.
Alongside 10 critical bugs discovered, 3 are sneaking through. Good for the flourishing black market where security holes are negotiated and 3 letter agencies good customers.
Due to its rabbit release cycle it is a perpetual alpha. Impossible to test the code changes thoroughly no matter how many employees Google can afford.

[moonbat]

Of course Chrome will be insecure. If you change the scope of a browser from its original purpose as a remote document viewer to a freaking virtual machine with support for shit that should have been done with separate dedicated applications, the attack surface increases along with the size and complexity of maintaining such a huge codebase.

They are trying to replace the operating system itself by pushing all sorts of shit into the standards. Why does a browser require Dolby digital support, or gamepad compatibility? (2 items in the HTML5 spec).

[nguyen9173]

I know Chromium is different than Google Chrome put posting from a Chromium 102 based browser now I'm sure Ublock Origin is not broken. What I really concerned is Chrome 103 Beta adding Local Font Access which I think will help font fingerprint tracking:

https://blog.chromium.org/2022/05/chrom ... hints.html
https://chromestatus.com/features#milestone%3D103

[Moonchild]

As long as you allow access to local fonts, fingerprinting will always be a concern because it will be able to gather installation meta data on the host system. That's nothing new though, css @font local() has been a thing for a long time. Where it does differ is that they want to gate this fingerprinting behind the generic permissions system, i.e. subject to the overarching permissions users grant or deny to websites (combine that with the proposed first-party sets and you've got a nice setup for walled-garden profiling to further isolate profiling to only approved advertisers)

[nguyen9173]

As long as you allow access to local fonts, fingerprinting will always be a concern because it will be able to gather installation meta data on the host system. That's nothing new though, css @font local() has been a thing for a long time. Where it does differ is that they want to gate this fingerprinting behind the generic permissions system, i.e. subject to the overarching permissions users grant or deny to websites (combine that with the proposed first-party sets and you've got a nice setup for walled-garden profiling to further isolate profiling to only approved advertisers)

Understand now. Thank you.