[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f027bef40909050358u49109c54r6ca4c398066276b1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:58:04 +0200
From: Adrenalin <adrenalinup@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: why not a sandbox
It seems like the plugins in Chrome are not in a sandbox
"One additional, important area that is not covered by the sandbox are
plugins like Flash. Restricting what plugins can do does not fit well with
what users expect, which makes plugins a major vector for attack. Langley
said that the plugin support on Linux is relatively new, but "our experience
on Windows is that, in order for Flash to do all the things that various
sites expect it to be able to do, the sandbox has to be so full of holes
that it's rather useless". He is currently looking at SELinux as a way to
potentially restrict plugins, but, for now, they are wide open. "
Google's Chromium sandbox - http://lwn.net/Articles/347547/ (August 19,
2009)
>>From design-documents page "It is also possible to run the plugin processes
inside a sandbox target, using the --safe-plugins command line." hm
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM, BlackHawk <hawkgotyou@...il.com> wrote:
> doesn't chrome already run any single tab in a sandbox?
>
> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists