Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jlarocco 3309 days ago
> The way things are, right now, Chrome is much better at protecting apps from each other than my Linux desktop is.

I have a hard time believing that. With a ton of stuff all running inside of Chrome, it's much easier for them to access each other's data than if they were standalone apps. Further, since Chrome is such a huge attack surface, I would expect it to be less secure than a smaller, more specific application.

On that note, I can go look at my Linux distro's security and bug tracking systems and see all of the known security issues and bugs affecting almost all of the software on my system. Does anything like that even exist for Chrome Apps?

> If, for example, the Cleanflight or TeamViewer apps were regular apps, a bug in them would fully compromise my account.

Isn't that the case whether it's a Chrome App or not? Chrome has a huge attack surface, so it seems there's an even bigger chance of hitting a bug or being affected by an exploit.

The bigger problem seems to be that you're running apps that you don't trust, while I can trust my Linux distro to have safe software in their repositories. Barring bugs, I generally don't have to worry about installing malicious applications.

I'm not sure Google does any kind of vetting for Chrome Apps, but I'm not sure I'd trust them even if they did. They are the largest ad tracking company in the world after all.

2 comments

  > I have a hard time believing that. With a ton of stuff
  > all running inside of Chrome, it's much easier for them
  > to access each other's data than if they were standalone
  > apps.
Ah, the argument from incredulity.

If you're using X11, every command with access to the display server (which is usually everything you run) can read all keyboard and pointer input and screen output and inject arbitrary input.

And? That doesn't change by running inside of Chrome.

The only reason that's even a concern is because you can't trust Chrome Apps to not be malware.

On the other hand, when I "apt-get install <some app>" I know it's not listening to all X keystrokes unless that's a legitimate part of its functionality, because I trust the Debian team to only add trustworthy software to their repos.

>I have a hard time believing that. With a ton of stuff all running inside of Chrome, it's much easier for them to access each other's data than if they were standalone apps.

Chrome apps are subject to sandboxing, and regular native desktop apps (besides apps installed through OS X's app store) generally don't have any sandboxing enforced on them at all.

So people just don't understand processes and permissions any more?