Live data from Hacker News

Chrome Is Bad

chromeisbad.com

131–140 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#131

This should not be the #1 story on HN right now. :( It's a single anecdote that deleting Chrome on two computers sped them up. It provides zero evidence (even anecdotal) that it has anything to do with "Keystone" specifically. It provides zero evidence for the idea that "Keystone" is able to "nefariously hide itself from Activity Monitor". And it also completely contradicts the normal user experience of Chrome, which…

Agreed, about 25% of the content on HN seems to be Google hate.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#132
post #14

This is total nonsense. Even for malware, hiding from Activity Monitor would be quite a feat. Short of an exploit, you couldn't hide your process without a kernel rootkit, but macOS has required user approval to load kernel extensions for several versions now. I suppose you could go the low-tech way and just name your process "WindowServer" to confuse the user, but you'd still end up with two WindowServers. The idea…

I remember quite well the Google update process being notorious for evading Little Snitch firewall rules. It popped up every intervall as if it were a new (unseen) process. There's definitely something going on with the app signature. (Haven't used Chrome for some time by now.)

I am curious why that happens. From some Googling it seems like the updater copies itself to a random directory each time it runs [1], and I guess Little Snitch classifies programs by their full path, so it sees it as a new program each time.

Copying itself is odd and probably suboptimal behavior, but it is explainable without assuming malice: my guess is that it’s related to some kind of “before we update let’s update the updater” bootstrapping logic. I could be wrong, but IIRC the updater code is open source, so it should be easy to find out.

[Edit: Oops, it's actually not open source. Their Windows updater (Omaha) is open source, but their Mac one (Keystone) is not. Of course, one can still open the binaries in a decompiler.]

Regardless, moving a program around on disk, or even deleting the program while it’s running (which is possible on macOS), would not prevent it from showing up in Activity Monitor.

[1] http://www.reecefowell.com/2012/11/16/ksfetch-annoyance-on-m...

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#133
post #29

The author went so far as to create a domain for this rant, and yet didn't even do any performance metrics or basic forensic analysis at all. I'm not saying the author is wrong, but there's a lot of questions here. How does Keystone hide itself from the Activity Monitor? Is there a Keystone process if you run `ps aux`? Did you run dtruss/strace? What is it doing when Chrome isn't running that causes it to degrade per…

Because this sounded outlandish, I decided to have a look on my own system. Since the author didn't give any technical details, I grepped `~/Library` and `/Library` for files containing `keystone` in either name or contents. This yielded the following interesting candidates, along with similar entries for daemons etc: ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleS…

Thank you for digging in to it on your machine. That level of forensics is exactly what we need in this issue.

Because there is a rich history of issues that only affect certain configurations, and those configurations are typically only revealed in hindsight: your results have to be seen as a single datapoint and not a nail in the coffin.

To others who are curious about this: please contribute more datapoints

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#135
post #14

This is total nonsense. Even for malware, hiding from Activity Monitor would be quite a feat. Short of an exploit, you couldn't hide your process without a kernel rootkit, but macOS has required user approval to load kernel extensions for several versions now. I suppose you could go the low-tech way and just name your process "WindowServer" to confuse the user, but you'd still end up with two WindowServers. The idea…

For those of you who are unaware, Comex is one of the most respected security researchers of all time and has done extensive research into Chrome and won Pwn2Own multiple times. He is completely correct, keystone is just Chrome's auto updater. The technical content of this article is super thin. This shouldn't be on the top of hacker news.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#136
post #109

I've had noticeable issues with "WindowServer" in the past (taking 80% CPU usage and causing the fans to ramp up even when the system seemed like it should be idling even after a reboot) so I decided to give this a shot. This is anecdotal but there is a noticeable difference for me with responsiveness after following these steps. Currently the WindowServer process is hovering around 14%.

Most likely the issue was resolved by the reboot, not by uninstalling Chrome. From my experience Mac OS tends to slow down after a few days. Animations and scrolling gets choppy and there's nothing I can do to fix it, short of rebooting.

I use macOS daily for months at a time without rebooting and have not seen this problem on any of the 5 Macs I've been using for the past several years, for what that's worth. It does seem like it's something specific to your machine.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#137

I've had noticeable issues with "WindowServer" in the past (taking 80% CPU usage and causing the fans to ramp up even when the system seemed like it should be idling even after a reboot) so I decided to give this a shot. This is anecdotal but there is a noticeable difference for me with responsiveness after following these steps. Currently the WindowServer process is hovering around 14%.

Do you happen to have an external USB mouse?

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#138
post #95

The window to the internet should not be some monster that takes millions of developer hours and held ransom by a couple of big companies. I should be able to build my own browser in a 3 month sabbatical.

There’s more to the Internet than web pages. Web browsers don’t even get the most runtime on my machine.

Sure, I meant web pages.

Its frustrating to see replies discussing the definition of the internet.

The point I wanted to discuss is that there are not many choices for browsers and it takes a lot of effort to build one from scratch. Thus the competition is lacking.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sounded outlandish, I decided to have a look on my own system. Since the author didn't give any technical details, I grepped `~/Library` and `/Library` for files containing `keystone` in either name or contents. This yielded the following interesting candidates, along with similar entries for daemons etc: ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleS…

> I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind making this page was. Why would you immediately jump to assuming bad faith? No grand conspiracy required... the author believes that Chrome is slowing down his Mac and decided to share it. The end.

Asking the question "wonder" is not really assuming bad faith is it? I don't see any intentional deception there.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#140
post #110

A lot of skeptical comments in this thread. I'm not low-level enough to confirm or deny the specific claims in the article. I will say that my experience with regards to CPU performance "leaks" and Chrome seeming to always be running in the background even when I didn't want it to, as well as Chrome starting up on system startup when there didn't seem to be any references to it anywhere I'd expect to cause that, are…

What is running in the background/on startup, Chrome itself or its updater? And is this on macOS or another platform?

Chrome can/does definitely run in the background if you have chrome Remote Desktop enabled. It wouldn’t surprise me if they had a daemon always running in case you want to enable Remote Desktop.
Post reply on HN