Google Chrome Hacked? • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Chrome Hacked?

#221

Post by nitrogen » Tue, May 10, 2011, 11:16 PM UTC

Adrock wrote: post #206

nitrogen wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been meaning to ask on Stack Overflow. It's simulating a video stream from a device with no FPU that's probably too slow to encode WebM or H.264. I'm dynamically generating a PNG image on the device and reloading it at regular sub-second intervals in Chrome via JavaScript. [Edit: I had to write a custom Ruby extension that directly calls libpng to get reasonable performance] I have a hidden tag and a . In the ti…

I, and many others, have been anxiously awaiting a fix for this: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=36142 It keeps getting punted. If you care, I recommend starring the issue.

I starred it, but it doesn't look like anybody working on Chromium cares to fix it, and nobody's posted a reasonable workaround. So much for HTML5.

Re: Google Chrome Hacked?

#222

Post by gcb » Wed, May 11, 2011, 6:51 AM UTC

gcb wrote: post #114

VladRussian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people were telling the same about HBGary before they started to tell the opposite. Though my post isn't about technical brilliance. Being in bed with Power and relaxing one's moral standards to better serve it always leads the same way....

excellent point. relaxing more standards on par to being incompetent. only a little more damaging.

:s/more/moral/

!)(@#*$!# cellphone keyboard.

Re: Google Chrome Hacked?

#223

Post by mdpm » Wed, May 11, 2011, 8:39 AM UTC

the video is edited, right about when he's showing process explorer post-exploit. the cursor suddenly leaps across the screen, so assuming they're covering up the other child process of the main chrome process is fair. strangely, process explorer's 'process count' only goes up by 1, despite launching calc, and (seemingly) another child process. To be over-zealous, the single row of visible pixels for that other process is consistent with rundll32.exe.

That still doesn't mean that it's not a chrome bug - the exploit may use flash to retrieve the payload, make use of flash-js communication, flash-chrome communication quirks etc.