43 replies to this topic

[10nix]

It's supposed to be released today.

Here's a comic book explaining it:

http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/

I'm likely going to start using it at work. I'll have to wait for the linux version for home use

Here's the download link!!

http://www.google.com/chrome

Its formatting is going to need a tiny bit of tweaking, but just using it here for a few minutes, its really really fast. faster than Opera; it makes Firefox look sluggish. Its almost LYNX fast... well maybe not that fast, but its got graphics...

[thenotwist]

Sounds very interesting. Can't wait for the Linux version to be released!

[hrddrv]

I will try it out. My only thing is again google will know everything you surf, even in the private mode. I will also have to wait for the linux version.

[Lord Wud]

im using it right now on xp, i was just logging in to see if anyone else was. So far it seems to be loading stuff way faster then ie or Firefox. one downside is that it didnt recognize my custom tld without putting in http:// first. The interface is kind of gimmicky though, if there was a hardware version of it I have a feeling it would snap in half. I do like that a new tab gives you a choice of most visited sites, but i can foresee that getting me in trouble with my girlfriend. I think ill use it a bit longer.


edit: the bookmark bar is just on the new tab window. brilliant.

edit2: no easy way to turn off images. aka no easy way to browse shady sites that might have porn ads when you're at work.

Edited by Lord Wud, 02 September 2008 - 10:15 PM.

[biosphear]

So I just popped in my Windows Hard Drive in my laptop so I can test out the new Google Chrome Beta.

What I do not like is that it shows your most visited webs sites when you start it. I do not want that.
It maybe good for basic users, but that just means Google just is keeping track of everything you do. They are seeing people habits.
I have not really found how to change the proxy settings to work with my server.
I really do not like that it reminds me of IExploder. Bad Google...Bad.
I can not add (or have not found a way to yet) add ons

I do like the clean look.
It does seem faster.

I have just been using it for about 5 minuets now. I will give a new update when I start to use it more.

I can not wait in-till it comes out for Linux.

biosphear

[biosphear]

Dealing more with Chrome:

Google Chrome uses a lot of resources as well:

Chrome.exe 5,768k
Chrome.exe 11,068k
Chrome.exe 11,248k
Chrome.exe 20,272k

And that is just with 2 tabs open. You need all of those processes running to use it.
If you stop the 3 that are using less then 12,000k then you lose all of the function of Google Chrome. You can start them back up by just hitting enter when you go on each of the tabs you have to bring back the page you were on.

Yes that is only 48,356k but still.

Also every tab it opens cost you an extra 3,000k

I have never gotten gone that high with Firefox, even with 7 tabs open.

I will give more updates as I test out this new Google Chrome.

So far I do not like it that much, but that may change as I get into testing it more.

biosphear

[biosphear]

So I do not have to start a new post every time I am just going to have this post for the good and bad for the Google Chrome Bata.

Good:
Seems Faster (but have not benched marked yet).
I like the clean look.
It has not crashed on me yet.

Bad:
Uses at least 50MB of RAM.
Reminds me of IExploder (Changing settings is almost identical).
It tracks your tendencies when surfing the web and sends it to Google. (I am trying to see what servers it sends it to.)
Does not like me to tunnel my data.
Spell Checker does not work that well, sometimes not at all. (I use spell check a lot).
IFrames on some pages get messed up.
Is not out for Linux
( just a personal thing. I hate using Windows)

This is my list so far. I will update as I find more things that are good and bad.

Take care.

biosphear

Edited by biosphear, 03 September 2008 - 02:08 PM.

[Enigma]

read some of Chromes EULA here's an article about it http://news.cnet.com...10030522-2.html

[kitche]

Just like their other products it does tracking and sends to google so they know what people look at.

I don't mind the whole bot thing that they are using but I don't want to be part of it. I'll post some shots of the sniffing that I did

[Ohm]

I'd be interested in seeing that. I don't mind google seeing some of my traffic. It's a fair trade, letting them see what I search for and which of those search queries I click on and in return I get a good search engine. Same with gmail, I get a good, handy email client for a minor invasion of privacy. But exposing my entire web history to google? What do I get in return for that? Unless Chrome is really good, I don't see it replacing Firefox any time soon. Most people simply won't realize the amount of data google can gather. You just have to ask yourself if that privacy invasion is worth the web browser.

[walcy.carroll]

Yeah,

I don't plan on using it .... i know there are issues with it after all it's in beta....

but I gathered some information about it all, thought i would share...

Some of it has been posted, some not.. of course there was this, http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/
the comic book thing about it,

then in response to that this came about,
http://www.theregist..._comic_funnies/
Google's Comic Caper.....


the carpet bombing flaw, http://blogs.zdnet.c...ecurity/?p=1843

in addition proof of concept, http://evilfingers.c..._chrome_poc.php

Then the EULA sections 11.1 and 11.4
http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.

[LUCKY_FUCKIN_CHARMS]

i havent even tried it and i dont plan on it. i suppose i never had any problem with FF i mean i search it finds i look, its as simple as that, thats all i really need.

[WhatChout]

All I can say about this, and most of the "WEB IS THE OPERATING SYSTEM" "MEDIA REVOLUTION OF USER CREATED CONTENT" and "We dumb the interface down to fit your IQ and throw in some pastel colors so you retards don't soil your pants upon the first glance" ideas is hype hype hype hype hype hype hype.

Seriously, I didn't think something as stupid as fashion would walk into the world of computers, but again, the Internet is still on it's intellectual knees after the Eternal September...

[walcy.carroll]

hehe, nice

I am happy with irc, bbs, rss, and what ever else suits my needs....

The idea behind google chrome is nice, there eula, well its been seen before or the parts i mentioned have been tried i think with aim, or msn, etc...

looks similar to opera's features...

i really can't complain too much, so i will leave that to someone else.

[Colonel Panic]

I am planning to do some sniffing on the traffic generated by this browser, but unfortunately I don't have a dedicated Windows box at the moment, so I decided to search the web for information on what kind of research the intrepid hacker community has already done in this area.

I did a Google search for:

google chrome packet sniffing

One of the over 112,000 results was this interesting blog entry from one guy who did that same experiment. He discovered that the Google Chrome browser sends back the contents of everything you type into the address bar, regardless whether you hit [Enter] or not.

Also, consider that language in the Google Chrome EULA is also reason for concern.

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and ( make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

So simply by using their browser, you're in effect granting Google "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display" using the Google Chrome browser. How fucked up is that?

So. for example, even if you're submitting an original work for publication and uploading it to your publisher's server via secure VPN, Google has now acquired all these rights to it, even though your publishing contract may have already granted exclusive rights to your publisher.

Google Chrome also uses an old version of the WebKit rendering engine from Safari 3.1, so it's vulnerable to the same "carpet-bombing" vulnerability (which Apple has already fixed in Safari) and it also runs ActiveX controls (!) which have long been a major source of insecurities in Internet Explorer over the past decade. Check this out: http://aviv.raffon.net/

Keylogging and remote monitoring by Google, a license that gives away your intellectual property rights to Google, and serious security vulnerabilities... dunno about you, but I'm certainly not going to be using this thing.

[Colonel Panic]

Oh wow. I just checked their EULA and it appears they've edited out most of section 11.1 and deleted sections 11.2 - 11.4!

Weird.

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

And calling this an "open source" application is really a misnomer. Again, check their EULA:

10. License from Google

10.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the “Software” below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

10.3 Unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

Edited by Colonel Panic, 03 September 2008 - 05:30 PM.

[livinded]

What's really awesome about it is that they used an old version of webkit thus causing chrome to be vulnerable to the carpet bombing attack in older versions of Safari.

[Ohm]

What's really awesome about it is that they used an old version of webkit thus causing chrome to be vulnerable to the carpet bombing attack in older versions of Safari.

What's really awesome about it is it's an early beta. Vulns like this are moot at this point.

[Ohm]

I just realized that the privacy concerns are moot as well. It's open source. Someone will just remove all that and distribute a "fixed" version, legal or not (I have no idea about the license). Depending on how it reports, you can just blacklist those hostnames to localhost as well. Or set up a proxy that filters them out.

Edit: Oops, I thought that would have merged into one post. Maybe it was another forum that does that

Edited by Ohm, 03 September 2008 - 06:18 PM.

[kitche]

I just realized that the privacy concerns are moot as well. It's open source. Someone will just remove all that and distribute a "fixed" version, legal or not (I have no idea about the license). Depending on how it reports, you can just blacklist those hostnames to localhost as well. Or set up a proxy that filters them out.

Edit: Oops, I thought that would have merged into one post. Maybe it was another forum that does that

Chrome uses BSD 2-clause license, I mainly just checked out Chrome to see if it sent information back to google besides the standard beta information which I signed up for.

Edited by kitche, 03 September 2008 - 07:31 PM.