Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Government Endorses Chrome As Most Secure Browser

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the taking-the-browser-war-across-the-pond dept.

Chrome 174

New submitter beta2 writes "Several articles are noting that the German IT security agency BSI is endorsing Google Chrome browser: 'BSI ticked off Chrome's anti-exploit sandbox technology, which isolates the browser from the operating system and the rest of the computer; its silent update mechanism and Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash, as its reasons for the recommendation. ... BSI also recommended Adobe Reader X — the version of the popular PDF reader that, like Chrome, relies on a sandbox to protect users from exploits — and urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update feature to keep their PCs abreast of all OS security fixes. To update applications, BSI gave a nod to Secunia's Personal Software Inspector, a free utility that scan a computer for outdated software and point users to appropriate downloads.'"

cancel ×

174 comments

YOU CAN NEVER KILL CRIME, SO LET IT BE FREE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929095)

Let the criminals rule your life !! MORE SO than now !! Let crime be free, because you can never kill it !! NEVER !!

Re:YOU CAN NEVER KILL CRIME, SO LET IT BE FREE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929139)

Erm, dude?
Forgot the pills again?

Maybe... (-1, Troll)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929101)

They didn't take into account its terrific privacy? Sending data to Google HQ? Really??

Re:Maybe... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929125)

I know, right? Firefox with NoScript, Ghostery and AdBlock is more secure that Chrome that hasnt even loaded the page yet. I bet you BSI got a free android phone out of this.

Re:Maybe... (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929137)

Never underestimates the capacity of politicos to make decisions and pass legislation based upon a knowledge of the subject at hands poorer than that of a 3 year old. Especially high tech subjects...

Re:Maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929201)

You miss the point. It's all about lobbying, money, and who has it (and who doesn't).

Re:Maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929401)

Google protecting your privacy, FaceBook selling your privacy, and Microsoft leaving your windows open.

Re:Maybe... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929575)

Google protecting what? If anything, they invade your privacy every day, even more so since the David Drummond asshole rolled out the new privacy policy!

--
Jordyn Buchanan

Re:Maybe... (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930419)

The BSI has only a supporting role, their recommendations do not have the force of law and don't need to be followed by anybody. They have in the past recommended Firefox as well, if tomorrow there is an exploit found in Chrome, then they'll recommend Firefox or IE again, and might change the recommendation right back when Google rolls out the fix.

Re:Maybe... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929165)

Oh boy, people STILL post about this?

Every single option can be disabled. All of them. Even the ones the "moron" from SRWare said weren't capable of being disabled.
Enjoy your less useful browser!

If you think you have ANY privacy online, you should check again, every single thing you do is being watched for legal requirements.
Unless of course you go out of your way to use something like Tor, Freenet and the like. "In which case you are a durty turrurist!" (still can't believe that was mentioned, how long do you think it will take for it to be outlawed?)
You already don't have privacy from the first day you enter this world.
You really care that some people probably thousands of miles away from you are watching your habits so, GOD FORBID, they can show you something you might LIKE? CALL THE COPS, THEY ARE GIVING ME NICE THINGS!

I'll never understand you paranoid people. Some harmless ads and you almost stroke.

Re:Maybe... (5, Informative)

Justin_Schuh (322319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929183)

As an engineer on Chrome security this particular FUD really bothers me. The BSI takes privacy very seriously, and would never make such a recommendation if Chrome did anything like what you suggest. To the contrary, Chrome has an exceptionally responsive privacy team and a very clear and simple privacy policy. [google.ca] It identifies any feature that can exchange data with Google services, and provides clear instructions for opting out. More importantly, the vast majority of features that can exchange any such data are explicitly opt-in.

Re:Maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929549)

My experience has been that people who work for Google tend to be particularly touchy whenever the company's ethics come up. I think a number of the engineers who end up working there do so out of an impression that Google represents the moral high ground in th software industry at the moment. And quite a few seem to have left after finding out that isn't so...

the vast majority of features that can exchange any such data are explicitly opt-in.

But there's one significant case where that's not true, isn't there? If I hit a 404, Chrome phones home with the URI I was trying to reach. And what do you do with that data, I wonder?

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929715)

But there's one significant case where that's not true, isn't there? If I hit a 404, Chrome phones home with the URI I was trying to reach. And what do you do with that data, I wonder?

From the privacy policy:

"If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google so we can help you find the URL you were looking for. We may also use this information in an aggregated way to help other web users - e.g. to let them know that the site may be down. Learn more about disabling suggestions on navigation errors [google.com] ."

Re:Maybe... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929871)

"I think a number of the engineers who end up working there do so out of an impression that Google represents the moral high ground in th software industry at the moment."

Well judging by the previous places he's worked [linkedin.com] this guy wouldn't know a moral high ground from a quagmire. Real name policy strikes again.

Re:Maybe... (5, Informative)

Justin_Schuh (322319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929873)

I don't see innuendo or unsubstantiated accusations as adding anything to the conversation. But I do think it's useful to address the technical portion of your claim.

If I hit a 404, Chrome phones home with the URI I was trying to reach. And what do you do with that data, I wonder?

I think you undermine the legitimacy of your question by trying to manufacture some evil ulterior motive here. The simple fact is that people often mistype URLs (or clip portions when pasting them), so it's helpful when the correct URL can be easily determined. And if you read through the privacy policy I linked above, you'll see that it very clearly describes what occurs in this scenario:

In order to offer suggestions of alternative or similar webpages, the browser sends Google the URL of the page you're trying to reach whenever the web address does not resolve or a connection cannot be made. Information is logged and anonymized in the same manner as Google web searches [google.com] . Any parameters in the URL are removed before the URL is sent. The logs are used to ensure and improve the quality of the feature.

So, the submission of the URL is no different than if you'd stripped the parameters and pasted the URL into Google from an anonymous incognito window. If you're uncomfortable with that, then the same link provides instructions for disabling the feature.

Re:Maybe... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929573)

How exactly is the GP's comment "FUD" when you yourself admit that Chrome does indeed communicate some information to Google?

Re:Maybe... (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930349)

How exactly is the GP's comment "FUD" when you yourself admit that Chrome does indeed communicate some information to Google?

In a default, opt-out fashion, no less.

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929619)

Drinking the Google kool aid, are we? I find it surprising that you are actually proud of working for Google, considering all the damage to the Google brand that assholes like Vic Gundotra, Andy Rubin and David Drummond have done.

I recommend to everybody that they switch to non-Google products since the Real Names fiasco.

--
Jordyn Buchanan

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929967)

Drinking the Google kool aid, are we? ...

-- Jordyn Buchanan

AC Fail!

Re:Maybe... (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930157)

Perhaps the GP posted anonymously because of a previous moderation?

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929679)

Fine
Your say your a a Chrome security engineer OK.
but..
Can you state the policy written or perceived about saying , writing or even implying anything Negative about Chrome?
  can you remain employed and later employable doing that job if you said anythng negative?
Tell us how you can be objective., can you tell us it's bad if were bad

Re:Maybe... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929777)

Says the ad broker's morally corrupted spokesman. Yeah, google and responsive support. Yeah, google and their mission to protect our privacy. You liar. You are an inherent, nasty cunt.

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929813)

To the contrary, Chrome has an exceptionally responsive privacy team and a very clear and simple privacy policy.

Privacy policy means nothing if the company can change it on a whim (like Google just did). The fact that Chrome doesn't currently violate people's privacy is more to do with there being valid competitors and it only having ~30% market share so far and less to do with some random engineer's opinions. When it's 80+% and no competitors as good because Google withheld publishing some Dart VM update (or whatever, none of Google's open-source is GPL by choice) you know they'll do whatever it takes to meet market predictions.

Re:Maybe... (4, Interesting)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929847)

I, for one, am grateful for the Chrome browser because it works as a very effective sandbox for everything Google. Ever since Google decided to track me through Google+ +1 buttons added to every page I browse, I've had to remove google.com from my whitelist. I've also switched to Bing as my primary search engine in Firefox, and I have to say, I don't mind getting Xbox Live! points for searches I do.

The features that bother me in Chrome include the very coarse scroll bar, which requires me to manually scroll down when reading longer articles instead of just using my touchpad. I have yet to figure out how the search bar/address bar is supposed to function (the awesome bar and search bar in FF is best I've come across). Last I checked, Chrome equivalents of NoScript do not truly block scripts because they allow them to load briefly before stopping them, giving probably enough time to identify the computer or even run an exploit. I also haven't found a cookie manager like Cookie Monster. I regularly see ads in YouTube videos even with AdBlock installed, most especially in embedded videos (I have no memory of ever seeing ads in YouTube in FF).

At this point, for me, Chrome is not very private and a bigger PITA to use than FF. I don't care what the Germans claim.

Re:Maybe... (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930009)

I don't care what the Germans claim.

- they said something about security:

"Your internet browser is the key component for the use of services on the Web and thus represents the main target for cyber-attacks," said BSI in its published advice. "By using Google Chrome in conjunction with the other measures outlined above, you can significantly reduce the risk of a successful IT attack." ... "This [sandbox] protection is implemented most consistently in Chrome...[and] similar mechanisms in other browsers are currently either weaker or non-existent," explained BSI.

Chrome is not very private

- and this is correct, they said nothing about privacy.

Re:Maybe... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929213)

I haven't read TFA, but headline says "most secure browser", not most private.

Re:Maybe... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929811)

I haven't read TFA either,, but how do you define secure if it doesn't mean private ? I'd love to hear that distinction..

Re:Maybe... (1)

arcticinfantry (1130171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929243)

Exactly. I'd never use chrome for other than testing compatibility. Firefox and noscript thanks.

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929529)

Too bad you're missing out on a browser that is way better than Firefox, and just as 'private'.

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929511)

Maybe because you have no idea what you are talking about?

Google is Skynet. (-1, Flamebait)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929113)

I am a Droid Borg. Shameless promotion from me, Google is the best of the best. Chrome, G+, Android, etc, etc, etc.

Re:Google is Skynet. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929127)

Queue the people complaining about how slashdot is one big Google FanFest while everybody else complains about Google's privacy policies which, by the way are subject to EU concerns right now.

Yes, because... (1)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929129)

Yes, beacuse silent updates let you know which security problems you may have been exposed to.

Re:Yes, because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929211)

If you took a moment to Google this information I think you would find it quite adequate:

For example:
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/10/chrome-stable-release.html

That is pretty thorough if you ask me. I am not sure what else you would want there.

Re:Yes, because... (1)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929233)

Does the silent update give me a link to that page?

Re:Yes, because... (5, Insightful)

heypete (60671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929453)

Perhaps not, but the vast majority of users don't care. Many users are not unlike my mother, who constantly clicks "Later" or "Not Now" whenever programs ask to install updates. For this reason, her computer is routinely several months behind the current updates.

Having Chrome auto-update silently and without needing admin rights (as it by default installs itself only for the user that opened the installer, not system-wide) is enormously convienient (and the right choice) for most people.

Re:Yes, because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929903)

Yes, it seems the world outside of the people in the know are separated to two different groups of people:

1) People who press 'Yes to everything
2) People who read the messages and press 'No' to everything

This seems pretty much is universal.

Re:Yes, because... (0, Flamebait)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930253)

Your mom's smarter than me. I just rebooted this damned notebook Wednesday (for updates) and it nagged me to update again this morning. Now it keeps nagging me to reboot. I wouldn't mind so much if Windows would open everything back up like it was when it booted, like my Linux box does. Ironically, I almost never have to reboot that one, only for a hardware problem or a kernel upgrade.

If I wanted to be nagged I wouldn't have divorced Evil-X. WTF, Microsoft? Will you never catch up with Linux's features and useability?

Just put kubuntu on her computer, she'll then be able to network with your Windows computer; Win 7 will only network with Linux unless you're running the expensive "professional" (HA!) version.

Re:Yes, because... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929721)

Yeah it should because it is *so* hard to find.

Re:Yes, because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929877)

About Google Chrome -> Chromium -> Blog -> Google Chrome Release Notes

Re:Yes, because... (4, Insightful)

Justin_Schuh (322319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929449)

You may personally have the expertise to make good security decisions about your browser. However, all empirical evidence shows that the vast majority of users are not capable of that, and are much better served by a browser that manages updates for them.

That said, you can disable automatic updates and perform them manually if you choose. However, I also consider myself capable of making those security decisions, and I still prefer the silent update dramatically over manually updating.

Endorsed as Most Secure? Must have a back door ... (-1, Troll)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929157)

Yes sheep, it's the most secure browser ever. Download the binaries and rest at ease. We promise we haven't conspired with Google to install a back-door on our behalf.

Re:Endorsed as Most Secure? Must have a back door (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929477)

The source is available. Take a look at it yourself, idiot.

Re:Endorsed as Most Secure? Must have a back door (2, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929533)

It's open source, where the fuck are they going to put the backdoor? If you're really paranoid, compile it yourself after reading the source code over.

*yawn* (-1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929175)

Due to its history the BSI is taken about as serious as FOX "News".
I wouldn't even trust those idiots to be able to count to three.

Re:*yawn* (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929215)

You don't actually know what the BSI [wikipedia.org] is, do you? They're one of the most respected security and privacy organizations in the world.

Re:*yawn* (3, Informative)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929835)

Back in the day they started out as an offshoot of the BND (if you want a good laugh dig deeper into the story of how that one came to be and why it shouldn't be trusted) but nowadays they usually serve as a mouthpiece for damage control if some government branch has screwed up again (e.g., electronic identity card).

And if they're not too busy they use some of their idle time to find discover new ways to make themselves look like idiots (e.g., the recent "DNS OK" story).

Re:*yawn* (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930231)

So you are saying they have managed to crack Chrome and are using it to track people, and are recommending people use Chrome to make their job easier?

OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929177)

My roomie has asked me to help him practise the symptoms of Asperger Syndrome, because his employee psych-evaluation is coming up and he's convinced that demonstrating the traits of an aspie will improve his chances of promotion.

Because, as he puts it, "Everyone knows all real genius geeks are aspies".

So I'm thinking about ways to "improve" on his performance, maybe by subtly giving him pointers which will make him look like a closet child-molester or something.

Ideas and/or suggestions?

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929239)

Tell him to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAr-xYtBFbY [youtube.com]

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929405)

What if the roomate doesn't have much skill?
It would be hard to fake being some kind of savant if you have fuck-all ability.
Years ago I shared a dorm room with a Dutch guy called Luuk who genuinely thought he was a genius and often used to tell us all about his alleged high IQ, yet he was one of the dumbest fuckers I ever met and couldn't code for shit.
It was a case of trying to teach a duck algebra: when he was stuck on something (and he was always stuck on something, usually the things no one else had ever been stuck on) trying to explain the solution just made him angry, because he was so smart, much smarter than us, and it was offensive to him to not understand that.
The guy was simply too fucking dumb to realise just how fucking dumb he was.
There is no doubt in my mind that he now tells people he has AS (like it's a good thing) and thinks people believe him.
How to elevate oneself above the merely ordinary? Claim to have an syndrome when you don't actually have it Then you will be amongst the geek elite for sure.
The next time someone tells me they have AS I'm going to demand to see documentation from an accredited psychiatric health professional.

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929731)

Haha, whoa flashback time! Back in my college days I had an Australian roomie who thought he was God's gift to computer science but was in fact as stupid as pigshit.

One time he read a Brit gamer mag and memorized the instructions for editing config.sys to load his games into extended memory -- or some other feeble MS bullshit -- then spent the next month trying to tell everyone about it.

The thing of it was he had zero understanding of what it did or how it actually worked. He'd memorized it and that was enough to be a computer genius, in his opinion.

Also he got into Win3.1 and in front of the whole class lectured the course super about how we were wasting our time learning UNIX because it had already been killed by Windows and that absolutely everything would be running nothing but Windows within a year.

It was pretty hilarious when he used to fake an American accent and thought he could fool anyone with it, because it was the most Godawful thing you ever heard, like a wild pig being slaughtered.

When he flunked out before the end of the first year, he claimed he'd voluntarily dropped out to run the IT dept of his father's company, even though he tried desperately to remain in the US and enrol at any college that would take him, but none would and so he had to leave.

My guess is that when he returned to Australia his dad paid him a 6 figure annual salary to install DOS and Win3.1 on the secretary's PC, which just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to make it in this business. :)

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929293)

Every self styled nerd and wannabe geek I know claims to have aspergers. It's the mental illness everyone wants to have. From what I have heard and read from pro psychologists it may not even exist as a real illness and is just a collection of the usual common plain vanilla social awkwardness that most people suffer to some degree. But then think about how many people you know who wish they were 'Dr. Sheldon Cooper'!

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929515)

I didn't wish to be classified; I didn't like all the info on the group and how most of it applied to me. It also took away options in that I can not do some things others can or as well as they do-- it didn't bother me much before but now that I know I can't or shouldn't be expected to that bothers me. Likely it is the farce from this culture that anybody can do anything they want with the proper effort (and right approach.)

It is useful in some ways as well. Normal solutions may not work for me so why bother; instead look for ones that do work. Eventually everybody will have a label and only the most dull bland nobodies will be "normal" and that will become a minority group. So in being in an early 'freak' group I do benefit in some ways early because figuring out optimal solutions will happen with my group before the other yet-to-be-named classifications exist.

Many stats are bad. like 93% divorce rate and how the normal partner suffers increased stress unless they can learn to adapt (most don't, especially women.) General opinion seems to be marriage is not for us; but probably has a good chance with "our own kind". Sadly, current stats show that women are 1:4 and do to cultural differences they stand out less so it may be better or not... most the above info comes out of that big reference book on asperger's -- another thing to note is that I've not found any references written by people with it; its from the outside, and they view us as the defect when most our deficits relate to normal people; perhaps its the normal people who are flawed.

Men tend to adapt to the women with it better (likely cultural but my research indicates there is a strong biological factor making women less tolerant in many ways than men; naturally culture can override biology; which is one reason primate behavior research is so useful.)

Science and tech are magnets. I found it easier to communicate with the machine than people. It was also easier to apply science and reason to life than it was to do the mindless stuff normal people do.

Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929621)

You are not in an "early freak group". You are as normal as anyone else. You just want to hide behind some bogus diagnosis of specialness.

Everyone has some degree of shyness, some amount of fear of social interaction, some difficulty with this and that and the other. But most people just accept it and learn to live their lives.

But a few, such as yourself, refuse to even attempt to overcome your fears and prefer to tell yourselves that you are different and special, when you're not.

For the record, the most intelligent and scientifically-accomplished person I've ever met is also incredibly confident, without any ego-monstrosity, and manages to combine it all with a wife of decades and kids and grandkids. He is a Nobel laureate. And he is massively "cleverer" than any of the people I've met who claim to be autistic savant Asperger Syndrome "geniuses".who are so precious and special that normal people "just don't understand them".

Get a grip and grow a pair, genius wannabe, and learn to accept that you have the same dull old psychological and emotional issues as just about everyone else. Your mommy was wrong: you are not special.

Chrome still crashes sometimes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929205)

Sometimes it crashes hard to the point where you need a hard reset of your computer. It even happens on major sites such as Boing Boing. Even though I switched to Chrome from Firefox after all it's "changes" from 4.0+ I still don't like crashes. I also feel that Google is trying to force Chrome on people similar to IE did to squelch Netscape with their over advertising and bundling.

The browser war is getting too rough, I hope once HTML5 is finally finished in 2014 the browser scene can stabilize again.

Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929357)

Sometimes it crashes hard to the point where you need a hard reset of your computer. It even happens on major sites such as Boing Boing. Even though I switched to Chrome from Firefox after all it's "changes" from 4.0+ I still don't like crashes. I also feel that Google is trying to force Chrome on people similar to IE did to squelch Netscape with their over advertising and bundling.

The browser war is getting too rough, I hope once HTML5 is finally finished in 2014 the browser scene can stabilize again.

How is Google forcing chrome?
You have to go out and download it to get it on your computer. Your computer didn't come with Chrome.

As for Chrome crashing, I suggest you wipe your (most likely horribly compromised) computer and re-install your OS and then Chrome.
I haven't had Chrome crash in many months, and never had to restart because of Chrome.

Maybe part of your problem is your reference to version 4.0.

The current release of Chrome is version 16.0.912.77 (January 23, 2012).

Falling behind a little perhaps?

Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929537)

I think he means Firefox 4.0, where a lot of drooling retards didn't realize that just because the version number changed faster didn't mean it was somehow impossible to keep up.

Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929691)

He is complaining about the HUGE Chrome ad in Google if you go there not on Chrome. Infact he has a point as 2011 was the year IE took a significant nose dive. But Firefox usage went down too (not nearly as large). Most of the new Chrome users this year were from IE users and not FF. IE lost over 10% according to g.statcounter.com. That ad in Google is probably the reason as well as Chrome being bundled everywhere.

Most people are scared to install software or mess with their computers. The Chrome ad made it convenient for people who knew their browser was shitty but didn't want to do anything extreme about it.

Personally I experienced the flash crashes on Chrome a lot. I wiped my computer 3 times least year at least and Chrome after 12 or 13 started having issues on youtube with the plugin crashing. I like more competition as innovation froze for 10 years thanks to the death of Netscape and IE 6. Only last year did it thaw when IE received less than 5% of all US users. The more browsers the better as standards define the level of innovation again.

Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929771)

He is complaining about the HUGE Chrome ad in Google if you go there not on Chrome. The Chrome ad made it convenient for people who knew their browser was shitty but didn't want to do anything extreme about it.

Personally I experienced the flash crashes on Chrome a lot.

So you are saying he visits a Google site and complains about an Ad for a google product? I certainly didn't read that in anything he wrote. There is a big X in that chrome ad, and you click that X you won't see that button show up again, regardless of browser.

One ad does not "forcing" make. (Checking: Ford, yup, Sunkist, yup, Nikon, yup. It seems just about any company website I visit I see ads for their products. The Gall of some of these people!!!)

He wasn't complaining about Flash crashing, he was complaining about Chrome crashing. I never notice Flash crashing, although sometimes it would be a blessing.

twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929235)

tbh the droid app is very superior, default google browser is slow and doesn't work

Chrome is more secure, but.... (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929247)

I take a look at Chrome every few versions or so, but I do not use it, for various 'comfort' reasons; I haven't decided whether it's useful for me to install Chromium since I seem to get by just fine with Opera and Firefox.

Unless it's absolutely needful to run anything from Adobe, I prefer to use open-source alternatives, because they suit my admittedly pedestrian needs.

On Windows systems, I've used Secunia to good effect since their on-line scanner became available; later I used PSI on Vista and Windows 7. I found the later versions in particular to be very useful and easy to use. While I now run Linux, save for a few Windows virtual machines, I continue to highly recommend PSI to any general user running Windows.

Re:Chrome is more secure, but.... (1)

VitaminB52 (550802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929345)

Secunia PSI tool ( http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/ [secunia.com] ) is very usefull, I agree. It knows the most common software products, so I have to manually take care over a rather small list of software products.
IMHO it should come preinstalled on every new Windows machine.

Re:Chrome is more secure, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930317)

No it shouldn't. It pegs the hard drive at boot time.

Re:Chrome is more secure, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929353)

I use Firefox, because for me, it was a stable presence ever since version 0.9. Never dissappointed, speed or security. When Chrome gets to the same age, years not version count, I'll consider it, until then it remains a project controlled by a major corp that will always move to their whims, even when that means pulling the plug.
For PDF's I use Evince, it's light and fast. For every other book format, calibre's ebook-viewer is the best.

I haven't used Windows in so long I often forget about things like malware, spyware etc, so I really can't say anything about those or even bring myself to care.

Adobe worship much? (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929249)

It would seem to me that "Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash" would be a detriment. But that's just me.

They went on to recommend Adobe Reader X. I agree that pdf readers in a sandbox make a lot of sense, its just that I have no particular reason to trust Adobe, since it was their doing that made PDFs unsafe [adobe.com] in the first place. With Chrome's built in PDF render engine, I find I seldom have to use the adobe plugin at all any more. (And when I do, I'm always suspicious).

If Google wanted to do us all a favor they would to with Flash content what they did with PDF documents, and add their own in-browser render engine.

That being said, I do like the sandboxing that Chrome supplies, and Google Chrome is my browser of choice.

Some people don't like keying search terms in the URL bar, and other minor objections that, when investigated, all amount to "its not firefox". I've seen some reports of incredibly slow page fetches, which are usually traceable to external things (chrome likes to use multiple concurrent connections, and swamps some anti-virus packages that operate as a proxy server).

For me, the speed can't be beat on any of the platforms I use (linux and windows - various flavors of each). I prefer Google's builds to those in the Chromium Open Source project but both work very well.

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929385)

Yes, I would point out it uses the same chromium sandbox. But yes, adobe have only just started to secure it.

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

Justin_Schuh (322319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929535)

Flash is not yet in the Chrome sandbox (except on Chrome OS), but there's a work in progress that you can experiment with on canary or dev channels. [google.com] . On Windows, Chrome stable's Flash is in an enhanced Low IL sandbox, which is a bit tighter than the Internet Explorer sandbox, but much weaker than the full Chrome sandbox. (Basically, sandboxing an existing piece of software takes quite a bit of work to get right.)

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929587)

No, the sandbox in adobe reader X is the chrome one.

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

Justin_Schuh (322319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930035)

No, the sandbox in adobe reader X is the chrome one.

It is the Chrome sandbox, but the architecture lets you select the degree of sandboxing. IIRC the Reader X sandboxed process runs at sandbox::USER_LIMITED, which means it can access resources as the Users and Everyone SIDs, and it runs on the interactive desktop. Whereas Chrome runs its sandbox at sandbox::USER_LOCKDOWN, which is a deny only token plus an isolated window station and desktop (along with some additional restrictions).

I don't want to undersell Adobe's accomplishment with Reader X, however. It's a good sandbox and a serious improvement over Windows Low IL on its own. But sandboxing is always a matter of degrees, and the more you can lock it down the better.

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930051)

Yeah, I just thought it was a major bit of information missing from the article, now back to a nice light pdf reader myself.

'and add their own in-browser render engine' (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929451)

it's called HTML5, and it will eventually kill flash

'It would seem to me that "Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash" would be a detriment. But that's just me.'

and you are wrong. people want to see flash. and if a browser did not offer them flash, they simply wouldn't use the browser

so give google credit for meeting users half way: "look, you want flash, and you don't care about your security, so we are going to give you what you want in the most secure way possible, in spite of yourself"

don't hold against google their attempts to maximize security within the parameters of user expectations. of course, there will always be people who will judge google, and others, against absolute ideal security standards. and such people will only be called insightful on slashdot. the rest of us understand the needs of satisfying real world users

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929585)

My comment had nothing to do with giving Google "credit".

It had to do with BSI's decision to cite Chrome's bundling of Flash as a reason for recommendation.
A true security organization would not make that a reason for a recommendation, rather they would cite it as a detriment, a blemish, (even for Flash in a sandbox given Adobe's history).

As for people wanting flash, its value is negative in most people's eyes. People hate it more than you know.

Its nothing but an advertising tool to most people. A source of daily irritation when reading almost any web page due to disruptive graphics dancing around while you try to read. Apple dropped flash both from OSx [computerworld.com] and iOS [cnet.com] , and nobody cared. Even Android users find it mostly an annoyance.

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929757)

you're wrong

BSI is 100% right for citing Chrome bundling flash as a reason for recommendation

when adobe pushes a security update, chrome automatically pushes a browser update. and if the user leaves the browser running for days, chrome starts politely reminding them they have to close and reopen the browser. this is as good as you can do to make sure flash is as up-to-date as possible

it is not the most ideal model of security, period. it is simply best-of-the-pack security model. and so it deserves a recommendation for that practice from BSI

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929805)

Actually, the only part of that I like is the Sandboxing of Flash.

The bundling I attribute to clever Adobe Marketing.

If the sandboxing was half as good as Google seems to think it is, keeping Flash up to date would not be that critical, would it?

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929853)

yes, that is true

but the BSI recommendation is still good

not because the BSI is in the business of making absolute security recommendations, but because it is in the business of making best-of-the-pack recommendations

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929593)

It is the chicken and the egg. If a large sizable audience wont have flash then the bosses who own these websites wont demand their webmasters to include it.

THe reason HTML 5 is not here is because of IE. Old IE actually as even IE 9 is struggling to gain traction a year after it was released. Companies after being burned with IE 6 only sites did not learn their lesson and simply made them IE 8 only which has no HTML 5 support. These users need flash unfortunately.

What killed IE 6 finally last year was that Google, Facebook, and others finally said enough is enough we wont support your 9 year old crappy browser anymore.

People need a push to upgrade and Chrome is big enough now that they could simply make flash optional. Webmasters and site owners will have to make dual html 5 and flash sites. THis would put pressure to eventually kill flash and give the corps a kick in the butt to follow standards and move to HTML 5 and leave IE 8 behind.

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930303)

It is the chicken and the egg

Would someone please come up with a better cliche? One that actually had merit?

1. The egg came first. Dinasaurs layed eggs millions of years before they evolved into chickens.

2. Who has chicken for breakfast?

Companies after being burned with IE 6 only sites did not learn their lesson

Then they should die. We should not reward mediocrity and incompetence.

  and simply made them IE 8 only which has no HTML 5 support. These users need flash unfortunately.

No, they need to use a browser that doesn't suck. There are plenty of them out there, and they don't cost anything. Speaking of which, the <ol> tag is broken in slashdot on FireFox.

Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929667)

it's called HTML5, and it will eventually kill flash

Yep, and if you keep secretly adding cucumbers in someone's diet, it'll eventually kill them. 60-70 years, top.

Home computer performance is on a plateau now, 5-6 year old PCs do just fine. JS engines optimization is already near the limits imposed by JS dynamic nature. And still, heavyweight web apps are a PITA to use.

It's rather sad that everyone looks up to ES:Harmony as the new hope, when it's mostly about feature bloat, not performance improvement.

That 'eventually' could come faster even if someone took Flash's ActionScript and stuck it as a scripting layer into browser. With JS's bloat and W3C slowness it's still very "eventually"

Re:Adobe worship much? (2)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929567)

Bundling of Flash is a plus because basically everyone ends up installing it, and by having it in the browser, then theoretically it's kept up to date better for non-technical users. I don't know if there's a way to disable it for the very paranoid though, I'd hope so.

Re:Adobe worship much? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929707)

Yes, you can disable Flash in Chrome, either by keying in the address bar "about:plugins" with no quotes,
or by using the menus and navigating to /Options / under the hood / Content settings button / Disable link.

On Android, you have the option of running Flash only on demand, (my preferred way), but on Google Chrome you really don't have that option in the same easy way.

I leave flash on most of the time on those platforms that have the horsepower to handle them. I don't like it, its an annoyance, but its not worth the fight to get rid of it everywhere when I still need it in some few places.

saw this coming (1, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929291)

Well, IE is IE but the reason I'm really not surprised is all my repair customers who have Firefox give me an extra headache. You can uninstall Firefox completely then reinstall it from scratch with nothing preserved and you'll still have the MyWebSearch toolbar and basically any other malware that was on it before. You have to actually delete the plugins folder out in Program Files to actually clear it. The add/remove plugins menu is confusing and non-exhaustive compared to IE8 and 9. It's really, really annoying and bad from a security standpoint. Plus, you have to go into the options menu to permanently disable password-remembering which is just about the least secure thing you can do in a browser. They sure have gone downhill lately. I wouldn't be surprised if Mozilla hires the old Netflix CEO because they've been about that smart lately. So I guess chrome wins.

Silent updates? Secure? No! (-1, Flamebait)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929367)

And I notice all the other posts mentioning that Google products are spyware are getting modded down. No surprise there. Watch what happens to this one. Why do think their stuff is 'free'?

Re:Silent updates? Secure? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929427)

Maphap because the conspiracy theories are old and busted, and people are getting sick of the wrong, the trolls and the shills?

Re:Silent updates? Secure? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929739)

Because it is false. It's free because it allows Google to drive web standards as well as drive traffic to google search. Google has a keen interest on which way the web goes and having a browser they have full control over allows them to help steer that. Things like miminal interfaces, web pages acting as apps, webm support, etc.

Chrome is the most secured browser - new study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929383)

Chrome is the most secured browser - new study:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/09/chrome_ie_firefox_security_bakeoff/ [theregister.co.uk]

* No Opera results compared (too bad, it's my "weapon-of-choice" online), but, similar results based on security featuresets compared showed similar results a month or so before this (Dec. 2011)...

(Sandboxing's a nice feature, but imo @ least, a bit "overrated", because sandboxes DO GET BROKEN, & in Windows 7 @ least, you can natively isolate ANY APPLICATION via right-click on it in taskmanager & set it as UAC VIRTUALIZATION enabled (which isolates applications' registry writes to the current profile only, NOT the ENTIRE SYSTEM/ALL PROFILES) - or, even moreso (filesystem, registries etc.) by using a tool called "SandBoxie" (64-bit capable too)).

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways, from the link above's a really nice chart used there for comparison of security-features & the criteria used as well -> http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/12/09/sandbox_comparison_small.png [regmedia.co.uk]

... apkChrome is the most secured browser - new study:

GERMANY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929393)

From the same government that brought you Hitler!

fsck your proprietary recommendations, I'll neither use Windows or proprietary code for Windows! If you think flash bundled or not bundled but installed is a good you are out of your FSCKING MIND! Just say NO to Flash and fsck Windows!

Re:GERMANY (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929543)

Chrome isn't proprietary you fuckerlord, if you don't want Flash bundled, then get the source and unbundle it.

Re:GERMANY (4, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930079)

Even easier, just download Chromium. No Flash, no auto-updating, no phone-home, fully open source. Complaining about these things in Chrome when its completely open-source counterpart Chromium is available as a free download (binary or source) seems pretty stupid to me.

Maybe... (1, Offtopic)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929443)

But this newest update they sent... is blowing my CPU util of the charts...

I can open just Gmail, come back 8hrs later (ie, going to sleep), come
back and my laptop fan is roaring like a jet taking off, utilization is well
above 50%, with kernel involved and both cores.

I don't know if it's new Chrome update interacting with SWF or something
that they (Google) did to their pages. When I run Chrome taskman, it
shows the tabs that have Google apps on them, just smoking the CPU.

This isn't flamebait or trolling... it's a fact. I've made two bug reports,
but it seems that there isn't a "me too" anywhere.

Hoping maybe one of the geek peers here might have a similar issue?

-AI

Re:Maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929933)

Start by upgrading that 40-characters-wide monitor of yours, then we'll talk about your Chrome problems.

Re:Maybe... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930089)

I've been using Chromium for a few months with Gmail, and haven't had any problems at all. I wouldn't be too surprised if it's that Flash crap. I used to have all kinds of problems with Flash processes pegging the CPU when I used Firefox. Anything that Flash touches turns to shit.

Extensions can enhance security of Firefox (5, Interesting)

ChadL (880878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929459)

I use Firefox because it has NoScript and SSLEverywhere, that Chrome doesn't (or doesn't that have equivilent funcionality); thus making Firefox more secure for my usage paterns.

Are they on Crack! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929539)

Adobe in the same sentence as secure?

I do not know what world they are living in but post 2008 since the death of IE 6 the number one infection of the web is not javascript or browser exploits but infected flash, java, and adobe files. They infect all platforms regardless of browser and is a nice run around since browsers generally have huge resources put in security development. I am shocked most geeks still allow flash and java enabled in work computer browsers outside the intranet and allow adobe acrobat to be installed.

At home I use Foxit with javascript disabled by default as my pdf viewer and use lists in IE 9 to block most flash and ads. In Chrome I use adblock.

Also Chrome is that secure because of one glaring feature that is a security risk. Chrome will click for you on every hyperlink and just not render it in front of you in order to *appear* faster when you do click on it. It is called network predictions. So the old tale, do not click on everthing! ... does not apply in Chrome and that scares me. I make sure I disable it under advanced options.

So far I only trust IE 9 for security as Firefox offers no sandbox at all, but even IE 7 had a sandbox and was not secure although better than IE 6.

Re:Are they on Crack! (1)

elbiatcho1 (1554817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929867)

The Network Predictions option can be toggled in Under The Hood>"Predict network actions to improve page load performance" and I thought it might even ask you if you want it on when you first set up Chrome? (unsure)

The Land of "Nothing for free". Share everywhere! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38929553)

http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/column11.html [samba.org]

The Low Point â" a View from the Valley â" Column 11
The Land of "Nothing for free"

On the map, Laguna Niguel looks like a beautiful Pacific coastal area south of Los Angeles, a little like one of my favorite spots Monterey, south of San Francisco. But I forgot; this is Los Angeles, where the brown haze of the air lies like a thick blanket over the insane sprawl of "Generica". It's an endless landscape of McDonalds, strip-malls and gas stations familiar to anyone who has seen the movie "Ghost World". Nothing is free here. You pay for parking (nothing but valet available), driving on toll roads, access to much of the beach (private). If they could figure out how to charge for the air I'm sure there'd be meters every block or so. It's a fitting home for the entertainment industry.

I was down there to give a talk on "Open Source Business Models" for a conference. Also represented were entertainment industry lawyers, "Big Telecom" management, and a smattering of software people. Microsoft was there of course. You can't hold a church fete with "Open Source" on the banner these days without Microsoft turning up and requesting representation. At least we also had Bruce Perens on our side to help make up the balance. The venue was an unbelievably expensive hotel. Even though I was on expenses I balked at asking the company to pay for a room there and found something cheaper (not by much) a few miles down the road.

Along with the collection of apologists for the "ultimate evils" (tm) of Hollywood and Telephone companies there were some very interesting presentations. A Japanese telecoms researcher made all the software people jealous by describing the idyllic state of broadband in Japan, where providers vie to sell gigabit fiber-optic pipes to the home. Yes, you read that right, Gigabit. The obvious question was asked; "what do people use all that bandwidth for" and the less than obvious answer was that they use it for all the same things people in less bandwidth-friendly countries do, they just do more of it. I could see a collective shudder pass through the entertainment industry people. They knew what that meant.

A keynote by Lawrence Lessig made the point even further. He showed a series of "mash-ups" of copyrighted material which were incredibly creative and funny. All completely illegal and currently being hunted off the Internet by entertainment industry lawyers. One of the most amusing asides was from a Walt Disney legal reply to a parent requesting "fair use" rights to use some clips from a Disney movie to put in his home video. He pleadingly promised them it was meant only for family viewing. "We currently deny all requests to use our material....". Even if you are impudent enough to ask, the answer is always no. At least one of the other studios replied that the current commercial rate was $700 to use a 30 second clip. I can see that being popular amongst parents making home movies. He also covered the current patent quagmire. A very interesting fact from his talk was that the total unit cost for a Chinese manufacturer to build a DVD player was around $26. However the total royalty fees they have to pay to western companies for the patent rights to build a player is $21 per unit, thus completely eliminating any profit they might make. No wonder the Chinese are currently creating their own digital video standard, completely incompatible with Western ones. It's the only thing that makes economic sense for them. This is almost certainly behind the Chinese refusal to use the new WiFi standards for wireless devices also.

I ended up making myself unpopular by publicly attacking the Washington-based economist who'd advised the Clinton Administration on "Intellectual Property" issues. It's a very personal issue for me as it affects my everyday life and work, so when he made the statement that "strengthening the patent system leads to more innovation for everyone" I saw red. He doesn't write software of course. I tried to explain later in private that it would be like people being able to patent economic theories in his line of work. That began to hit home, but he explained that the problem in Washington is that patents are heavily pushed to the politicians by the Pharmaceutical Industry. "These guys say they're going to cure cancer, what are you going to do for us ?" is the request that anti-software patent lobbyists have to learn to counter.

My panel was rather uncontroversial, Microsoft, Bruce Perens and myself being on our best behavior. The only sparks that flew where when Microsoft made it abundantly clear that they would use their patent portfolio to prevent the spread of GPL software. Section seven of the GPL (the implicit patent grant of the license) now looks like the most prescient writing Richard Stallman has ever done. If you're not familiar with it I'd suggest you read it and understand why using the GPL to protect your Free Software is so important.

Fireworks only exploded in the session on business models in the Internet age for entertainment industry products (music CD's mainly). This was even before the horrendous vandalism perpetrated by Sony on Windows users by propagating a rootkit as part of a digital rights management product on Sony CD's. Let's be clear, these people hate the Internet. If they had a single-use time machine they'd rather use it to go back in time and kill everyone responsible for creating TCP/IP than prevent the Second World War. The movie industry sees what has happened with CD's, looks at the gigabit bandwidth available in Japan and they know they're next. They will do anything to prevent it, pass any law, remove any civil right or fair use provision that gets in their way. I began to understood this when I had a discussion with a lawyer who was arguing that "we just need stiffer penalties, we need to make an example of people swapping files on the Internet". To which I responded, "why don't we just execute people who break the speed limit ?". Does anyone remember the slogan that used to be printed on vinyl records, "Home taping is illegal and is killing music" ?

When enough people decide that an activity is legal, in a democracy such a thing eventually becomes legal. Look at the way the drug laws have changed in Europe. It's a sign of how damaged American democracy has become that the same thing hasn't happened here. The Internet is a massive threat to some people, and if we don't fight to keep it, we deserve to lose it. I'll end with a "fair use" quote from one of my favorite 70's bands, Hawkwind which seems appropriate somehow, and append one line of my own :

        Welcome to the oceans in a labeled can,
        Welcome to the dehydrated lands,
        Welcome to the self police parade,
        Welcome to the neo-golden age,
        Welcome to the days you've made

Welcome to the land of "Nothing for free".

        Jeremy Allison,
        Samba Team.
        San Jose, California.
        20th November 2005.

"urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update" (0)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38929755)

Do they have people who know absolutely nothing about computers writing these recommendations?

Go to AskWoody.com first and decide whether that update is going to break your computer! There's nothing good about automatic updating - it just breaks things and adds bloat!

Re:"urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930397)

It's also very suspicious that they don't mention the recommended Windows version. Is Windows 8 fully certified for German government use? does Windows 3.11 even have Auto Update?

spy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930143)

Google spy for fbi/cia browser

Wow (-1, Redundant)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930215)

and urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update feature to keep their PCs abreast of all OS security fixes.

Windows Update can apply Linux kernel fixes? Damn, I'm impressed!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...