Google dangles the Chrome carrot
Summary: Do you think you can find a hole in the Google Chrome browser? Google's willing to pay you between $500 and $1337 (clever) for each and every one found.
Do you think you can find a hole in the Google Chrome browser? Google's willing to pay you between $500 and $1337 (clever) for each and every one found. This challenge is Google's way of showing confidence in their browser, and at the same time getting security experts to once-over the open source browser.
Any security related bug classified as high or critical priority in the open source Chromium or Google Chrome branch (stable, beta and dev) qualify for the prize.
That said, $500 - $1337 isn't a lot of money though -- some zero-day exploits can be sold on the black market for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will be interesting to see if security experts take the bait on this one.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
File this under "Stupid PR tricks"
RE: Google dangles the Chrome carrot
RE: Google dangles the Chrome carrot
I found two!
I have discovered a hole in Chrome that allows installation of two similar
pieces of malware, namely Flash and Silverlight.I've found two related
"holes" in Chrome, where do I collect my money?
I have discovered a hole in Chrome that allows installation of two similar
pieces of malware, namely Flash and Silverlight.
PS: I love you, Loverock. You're my favorite common tater.)
Flash and Silverlight are NOT malware... but if you're being sarcastic
RE: Google dangles the Chrome carrot
This type of idea is actually a responsible thing to do as it
provides a healthy form of "peer review".
Even the best of programmers can become code blind in the
course of a project, so those many second pairs of eyes
can spot not only obvious oversights , but probably more
importantly unique methods of attack that might not occur
to even the best of programmers.
It is called paid beta testing
would have offered Chrome OS based netbook for each tip that these
testers would give instead of $. For most of the engineers working in
OSS stuff $ is not the criteria, it is ego satisfaction.
--Ram--
Exactly, it is a "Peer Review", something...
engineer who's worked on a large scale project
should be familiar with.
It is not Google being lazy, it's part Google
saying their browser is secure, and if not then
we'll pay you to tell us so we can fix it.
It's makes good sense from a security &
development stand point.
Chrome is spyware. Don't use it!
MS is virusware
linux is sh*tware
Wonderful
thought out analysis of the merits of Linux.
It is always a pleasure to find such a gem instead of the usual mindless
mud-slinging perpetrated by the MS bigots and shills.
They all report to security agencies
But for that you have to know c++ and gtk or some other library.
Lol, your cellphone and car and cards tell spy agencies where you are and what you do and what you buy. So whats the problem with Chrome, it beats Firefox and works great, IE gives you viruses so, if you have nothing to be afraid off, why not use Chrome.
On the other hand, if you do things that need to be kept under cover, use IE, you will still be reported and you will be less efficient at it.
Even-handed, introspective, and well thought out
Even-handed and introspective
How is that mindless mudslinging? It is simply a statement of fact.
Windows could be the best OS ever, and 100% impenetrable, and it would
not change the fact that Linux is free and secure.
The only way you view this otherwise is if YOU have an OS bias. And are
overly sensitive to people preferring alternatives.
Try reading the whole posts - tiles included
Like I said in my previous post: there's offenders in every OS camp. How is that being "overly sensitive to people preferring alternatives"?
I did
number of Windows viruses for all variants of the OS vs total number
of Linux viruses for all variants of that OS. It is not even a fair fight.
And given MS' Johnny-come-lately attitude to security, where
monetization of ports has always been more important than locking
down the OS, I fail to see what is worth defending. In fact, although
Win7 IS a decently secure platform, it is not because of MS' deep-
seated commitment to security, it is due to the outcry in the market
and slipping numbers. MS had to be dragged kicking and screaming to
the OS security party. Their capitulation was profit driven, not
philosophy driven.
As are all their considerations.
you...
"takes one to know one" much?
so call your fellow linux idiot an ass before you address me...
BTW...i've used linux, that's why I said it SUCKS; i'm speaking from experience
Sure ya have
And you were prolly too dumb to get it to work. A typical reaction to failure, hence all the negative spam.