Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

Summary: Google has shelled out another $7,000 in bounties to acquire and fix multiple "high-risk" security holes in its Chrome browser.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Google, Browser
30

Google has shelled out another $7,000 in bounties to acquire and fix multiple "high-risk" security holes in its Chrome browser.

The new Google Chrome version 12.0.742.112, available for all platforms, addresses security vulnerabilities that expose users to remote code execution attacks.

Google isn't releasing the technical details on these vulnerabilities until the browser's self-patching mechanism pushes the update to the majority of users.

follow Ryan Naraine on twitter
The Chrome Stable channel has been updated to 12.0.742.112 for all platforms.  This release contains an updated version of Adobe Flash, along with the security fixes noted below.
Some basic details:

  • [$1000] [77493] Medium CVE-2011-2345: Out-of-bounds read in NPAPI string handling. Credit to Philippe Arteau.
  • [$1000] [84355] High CVE-2011-2346: Use-after-free in SVG font handling. Credit to miaubiz.
  • [$1000] [85003] High CVE-2011-2347: Memory corruption in CSS parsing. Credit to miaubiz.
  • [$500] [85102] High CVE-2011-2350: Lifetime and re-entrancy issues in the HTML parser. Credit to miaubiz.
  • [$500] [85177] High CVE-2011-2348: Bad bounds check in v8. Credit to Aki Helin of OUSPG.
  • [$1000] [85211] High CVE-2011-2351: Use-after-free with SVG use element. Credit to miaubiz.
  • [$1000] [85418] High CVE-2011-2349: Use-after-free in text selection. Credit to miaubiz.

The patch also contains an updated version of Adobe Flash Player.

Topics: Google, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

30 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    Well that works, some guy just scored close to 5 grand. Nice little chunk of change there.
    Aerowind
    • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

      @Aerowind

      Makes you wanna start learning how to find vulnerabilities in programs now doesnt it? lol
      mclairmont
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    I thought Chrome did have any security flaws.
    Heatlesssun
    • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

      @Heatlesssun

      Nothing is invulnerable. That was the problem with people buying crappy macs.

      I wonder if these vulnerabilities are in the chromebooks as well.
      mclairmont
    • Of course Chrome has security holes

      Anything made by a human being is flawed.
      Michael Alan Goff
    • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

      @Heatlesssun
      If you read the article, you would know Chrome did. Now it doesn't.
      BigJohnLg
      • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

        @BigJohnLg - I sure hope you were kidding.
        dev/null
    • Sir, you must differentiate. Typical problem at ZDnet.

      @Heatlesssun ... The beauties here have always written articles like this without reference to OS. What's a problem with Windows is not necessarily a problem with Linux or Apple. It's part of the MS controlling directive to ZDNet not to directly address MS security or to attribute security issues to them. Or else...the advertising dollars will suffer.<br><br>The people in the Linux and Apple camps keep on trucking without concern or interruption (myself included, having used LInux for 8+ years with no AV and no issues). So, where Microsoft fails miserably, Google and Mozilla will eventually be the saviors of the sinking MS ship by indirectly providing thought out OS protection by installing a simple browser application. Microsoft should be proud.<br><br>The typical MS reader mentality doesn't realize that the same version Chrome, Firefox, OpenOffice used on Linux does not create security holes. So where is the root problem? It's amusing that when a story says:<br><br><i>"The new Google Chrome version 12.0.742.112, available for all platforms, addresses security vulnerabilities that expose users to remote code execution attacks."</i><br><br>The "remote code execution attacks" are because of ONLY WINDOWS >>> They don't occur on Linux. Period. <br><br>When is ZDNet going to stop the propaganda and start getting specific with describing the OS used? Probably never. Journalistic Integrity tempered by $$$. The dirty little MS secret is that they will incorporate the information from Google into a "MS" critical update at a later date. That's how it's done at MS, after the fact fixes using information from third parties. ZDNet's current way of writing articles (by not mentioning OS issues) indirectly places the blame on the application rather that the real culprit, the OS.

      The goal of the article(s)...hmmm...maybe IE isn't so bad after all? :)
      Joe.Smetona
      • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

        @Joe.Smetona

        Wow guy. Ignorant much ?

        First, they are potential browser exploits, not an OS exploit. One thing may/may not work on the next OS, but that does not mean a slightly different variation wont work. Unless you think all those websites that lulzsec "hacked" recently were all running some version of Windows 7 ? Get serious guy, most were probably running outdated web content management, on some form of Linux, and were exploited through PHP injection. In Sony's case, they took the asshat award, by allowing their website to gain access to their inner network. Not very smart. The sad thing here, is that the exploits they used, were probably form 10 years ago!

        So, using your logic I'm left with the undeniable truth that Linux Sux. Right? WRONG!

        Now, I can sense a question here. " What does a hacked webpage have to do with my desktop Linux?" The answer is; Absolutely nothing. Reason: You're a no one, who has no data worth stealing. On an operating system that *currently* is not a high priority target.

        Secondly, that hole you stuck your head into needs to be a little deeper. I can still see your ears. Linux machines get exploited, rooted, and other wise compromised all the time. As do apple computers.

        Lastly, that "sinking MS ship" as you so called it. Is, or can be just as secure as your precious Linux. Like any other Operating system. It takes a user willing to understand how to SECURE it, and then how to USE it.

        So now, I'm left thinking you made this post in jest. Because the alternative means you're an idiot that obviously has no clue.

        "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'm invulnerable because I gots a Mac!".
        yyrkoon
      • You must be new here. And very arrogant.

        @yyrkoon...<br><br><i>" In Sony's case, they took the asshat award, by allowing their website to gain access to their inner network."</i> <br>The Sony website was attacked because an administrator was using a Windows PC to store data. The data was remotely accessed by a "malware email". So, if you want to discuss the Sony break-in the root cause was Windows.<br><br>How far back have you been with ZDnet? I go back to 1/30/06 and I have 4,401 archived ZDNet emails. I've been following their coverage of Firefox, Chrome and OpenOffice since the programs were introduced, even in the alpha and beta stages. Their treatmeant of these applications in their articles has always left out the OS invovled and in all cases, it was Windows. So, I'm sure I have you beat in the reference department. Plain and simple, it's a pervasive disorder, ZDNet blames the browsers and applications for OS defects, without mentioning the OS.<br><br>You are wrong. <i>"First, they are potential browser exploits, not an OS exploit."</i>. What planet do you live on where a "remote code execution" is a browser exploit?<br><br>Yep, browsers are going to need patching, but with Linux and Apple, the problems don't allow the entire computer to be taken over like Windwoes does.<br><br>I use both Chrome and Firefox on Linux Mint 11. Instead of flapping you insults, why don't you try it, without AV. and just try, just try to get infected. I've been using it for 8 years without AV and it's never happened, even with all the doom and gloom from ZDnet.<br><br>It appears you are just another Windows user that has all the answers about LInux, but never installed or even used it.<br><br>I guess this is just another browser exploit too:<br><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/indestructible-superbotnet-45-million-pcs-unearthed/</a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a><br><br><b>Windows user's beware</b><br><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/30/tdl-4-botnet-infects-4-5-million-computers/</a></a></a></a></a></a></a><br><br><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.itproportal.com/2011/06/28/new-rootkit-forces-users-reinstall-windows/</a></a></a></a></a><br><br>Things are getting so bad now for Windows that these new botnets have super AV on them to kill all the other viruses and botnets that may impair "their" performance. Amazing, A botnet that actually cleans better than McAfee, Norton and Symantec. The new generation botnet makers are more efficient and thorough than Microsoft.<br><br>For the most part, Windows users aren't bothered by their OSs' failed security issues. Microsoft knows that and has never been concerned. They don't have to write secure source code. They just schlep out some new features, compile it and serve it up to an eager crowd. Down the road, someone will easily find a hole and exploit it. Like the TDL-4 botnet. Happy, smiling Windows users will eagerly go to Best Buy and buy a replacement Windows computer if things get too bad.
        Joe.Smetona
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    If Chrome got rid of Adobe Flash that might make it worth using again, from a security and stability standpoint.<br><br>Chrome was the worst browser I tried since Microsoft was sabotaging Netscape.
    bannedagain
    • What was bad about it when you tried it

      just asking.
      Michael Alan Goff
      • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

        @goff256 <br><br>Continuous crashes while playing Mafia Wars on Facebook, since deleting it and going back to Firefox with NoScript and Adblock plugins I haven't looked back, that's my junk browser used only for Facebook.<br><br>My main browser is Safari with ClicktoFlash and Ghostery plugins.<br><br>This is on a MacBook running Snow Leopard.<br><br>I actively avoid Flash and have done so since 2004 when I couldn't be bothered running Linux in 32 bit mode just to use a rather useless plugin.
        bannedagain
    • Hmm why does it use flash? Oh yes so websites work!

      @bannedagain OK, I'll play. Chrome has Flash, and so do the REST of the browsers, they allow the flash plug in. So websites can actually work as designed, so what's your point?
      The best browser of the early generation graphical browsers was Netscape Gold 3. Internet Exploder just sucked then. My experience with Chrome is it is faster then IE, Opera, and Mozilla. How this can possibly be rated 'worst' by you is lost on me. Then again, I suspect you are nothing but a troll anyway.
      Bill F.
      • Its also the most stable and reliable browser

        Since I've been using Chrome. Very few malware/virus and other annoyances have crept into our company computers. Can't say the same of those using IE. They have the worst record.
        Uralbas
      • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

        @Bill F.

        Chrome has Flash built into the browser, it has something to do with Google's ignoring open standards where ad revenue is concerned.
        bannedagain
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    Until something that works better and has a better price (they'd need to pay me) Chrome has worked great for me and I am sticking with it.
    All those concerns about security, unless your referring to your ID & MONEY what else is there to protect? Your porn surfing? I mean really how many people would care about what I do on the internet unless they can make a buck off me?
    Dougvbx
  • Black Bar

    Now only if they'd get rid of that eye distracting Black Bar at the top of my Google.com page.
    hsl78fx35
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    Wow! Just one person squashing 5 out of the 7 bugs!
    billcheng
  • RE: Google plugs 'high-risk' Chrome browser holes

    What about Chrome version 13.0.782.32 ?
    jamesh81166