Before 2015, only a single in-the-wild bug was required to steal a user’s secrets from other websites, because multiple web pages lived together in a single renderer process. Third, some attacks that could previously be accomplished with a single bug now require multiple bugs. If attackers can find a bug in Chromium, they can now attack a greater percentage of users. In early 2020, Edge switched to using the Chromium rendering engine. Chromium popularity: Attackers go for the most popular target.As Flash is no longer available, attackers have had to switch to a harder target: the browser itself. Chrome gradually made Flash a less attractive target for attackers (for instance requiring user clicks to activate Flash content) before finally removing it in Chrome 88 in January last year. Flash deprecation: In 20, Flash was a primary exploitation target.There are two reasons to suspect attackers might be choosing to attack Chrome more than they did in the past. Second, we believe we’re seeing more exploits due to evolved attacker focus. These efforts have been spearheaded by both browser security teams and dedicated research groups, such as Project Zero. Today, most major browser makers have increased transparency via publishing details in release communications, and that may account for more publicly tracked “in the wild” exploitation. Historically, many browser makers didn’t announce that a bug was being exploited in the wild, even if they knew it was happening.
Here are four in particular that we've been discussing and exploring as a team.įirst, we believe we’re seeing more bugs thanks to vendor transparency.
CHROME CHROME APPS SOFTWARE
There are a number of factors at play, from changes in vendor and attacker behavior, to changes in the software itself. Working across multiple time zones and teams, it took the team three days to come up with a fix and roll it out, as detailed in our video on the process:
CHROME CHROME APPS CODE
While Chrome normally keeps each web page locked away in a box called the “renderer sandbox,” this bug allowed the code to break out, potentially allowing attackers to steal information. This bug was discovered by a team member in Switzerland and reported to Chrome through our bug tracker. A good example is a bug in our Portals feature that we fixed last fall. Teams like Google’s Threat Analysis Group are also becoming increasingly sophisticated in their efforts to protect users by discovering zero-days and in-the-wild attacks. Available exploitation data suffers from sampling bias.
CHROME CHROME APPS FULL
We recognize that we don’t have full view into active exploitation, and just because we didn’t detect any zero-days during those years, doesn’t mean exploitation didn’t happen. Here’s what they’ve reported for browsers:įirst, we don’t believe there was no exploitation of Chromium based browsers between 20. Our colleagues at Project Zero publicly track all known in-the-wild “zero day” bugs. So, which is it? It’s likely a little of both. On the other hand, if we’re simply gaining more visibility into exploitation by attackers, it's actually a good thing! It’s good because it means we can respond by providing bug fixes to our users faster, and we can learn more about how real attackers operate. If it's because there are many more exploits in the wild, it could point to a worrying trend. While the increase may initially seem concerning, it’s important to understand the reason behind this trend. We'll then share how Chrome is continuing to make it harder for attackers to achieve their goals. In this post we'll explore why there seems to be such an increase in exploits, and clarify some misconceptions in the process. If you are a regular reader of our Chrome release blog, you may have noticed that phrases like 'exploit for CVE-1234-567 exists in the wild' have been appearing more often recently. Posted by Adrian Taylor, Chrome Security Team
0 kommentar(er)
