Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Communications Privacy Security Software The Internet

Chrome 63 Offers Even More Protection From Malicious Sites, Using Even More Memory (arstechnica.com) 63

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: To further increase its enterprise appeal, Chrome 63 -- which hit the browser's stable release channel yesterday -- includes a couple of new security enhancements aimed particularly at the corporate market. The first of these is site isolation, an even stricter version of the multiple process model that Chrome has used since its introduction. Chrome uses multiple processes for several security and stability reasons. On the stability front, the model means that even if a single tab crashes, other tabs (and the browser itself) are unaffected. On the security front, the use of multiple processes makes it much harder for malicious code from one site to steal secrets (such as passwords typed into forms) of another. [...]

Naturally, this greater use of multiple processes incurs a price; with this option enabled, Chrome's already high memory usage can go up by another 15 to 20 percent. As such, it's not enabled by default; instead, it's intended for use by enterprise users that are particularly concerned about organizational security. The other new capability is the ability for administrators to block extensions depending on the features those extensions need to use. For example, an admin can block any extension that tries to use file system access, that reads or writes the clipboard, or that accesses the webcam or microphone. Additionally, Google has started to deploy TLS 1.3, the latest version of Transport Layer Security, the protocol that enables secure communication between a browser and a Web server. In Chrome 63, this is only enabled between Chrome and Gmail; in 2018, it'll be turned on more widely.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome 63 Offers Even More Protection From Malicious Sites, Using Even More Memory

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I've been using Chrome 63 and I've found its memory usage to be much lower than Firefox 57's.

    I find that Chrome 63 performs a lot better than Firefox 57 does, too. This is strange, because Firefox 57 is supposed to be faster, from what I've been hearing, but I really didn't notice any difference.

    What I did notice is that Firefox 57 broke nearly all of my extensions! Some of them I can't even replace, because the authors have given up and aren't bothering to port them to Firefox 57, or worse, they can't even

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who cares about Chrome? It's spyware and shouldn't be used.

  • Memory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @06:17PM (#55703981) Homepage

    Memory is there to be used. I'm not talking about bloat or inefficiency either. Why not take advantage of system resources?

    • Re:Memory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dremon ( 735466 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @06:55PM (#55704151)
      Memory is there to be used ... Why not take advantage of system resources?

      This appears to be the greatest motivational slogan for most of the modern software developers.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      Memory is not there to "be used" it is there to speed up the system. Using memory inefficiently defeats that purpose. That's not to say security isn't a valid purpose, it most certainly is. Just be careful with the blanket statements.

      • by nashv ( 1479253 )

        The cost of memory efficiency during development at this time beats the cost of memory itself by far at this time point.

        An average software developer charges what at least 30$ an hour ? An how much time does it take to improve efficiency in large complex programs ? 1 working day at least ?

        For those 300$ I can have 16 GB of DDR4 RAM delivered tomorrow. Sorry, I want to care, but I just can't.

        • People run browsers on laptops, some with soldered-in memory.

          My laptop doesn't have soldered-in memory, but only has 8GB; it was a pretty high-spec Dell XPS 13 when I bought it. I don't have swap enabled, since when I got the machine it only had a 128gb SSD, and while I've upgraded that since then I've not bothered to make a swap partition.

          I would really prefer my web browser behave itself and not chew up three-quarters of that unless it is absolutely necessary; I'm running Opera at the moment and it seems

          • by nashv ( 1479253 )

            I use Chrome on a Chromebook with 4GB RAM , and at the same time a 32 GB Dell XPS 15 too. Never ran into a memory issue.

  • Ever since my Chrome updated yesterday, a lot of mainstream sites such as news sites have been freezing on me. After a few minutes the mouse pages no longer respond to the mouse in any way (can't even select text) forcing me to reload them. I run on Ubuntu with more than enough memory (32GB) to not care and rarely see my CPU top 10%. Anyone else experiencing this?
  • by phozz bare ( 720522 ) on Friday December 08, 2017 @08:26PM (#55704477)

    The web browser: the glorified terminal emulator of the 21st century. Where every kilobyte of input takes a megabyte of RAM. Or fifty. How can it be considered remotely plausible that maintaining the state of 15 tabs (mostly text, some images, no video) requires 5 GB? Surely it must be one of the great mysteries of modern computing.

  • by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Friday December 08, 2017 @09:36PM (#55704685) Homepage

    The other new capability is the ability for administrators to block extensions depending on the features those extensions need to use. For example, an admin can block any extension that tries to use file system access, that reads or writes the clipboard, or that accesses the webcam or microphone.

    In this description one is clearly supposed to trust a nonfree program (Google Chrome) to vet other software's access to the file system, clipboard, webcam, and microphone. But one has no good reason to call Chrome trustworthy. Users have no idea what the Chrome code is doing when it runs because that program is nonfree software. No matter how capable the user is, no matter how willing they are to research and fix problems, Chrome users are not allowed to help themselves by reading the complete Chrome source code, modifying said source code, or help others in the community by distributing Chrome code (whether modified or not). The only users allowed to do these things are the people one ought not trust because they're the proprietor. As a side issue that proprietor happens to be a spy organization. So one should wonder if administrators can block Google Chrome's access to these things too or perhaps that is best addressed by not running Google Chrome in the first place.

  • Firefox has almost caught up with Chrome - it's at 57 now, and will overtake it soon...

"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban

Working...