Slashdot Mirror
Extension To Chrome Brings Remote Desktop Abilities
CNET reports that as of yesterday, a new Chrome extension will "let a person on one computer remotely control another across the network." The new remote-desktop capability is in BETA (Google's all-caps version, for emphasis), but is said to work to control any OS from any other OS, so long as both sides are equipped with Chrome and the new extension. Related: Wired is running a profile of
Rajen Sheth — "father of Gmail," and now in charge of Google's Chromebook project as well.
Sounds exactly like something I want my web browser to be able to do. What could possibly go wrong?
This isn't going to be very useful if it requires a user to be already logged in to work.
If it lets the user login over the remote desktop connection, Chrome is going to need to be running as an Administrator.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
A new security vulnerability has been introduced that will be marketed as a useful feature that rarely gets used for its intended purpose.
Yeah, giving your browser the ability to completely control your machine. Brilliant idea. No possible exploits there!
Microsoft already does this. https://devices.live.com/
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
This can only be a useful alternative to existing tools like TeamViewer if and only if the Chrome browser itself becomes a truly ubiquitous browser, found on EVERY machine. Otherwise, what's the difference if one still has to install software on both systems to make it feasible? In this instance, it's actually two installations, given the need to install the extension as well as the browser itself.
I think you might be confused about what a firewall actually does. Without reviewing the product at all I'm just gonna go ahead and say "no." Not unless you punch a hole in the firewall at least. Making it so that hole can be on port 80 is something VNC can do as well that does *not* actually make it more secure.
Something else that I just don't get with "technology" like this is how it's mistakenly seen as "innovative" because it somehow involves a web browser, although it's something we have been able to do for decades using other software.
This is basically the same as telnet, or rsh, or ssh, or VNC, or the many other technologies that do the same thing. Fuck, this is something we could even do in the browser years ago! I remember using a Java applet that let me connect in to computers at work using ssh or VNC. That was at least 10 years ago.
Which part of a computer cannot go wrong?
If the number one consideration was always "what could possibly go wrong?" we'd still be shitting in the bushes and wiping our butts with leaves.
If god didn't want us to take chances, he wouldn't have given us fingers to cross.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Because the people (read: clueless lusers) we were trying to help years ago had no SSH or VNC server installed, nor NATed ports on their routers to make it work.
Now all (s)he needs is to have the browser installed, which (s)he might very well have already. It's very, very different, albeit not in a technical way.
Dilbert RSS feed
Wiping your butt with leaves? What could possibly go wrong?
Evil is the money of root.
As an Archos Jukebrick fan myself, the innovative part that the iPod brought was bringing the technology to a functional level of convenience. The iPod was the first one that fit in your pocket.
I'm not going to be able to explain to my mother how to get an ssh server up and running on her machine. But getting Chrome installed with an extension? That I could believe.
The key is *enabling.* Twenty years ago, setting up an FTP based home file synchronization service was technically possible. But it was a huge PITA. DropBox automated everything with a simple single login. Similarly, simplifying VNC into something that everyone already has. That means that people who wouldn't have exposure to remote control, now do.
The ______ Agenda
Yeah, thinking like that is what gave us Melissa.
When you design software, you can either design with security as part of the architecture or not. Secure software designs still have problems, but it's the difference between a pinhole and a barn door.
Unix systems were much more secure than Windows systems for years (whether they are now is up to debate). The reason is that Microsoft had to take drastic measures over more than a decade to secure their system was because their architecture was never designed with security in mind. Unix didn't have the problem - as a multiuser system, security was part of the design, so replacing insecure pieces with secure components (think rsh -> ssh, crypt() to md5(), shadow, etc.) was much easier.
In order to have a remote desktop application be part of a web browser, you need to break the security of the browser and reach the base system. I don't know how the extension framework for Chrome works (I only use it for webcomics), but I would definitely think twice before installing something like this onto a piece of software that regularly communicates with untrusted data (which is primarily what a web browser does).
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.