Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome Hacked In 5 Minutes At Pwn2Own

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-took-so-long? dept.

Skuto writes "After offering a total prize fund of up to $1M for a successful Chrome hack, it seems Google got what it wanted (or not!). No more than 5 minutes into the Pwn2Own cracking contest team Vupen exploited 2 Chrome bugs to demonstrate a total break of Google's browser. They will win at least 60k USD out of Google's prize fund, as well as taking a strong option on winning the overall Pwn2Own prize. It also illustrates that Chrome's much lauded sandboxing is not a silver bullet for browser security."

12 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. 5 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess this means they went in knowing exactly what they were going to do. This means that it has been known for a while which means there could be many more people who know and are exploiting this.

    1. Re:5 minutes? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody shows up at one of these contests and cracks their knuckles and starts looking for holes. They always show up with a premade bag of polished and practiced zero-days.

      Funny though how they get so much media attention every time this happens OMG safari got owned in six minutes! Chrome got hacked in 5 minutes! They must beg gods! no, not really.

      There's really no reason they couldn't be doing this once a month really. I'd wager that the winners this round had 4-6 different exploits in their bag of tricks, and are strategically submitting them.

      It would be in google's better interest to hold such contests monthly with smaller prizes. It'd just be paying for bugs, but the way they're doing it here is just moving a lot slower than it really should.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:5 minutes? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that brings up an even more troubling thought. Are the pwn2own incentives creating a perverse incentive to conceal vulnerabilities?

      I think so. If this is how Google will find and fix its flaws, exploiters are basically safe between events.

      If you want flaws and exploits identified and fixed fast, pay on a first-to identify basis and never announce what the exploits found were. Just quietly fix them as fast as you can and distribute patches regularly.

    3. Re:5 minutes? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That depends how much they pay. Google, for example, pays the cute but relatively small sum of $3133.70 for the most severe bugs. These Vupen guys could have reported their bugs and pocketed at most ~$6k (maybe less, if Google failed to recognize the severity of the bugs), or they could do as they did, keep the bugs to themselves until Pwn2Own came around, and earn ten times that amount.

      I doubt they care so much about the fame. The extra $54k, on the other hand...

  2. Re:Obviously they were just waiting to start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think all of the Pwn2Own exploits are discovered beforehand and then shown at this event. They could report it and get sued... or they could hold on to it, hope its not patched out or publicized and grab money and swag.

  3. Re:Obviously they were just waiting to start by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's pretty clear they had their exploits worked out and ready to go for some time, and were just waiting for the contest to start to unleash them.

    I think it's pretty clear this has always been the case in these pwn2own contests, whether the browser is Safari, Internet Explorer, or Chrome. This latest crack just makes it a little more obvious that it's a question of motivation more than anything else - and money is a powerful motivator, probably more so than notoriety (in sufficient quantities, anyway).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  4. Why even mention the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't Swordfish. They had plenty of time to prepare their attack.

    It's impressive they exploited Chrome. But the preparation took more than 5 minutes.

  5. still more cost effective by Bananasdoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Handing out 2mill of prize money is still more cost effective that standard R&D, you get more professionals testing it for the chance of wining some prize money than Google could ever employ and the people they chose not to employ.

  6. Re:Obviously they were just waiting to start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's pretty clear this has always been the case in these pwn2own contests, whether the browser is Safari, Internet Explorer, or Chrome. This latest crack just makes it a little more obvious that it's a question of motivation more than anything else - and money is a powerful motivator, probably more so than notoriety (in sufficient quantities, anyway).

    And is that such a bad thing? For the white hats, the money's just a bonus.

    But $1M is pretty cheap to increase the odds that those who might otherwise be tempted to join the black hats can still gain public recognition, still make some money, and because their hat can remain white, they don't even have to worry about prosecution.

    In exchange for the coin, developers get responsible disclosure of lots of bugs (that might have otherwise remained under wraps, or might have been discovered first by black hats) in a controlled environment.

    Win-win situation in my books.

  7. Awarding this the most apologetic post of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    saying "I know anecdotes aren't date" followed by "but insert anecdote here" doesn't excuse you from confirmation bias. There is no evidence presented by you that your practises wouldn't keep you just as safe with Opera or Gecko-based browsers.

  8. Re:Obviously they were just waiting to start by kcbnac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then perhaps they need to start doing them more often than yearly? Do them quarterly?

  9. Re:Obviously they were just waiting to start by eulernet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This latest crack just makes it a little more obvious that it's a question of motivation more than anything else - and money is a powerful motivator, probably more so than notoriety (in sufficient quantities, anyway).

    No, it just proves that when you put enough money, professional crackers are attracted.

    There is an article where Charlie Miller (winner of past contests) explains why he won't compete:
    https://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/charlie-miller-skipping-pwn2own-as-new-rules-change-hacking-game/10554

    On the contrary, I think that money attracts professionals, and discourages all other people, who may have interesting hacks but know that they cannot compete against professionals.
    In short, it encourages people who came to win, and discourages people who came to participate.