Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crash Chrome With 16 Characters

Posted by timothy on from the you-go-first dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Remember when it took just eight characters to crash Skype? Apparently it takes double that to take out Chrome: Typing in a 16-character link and hitting enter, clicking on a 16-character link, or even just putting your cursor over a 16-character link, will crash Google's browser. To try it yourself, fire up Chrome 45 (the latest stable version) or older and put this into your address bar: http: //a/%%30%30 (without the space).

205 comments

  1. Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just rewrites the url.

    1. Re: Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I had the same thing happen. Also I just want to know the correct sequence of keys to push to become Freakazoid.

    2. Re:Firefox... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      ...just rewrites the url.

      ... to something more politically correct, no doubt.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re: Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Impossible. Freakazoid was super teen extraordinaire, not super still-lives-in-his-parents'-basement-at-30 extraordinaire. ;P

    4. Re: Firefox... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, considering the age of the show...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Firefox... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      If you consider http://www./ a.com/ politically correct... just some legacy code that rewrites unknown urls to some of the more common TLDs (.com, .org, etc) in an attempt to find a valid URL that matches. Actually a really crappy thing to do as you can use domains of common base folder names like images.com to pickup traffic from incorrect links so //images/whatever.jpg becomes images.com/whatever.jpg... anyone who clicks that link will end up on the wrong site. It has some great potential for some casual phishing.

    6. Re:Firefox... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Damn, I should've picked up New Folder.com years ago. Maybe Untitled Folder.com is still available?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:Firefox... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Not exactly a common web domain... cgi.com, www.com, images.com, etc. those are fairly common. account.com would have been a great one for phishing.

    8. Re:Firefox... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Chrome crashed for me. Did you remove the space between http: & //a/%%30%30?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    9. Re:Firefox... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Edge doesn't do anything. It's like you didn't even write anything.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    10. Re:Firefox... by ExekielS · · Score: 1

      reminds me of this

      --
      ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  2. It's not just Chrome by Duckman5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just fired up Opera (shares the Blink engine) and gave it a try. Sure enough, it crashed and restarted. Wonder where the issue is...

    1. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 2015 and browsers are not properly sanitizing the URL bar?

    2. Re:It's not just Chrome by Shinobi · · Score: 2

      Vivaldi crashes too, on Windows and Linux.

    3. Re:It's not just Chrome by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's 2015 and browsers are not properly sanitizing the URL bar?

      That's why I'm waiting for the Lysol® browser...
      *Lysol® Browser does not sanitize the keyboard or mouse! :-(

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:It's not just Chrome by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean "It's 2015 and developers still introduce bugs"... and frankly... no fucking shit. Yes, coding is hard. Every time you change code (and I'm sure the URL bar parsing code changes pretty regularly) you stand a chance of introducing a bug.

    5. Re:It's not just Chrome by gweihir · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Incompetence. The reason is that too many coders have big egos and small skills.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is == Chrome now, same engine.

    7. Re:It's not just Chrome by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And this is one reason it is so insensible when highly skilled software developers get worried over this idea that everyone is going to get some programming background.

      As soon as it hits the fan--and it will--they'll need someone to fix it. And in many cases it will happen over and over and over again, and push costs higher than just hiring someone to do it right to begin with.

      I'm not worried.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    8. Re:It's not just Chrome by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

      Every time you change code... you stand a chance of introducing a bug.

      Maybe the code doesn't want to change...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:It's not just Chrome by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Every time you change code you stand a chance of introducing a bug.

      That is why you do automated regression testing.

    10. Re:It's not just Chrome by pack27 · · Score: 2

      It doesn't just share Blink; Opera is based completely off of the Chromium source code.

      --
      Arch Linux master race!
    11. Re:It's not just Chrome by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They probably do have some regression tests, but who would have written a unit test for an address with 16 characters in it? Some bugs are just so weird that no one even thinks to test for them.

    12. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Always thought that was a big mistake on Opera's part.
      Used to love that browser; was a paid user back in late 90s.

    13. Re:It's not just Chrome by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      In order for a regression test to catch a bug, you need to have either 1) predicted that that bug might occur, and written a test for it, or 2) encountered the bug before and written a test for it.

      You can't magically have tests that cover every possible scenario.

    14. Re:It's not just Chrome by postmortem · · Score: 1

      There are testing techniques that don't require you to test every possible scenario, but, in lack a of simpler them, every independent code condition.

      Good testing costs as much as development; if not even more. It also requires skilled testers. So not many companies can afford that. It is just easier if you pay somebody to do it for you - be it offshore team, or a bounty.

    15. Re:It's not just Chrome by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      There are testing techniques that don't require you to test every possible scenario, but, in lack a of simpler them, every independent code condition.

      100% code coverage does not imply that you have 100% coverage of the possible outcomes, for example:

      int dereference(int *x) {
              return *x;
      }

      void testDereference() {
              int x = 5;
              testFrameworkAssertTrue(dereference(x) == 5);
      }

      This test provides 100% code coverage, but the code will still have undefined behaviour in a whole lot of cases.

      The number of people on the internet who think that testing is a substitute for proof and/or that it can magically eliminate all bugs is pretty terrifying.

    16. Re:It's not just Chrome by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's 2015 and browsers are not properly sanitizing the URL bar?

      At launch, you could crash Chrome with just 2 characters in the URL bar, so this is progress!

      That bug was along the lines of:

          for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++) { stuff }

      Except size was computed as -1, and like i was unsigned, so it got ugly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:It's not just Chrome by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Yes, coding is hard.

      Good coding anyway. Bad coding is apparently pretty fucking easy.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Further, I think this is probably some weird interaction between separate components that causes the crash, which is really hard to unit test. It's not an error in the URL parser per se. I stuck this into a URL shortener and Chrome redirects to the funky address just fine. It does not load the page, but it doesn't crash either. On the other hand, if you do anything that triggers the actual rendering of the URL on the screen, it crashes. So the bug must be somewhere in the interface between the URL parser and the rendering engine.

    19. Re:It's not just Chrome by maugle · · Score: 1

      And that is why you don't just ignore your compiler warnings. Comparing signed with unsigned can and will lead to horrible things happening.

    20. Re:It's not just Chrome by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      No, coding is not hard. Testing is tedious and not sexy enough for hot shot coders who don't take pride in their work.

    21. Re:It's not just Chrome by lgw · · Score: 1

      Both i and size were size_t (which is unsigned). The problem was in how size was computed - with the right 2-character string, it was computed as -1, and then that for loop changed the failure mode from a do-nothing bug to a keep-overwriting-memory-until-crash bug.

      It's a fundamental security issue in the way the C++ STL containers are implemented, as they all unsigned indexing, leading to this particular failure mode being somewhat common (and memory-overwrite bugs are an attacker's delight).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of people on the internet who think they can write C is pretty terrifying.

    23. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes Opera too

    24. Re:It's not just Chrome by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 2

      URL bar input seems like an obvious place to do fuzz testing. Just throw random stuff at it as fast as you can, and wait for a crash.

    25. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I just typed in numerous 16 character URLs, such as http://bbc.co.uk/ into that version of Chrome and it worked just fine. What you probably mean is typing in a URL made up of escape sequences that don't make a valid url.

    26. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! I mean Wow!

      So you build your stuff w/o ever looking at warnings?

      And on most intel architectures, it will segfault if it is run.

      CAP = 'tortures' -- I wonder...

    27. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you use fuzz testing.

    28. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is one reason it is so insensible when highly skilled software developers get worried over this idea that everyone is going to get some programming background.

      It's not the highly skilled developers who are worried; it's the other 90% of developers, who code up crap, that are worried.

      And they should be.

    29. Re:It's not just Chrome by lucm · · Score: 2

      The number of people on the internet who think that testing is a substitute for proof and/or that it can magically eliminate all bugs is pretty terrifying.

      True. Tests will tell you if something doesn't work, not if it does work.

      Automated tests are overrated anyways, they are more like a spell-check than a writing aid. I'd rather have a roomful of nonchalant, untrained users and unleash them on my product than trust the outcome of a series of tests written by biased developers.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    30. Re:It's not just Chrome by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      That is why you do automated regression testing.

      You don't just "do automated regression testing" Someone has to actually write the regression tests

    31. Re:It's not just Chrome by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Or have your customers/victims do your testing for you... Looking at YOU, Microsoft...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    32. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did not do it to me.

    33. Re:It's not just Chrome by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. Tests will tell you if something doesn't work, not if it does work. Automated tests are overrated anyways, they are more like a spell-check than a writing aid. I'd rather have a roomful of nonchalant, untrained users and unleash them on my product than trust the outcome of a series of tests written by biased developers.

      I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and function of tests. If I realized this code would break in some corner case, I would have handled it. No developer would write code that fails his own tests. Granted, sometimes the process of writing tests aids your understanding but in that case you'd improve the code. That is true even for test-driven design, if you don't fully understand all the conditions that need testing, the test will be flawed or incomplete and the code too. The primary function is to prevent existing, working test cases from breaking by accident. Because let's face it, we're imperfect beings working on imperfect code and I've managed to break my own code plenty of times without realizing it, not to speak of someone else's work. Or we're mashing up modules in a new way using them in ways they were never meant to work, testing is also about verifying assumptions. Also by "work" I mean defined behavior, like if you divide by zero it's not supposed to work but it's supposed to fail in a controlled way. Testing is supposed to preserve behavior when the implementation changes. If it was never planned and tested behavior in the first place, well you're going to find out it changed the hard way.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    34. Re:It's not just Chrome by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      It's amazing what this can find. And it's amazing how few "great programmers" do this. I suspect they aren't really that great.

      You can tailor the random to generate extra combos of escape % crap, too, to speed things up, but general random waiting for a crash should have easily found this kind of stuff.

      For that matter, an exhaustive search of all 1 char, then 2 char, then 3 char strings should find a 16 char one in reasonable time.

      Now here is where a self-styled "great" programmer would inject his lame self, and here is where truly great ones segregate themselves.

      "Great" programmer: That will take way too long, not to mention longer strings.

      You stupid, stupid great programmer. You recognize most normal characters might as well be the same w.r.t. parsing, and can thus bundle them into one single character (a white box analysis of code can look for special codes, sequences, and escapes that must be handled separately) and thus build strings of random those, and a single letter from the non-special normal ASCII or whatever set.

      Thus does the search space size collapse by orders of magnitude.

      See, "great" programmers? You have the thought process of a dead stinking tuna.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    35. Re:It's not just Chrome by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect this bug was introduced when they changed the code to support international characters in domain names. At that time, many of the old unit tests will have needed revision. Regression testing is great, but not effective when the required functionality is significantly changed. This is a bad bug, but not a criminal one. Good developers have been guilty of worse.

    36. Re:It's not just Chrome by lucm · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, I was unable to read your entire paragraph because of my policy on giving up early on boring stuff but from the few sentences I've managed to handle it seems to me that you're the kind of biased developer whose tests I would trust less than a roomful of nonchalant, untrained users.

      Automated tests are truly like spell-check. They are there to catch the easy stuff, not to prevent you from writing stupid things.

      I'm fairly confident that people working on Chrome have all the bells and whistles in terms of automated tests, but see, it takes a bored (or hostile) user to figure out that typing a specific series of keys in the address bar could break the browser. Because it's stupid and completely beyond the point of the address bar. In my opinion the desired behavior of the browser in such situation is irrelevant.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    37. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strlen("http://bbc.co.uk/") = 17

    38. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is one reason it is so insensible when highly skilled software developers get worried over this idea that everyone is going to get some programming background.

      As soon as it hits the fan--and it will--they'll need someone to fix it. And in many cases it will happen over and over and over again, and push costs higher than just hiring someone to do it right to begin with.

      I'm not worried.

      You should be worried if you are forced to use such a product. Say hello to systemd.

      https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-upgrade-default-init-system
      Read points
      5.6.7. systemd: issues SIGKILL too early [fixed in 8.1]
      and
      5.6.8. systemd: behavior of 'halt' command

      and read the mailinglist

    39. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just fired up Opera (12 because that's the last good version) and it just rewrote the URL to http://www.a.org/%00. Outdated software wins again!

    40. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Code. Code never changes.

    41. Re:It's not just Chrome by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      yeah, just a dab of regression testing and all bugs are squashed. why don't devs do more regression testing!!?!?!! WHY???

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    42. Re: It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unleash my 14 year old son on your code. I promise he will break it.

    43. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 90% should be worried, but ignorance is bliss.

    44. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, there should be no "weird interactions". All components should have a limited number of states and all interactions among components should handle all known states or at least reject interacting with a component that is in an unexpected state. It is the responsibility of a given component to have unit tests to ensure that only the known states can happen.

    45. Re:It's not just Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can write code that can only have certain scenarios. Don't just write code that "works", write code the works for the correct reasons. Understand why your code works and understand how it may not work. Throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks is a horrible way to write code. That being said, bugs happen. 1 bug per 1kloc may be the standard, but good programmers use fewer lines of code.

    46. Re:It's not just Chrome by jambox · · Score: 1

      It's at least nice to stop regressions. So, log the bug, someone adds a test to reproduce it, then either the same person or someone else can fix it. Then, whenever someone changes something you can prove that it hasn't reintroduced the same bug.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
  3. My computer is faster than yours! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Managed to recover chrome faster for the first post!

    1. Re:My computer is faster than yours! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Managed to recover chrome faster for the first post!

      Ouch. Firefox for the win.

  4. doesn't crash chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried it on Chromium. Didn't crash the browser.

  5. Didn't crash... by karolbe · · Score: 0, Informative

    Didn't crash on Linux - Chrome 44

    1. Re:Didn't crash... by lolococo · · Score: 0

      To try it yourself, fire up Chrome 45 (the latest stable version) or older [...]

    2. Re:Didn't crash... by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 2

      To try it yourself, fire up Chrome 45 (the latest stable version) or older [...]

    3. Re:Didn't crash... by HornyBastard · · Score: 1

      Version 45.0.2454.93 (64-bit)

      Did not crash. Just went back to about:blank

      --
      Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
    4. Re:Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand what "or older" means, don't you?

    5. Re:Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure... the older something is, the higher its age... so Chrome 44 is younger than Chrome 45.

    6. Re:Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. or on version 33.0.1750.152 that I have lying around (also on Linux).

      Also didn't have any effect on Chromium 37.0.2062.94 (290621).

    7. Re:Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's... Wait... I ain't even mad, nice job.

    8. Re:Didn't crash... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      Yea, 16 characters were not enough for me either. I also had to hit the ENTER key.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    9. Re:Didn't crash... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If that was German, I'd have a tasteless and really bad joke now. But this being English, the pun on younger/disciple is lost.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Didn't crash... by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      Komm schon, spucks aus

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    11. Re:Didn't crash... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Chrome 44 isn't older than Chrome 45?

    12. Re:Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Version 44.0.2403.89 Ubuntu 15.04 (64-bit)

      no crash here ... just a about:blank page

    13. Re: Didn't crash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time is relative to the observers perspective. Chrome is 45 versions old.

  6. Many eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Which begs the question: of the tens of billions of dollars Google sees each year, how much goes toward writing an automated test suite for their flagship client software?

    Which begs the question: how many people will ignore the question in favour of correcting my usage of "begs the question"?

    Which begs the question: how many Americans will read "favour" and think "fucking smartass Brit"?

    Which begs the question: how many British people will think, "Smartarse, surely"?

    Which begs the question: how many people are thinking, "Ok, this isn't funny anymore"?

    Which begs the question: how many people are now thinking, "Dude, this post was never funny"?

    1. Re:Many eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What was the question?

    2. Re:Many eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four! There are four questions being begged!

    3. Re:Many eyes... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Raises the question. Please.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    4. Re:Many eyes... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      When did you break your pedantrylessness vow?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:Many eyes... by Falos · · Score: 2

      I do have to appreciate a rousing game of Troll Solitaire.

    6. Re: Many eyes... by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't beg any of those questions. That's not what begging the question is.

    7. Re: Many eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It doesn't beg the question because that's not what begging the question is!" begs the question of why a post complaining about begging the question begs the question.

    8. Re: Many eyes... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Regrettably, it will ultimately mean what people mean it to mean.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re: Many eyes... by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      beggars opera
      (opera 32.0.1948.25 on Arch Linux succeeds to crash and restart)

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    10. Re: Many eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure, a lot of begging going on. Maybe a kick starter is in order.

  7. @Midnight by Macdude · · Score: 2

    New @Midnight game:

    Crash a Browser in 16 Characters

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re: @Midnight by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Crash a Browser in 16 Characters
      Crash an Economy in 3 characters. FRN.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    2. Re: @Midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edgy.

  8. Meanwhile, At Google... by Greyfox · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    "Oh shit! Someone found a buffer overflow in our browser. Someone increase MAX_CHARS for that field to 32!"

    "That's ridiculous! No computer can handle 32 things!"

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re: Meanwhile, At Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny.
      Reason: not relevant.
      Advice: learn to read, don't jump the gun.

  9. works on canary too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crashes Chrome Canary 47.xxx

  10. Chromium 45.0.2454.93 Crashes by behrooz0az · · Score: 4, Informative

    [6918:6918:0919/221732:FATAL:navigation_controller_impl.cc(927)] Check failed: active_entry->site_instance() == rfh->GetSiteInstance().
    Doesn't crash if the url is passed as an argument. Just opens up about:blank(not default behavior)
    4.1.6-1-ARCH x86_64 GNU/Linux

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  11. Not if it's old enough. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Apparently I've been neglecting Chrome on this old image for quite a long time. Chrome 21, Mac OS 10.6.8. No crash observed.

    1. Re:Not if it's old enough. by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Chrome 26, Windows xp.
      Url does not crash browser but hovering over link does crash tab.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  12. Thus Rust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Memory safety, folks. Get some.

    The `managed', garbage collected stuff is too slow, and the ancient `systems' languages are too fragile.

    One day, this silly shit will stop.

    1. Re:Thus Rust by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Rust cannot fix stupidity. It can add to it though, and from what I have seen of it, it does.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Thus Rust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All progress has its haters.

    3. Re:Thus Rust by gweihir · · Score: 1

      All demented fanatics ignore valid criticism.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. reminds me of the Win9x fileshare bug... by BabaChazz · · Score: 0

    Map a share on a Win9x box to drive X: on an NT box.

    At the NT command prompt, type
    dir x:????????*.*
    Crashes the Win9x box in 17 characters. In WinME they half-fixed it: the machine reports on a blue screen that the server service has crashed and offers to restart it. My suspicion is that the file name matches neither the pattern for the shortname or the longname, and so falls out the bottom of a test that was not designed to ever fail.

    Of course that's all ancient history now, and I expect Google may actually fix the problem eventually, unlike Microsoft who ignored the bug report.

    1. Re:reminds me of the Win9x fileshare bug... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More simply: Good old C:\CON\CON (or C:\AUX\AUX) ...

      In a terminal, in Internet Explorer (as a link or even as an image), and in File Explorer. In all cases, locally or through a network (crashing the machine you were connecting to...). 'Went on for quite some time, and it was well known. I'm not even sure they ever fixed it...

      Fun times at school.

  14. Interesting by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    creating a link this crashes and hovering the mouse over it crashes!
    It seems it's the %%30%30 which causes that (this should be unescaped as "%300").

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Interesting by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it should be unescaped to %00.

    2. Re:Interesting by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Correct, javascript doesn't unescape '%%'=>'%'...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  15. Here's a better story.... . by sanosuke001 · · Score: 0

    Here's a "better" version of the story...
    http://goo.gl/5WtI0B

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:Here's a better story.... . by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Broken link.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Here's a better story.... . by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      It's not broken, it's just dumb.

      curl -vL http://goo.gl/5WtI0B
      * Ignoring the response-body
      * Connection #0 to host goo.gl left intact
      * Issue another request to this URL: 'http://a/%2500'
      * Could not resolve host: a
      * Closing connection 1
      curl: (6) Could not resolve host: a

      But I couldn't get http://a/%2500 to break any of my browsers, so not sure what to do with that.

    3. Re:Here's a better story.... . by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I guess goo.gl is probably sanitizing the escape sequence to %2500 , bit.ly does the same thing.

      tinyurl.com does not... however it does appear to try to grab the source URL first, so http://tinyurl.com/qekdsr9 just kinda spins forever.

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/qek... leads to another page with a link to http://a/%%30%30 , which will crash Chrome if you bother to scroll down and mouseover it.

      As some people have sorta mentioned, the mouseover seems to just crash one tab, but actually manually typing it into the URL bar and hitting enter will crash the entire browser, just after it appears to rewrite it to %00.

    4. Re: Here's a better story.... . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My squid server squidy kicks back an error. Can't retrieve requested URL a :3

  16. I give this a name by magsol · · Score: 1

    "Browser Golf."

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
  17. Doesn't work on iOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried it in chrome for iOS, didn't do anything...

  18. Inconsiderate fool! by mspohr · · Score: 2, Funny

    I type //a/%%30%30 all the time! (It's the combination to my luggage)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Inconsiderate fool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darnit! I need to change the combination to my luggage.

    2. Re:Inconsiderate fool! by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I have the same password on my planet's air shield.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  19. No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aa

  20. DIdn't work here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure why. I have Version 43.0.2357.130 (64-bit) of Chrome on GNU/Linux. Fedora 22 64 bit.

  21. I can do it in 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ftp://a/%%30%30

    1. Re:I can do it in 15 by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      /. rewrites the urls that does nothing.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:I can do it in 15 by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Copy paste required. Otherwise good catch!

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:I can do it in 15 by pesasa · · Score: 1

      I can do it in 14:
      http://a/%%300

      Or in 13:
      ftp://a/%%300

      Or:
      file:///%%300

  22. No crash here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    43.0.2357.130 (64-bit) on OSX 10.10.5

  23. If only someone invented a way to properly parse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would make an excellent addition to the computer science field.

  24. Not the URL bar, but the search page? by Chas · · Score: 2

    Okay, put //a/%%30%30 in the URL bar. Didn't crash anything.

    Put it in the search box on the default search page and it puked immediately.

    45.0.2454.93

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Not the URL bar, but the search page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried highlighting the text, then dragging it to the omnibox. It puked the moment I pulled up with the mouse.

  25. I'll bet it's Omnibox by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    Google calls the URL bar "Omnibox", and it will search Google as soon as you start typing in it. I would suspect this is causing the problem, since a regular (non-Omni) URL bar is a very simple thing.

    I went to Settings to disable Omnibox and test my theory. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to disable the Omnibox in Chrome.

    1. Re:I'll bet it's Omnibox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get the idea that google would give you a way to NOT send them data?

  26. THE GOOGLES ONLY HIRES GENIUSES by floon · · Score: 0

    Yo yo da Googles be down wit da genius crowd, yo. My Googler bro's got them PhD's and janky links and whatnot.

    1. Re:THE GOOGLES ONLY HIRES GENIUSES by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Teh google used to be #1 on every new grad's hope list. Now #2 and trending down. See, no company can piss all over its public image, disrespect users and flip the finger to the volunteer development community entirely with impunity, not even teh google.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  27. How do they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even manage to do this.

    1. Re:How do they by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it took a lot of late nights to make it that fragile.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  28. Yes it did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm using that exact version and it crashed for me.

  29. Doesn't crash by koan · · Score: 1

    http://a/%2500

    Piffle...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. Fine here, more-or-less by seanellis · · Score: 1

    Chrome Version 43.0.2357.134 on Linux, just gets me a blank page.

    --
    Sean Ellis
    Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
    1. Re:Fine here, more-or-less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article, they tried only Mac and Windows. The Android devices were fine.

      With Chrome Version 44.0.2403.157 (64-bit) on Fedora I have no issues either.

  31. Tried it on Internet Explorer by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I tried it on Internet Explorer and not only did the browser crash, it billed me for $299.95. Also, every site I browse now appears to be Russian porn.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Tried it on Internet Explorer by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      every site I browse now appears to be Russian porn.

      Which apparently includes Slashdot. Is there some Slashdot section I don't know about?

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    2. Re:Tried it on Internet Explorer by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      every site I browse now appears to be Russian porn.

      Which apparently includes Slashdot. Is there some Slashdot section I don't know about?

      What, you've never seen the "Your Porn Online" section?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Tried it on Internet Explorer by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Which apparently includes Slashdot. Is there some Slashdot section I don't know about?

      Absolutely, the porn section is the only reason I come here. You didn't think I came here for the articles, did you?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Tried it on Internet Explorer by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      What, you've never seen the "Your Porn Online" section?

      Does it feature Bennett Haselton and CowboyNeal? :)~

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    5. Re:Tried it on Internet Explorer by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Also, every site I browse now appears to be Russian porn.

      Oh please tell me how to do this!

  32. Does not crash Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to TFS, it should work on v45 and older. It does not crash Chromium. I entered "http: //a/%%30%30" (without the quotes) then "http://a/%%30%30" (without the quotes) into the address bar, and it just took me to the Startpage web search in both cases (as it should). FWIW, I'm using Chromium Version 44.0.2403.89 Ubuntu 14.04 (64-bit), on Xubuntu 14.04.

    1. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Rei · · Score: 1

      Doesn't crash me either. google-chrome 43.0.2357.134, Fedora 22.

      --
      "This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers
    2. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot the space. i just crashed chromium under debian 8

    3. Re:Does not crash Chromium by bbruun · · Score: 2
      Same here on 44.0.2403.155 (64bit).
      Using the http://a/%2500 version just brings up a blank page and using just //a/%%30%30 brings up an unknown file page

      I'm fustrated, has /. become a text version of bad tumblr GIF's?

    4. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It does not crash Chromium.

      Crashes my Chromium quite nicely, thank you. About says it's "Version 45.0.2454.85 Built on 8.1, running on Debian 8.2 (64-bit)". Just entering it on the URL line doesn't do anything, but as soon as I hit enter, boom, Chromium just terminates. Ah, the joys of being up-to-date on your patches...

    5. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It crashes mine. Chrome beta 46.0.2490.33.

    6. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, no crash with Chromium 43.0.2357.130 Ubuntu 14.10 (64-bit).

    7. Re:Does not crash Chromium by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      Crashes (or more precisely: starts to redirect and then proceeds to close down all instances) as soon as I hit enter
      Chromium Version 45.0.2454.93 (64-bit) on Arch Linux

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    8. Re:Does not crash Chromium by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      crashes on 47.0.2503.0

    9. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      On 44.0.2403.89, I get that "http://a/%%30%30" does not crash, but "data:text/html,test" (sans quotes) does when you hover over the link. It seems to rewrite it into something safe(r) without the extra indirection.

    10. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be truly typed, not copy&pasted.

    11. Re:Does not crash Chromium by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Didn't crash Chrome v. 35.0.1916.153 either. It did make it go to my home page, which happens to be about:blank.

      SeaMonkey and PaleMoon just did "site not found".
       

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  33. I got the golden ticket by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mine just pulled up website with Larry Paige telling me I got the golden ticket and will am invited to tour the Google Chocolate Factory with my uncle Joe.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I got the golden ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine just pulled up website with Larry Paige telling me I got the golden ticket and will am invited to tour the Google Chocolate Factory with my uncle Joe.

      Put it up on Ebay; you should be able to retire!

  34. re by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 1

    NO crash with the current chromium on the current opensuse

    the website "a/%" fallowed by two zeros is just a bad url and it tossed

    --
    "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
  35. Chromium 44 = no crash by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Chromium Version 44.0.2403.89, Ubuntu 15.04. Changes "http://a/%%30%30" to "chrome://chrome/" and no apparent ill effects, including no crash. There is a reason why it is a good idea to let the Debian/Ubuntu devs do your QA for you.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Chromium 44 = no crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chromium Version 45.0.2454.85, Debian Sid *will* crash, so I'm not so sure that it's Debian/Ubuntu that's doing it for you.

    2. Re:Chromium 44 = no crash by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Interesting message from Safari after pasting the URL:

      "Safari can't open the page "a/%25%30%30" because Safari can't find the server "a". "

      So it translates % to %25, then %30 to %30 and %30 to %30. Interesting.

    3. Re:Chromium 44 = no crash by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You do know that Sid is officially unstable, I hope? Sid _is_ the QA.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. I doubt this actually works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just trying to rickroll you

  39. Not another a300 crash by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    There's a very long record of a300 (== a%%30%30) crashes dating back to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Not another a300 crash by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      There's a very long record of a300 (== a%%30%30) crashes dating back to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Are you sure? I think a%%30%30 becomes a%300 (where the last % has been escaped and is to be taken as a literal %.)

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  40. Gee, I tried a 16-character URL and it worked fine by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Informative

    Typing in a 16-character link and hitting enter, clicking on a 16-character link, or even just putting your cursor over a 16-character link, will crash Google's browser.

    Gee, I typed in http://sonic.com and hit Enter, and it worked Just Fine.

    Perhaps they meant to say "Typing in a particular 16-character link, clicking on a particular 16-character link, or even just putting your cursor over a particular 16-character link, will crash Google's browser."

  41. Version 44.0.2403.89 Ubuntu 14.04 is ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm using Version 44.0.2403.89 Ubuntu 14.04, and it's ok, so there's something weird here.

  42. Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I submitted this URL to reddit and now my profile page gives an error after loading.

  43. Doesn't crash *my* browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $ w3m http://a/%%30%30
    w3m: Can't load http://a/%%30%30.

  44. Only current tab crashes- to crash chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use this: ftp://a/%%30%30

  45. Incognito Mode by Pikoro · · Score: 2

    Copy and paste the url into incognito mode will crash all chrome processes, not just the new window. Interesting.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Incognito Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typed "http://a/%%30%30" without the quotes and it didn't crash old version of chrome and chromium.
      Tried with Chrome 15.0.874.121 and Chromium 40 and Chromium versions 40. It just displayed a blank page, if on new tab, and just refreshes the page if done in an opened tab. No crashes. Seriously.

    2. Re:Incognito Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome 42 on Ubuntu, url doesn't appear to do anything. Just clears the address bar and goes to an empty page.

  46. One upper by PRMan · · Score: 1

    I can do it in 15. ftp:// works too!

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  47. webfonts by suss · · Score: 1

    Not disabling webfonts using the "--disable-remote-fonts" commandline parameter with Chrome under Windows XP will get you random Chrome crashes and even BSODs while visiting Google sites like Youtube.
    Seems like an old win32k.sys vulnerability that was supposedly patched in 2009.

  48. What a buggy thing by lucm · · Score: 1

    "Look ma, I've put the chrome in the dishwasher and now it won't facebook, what a piece of crap"

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  49. Re:Gee, I tried a 16-character URL and it worked f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your pedantry must be a hit at parties.

  50. Yes it does crash Chrome .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    Version 46.0.2490.33 beta (64-bit) ..

  51. Re:Gee, I tried a 16-character URL and it worked f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, in particular, are a cunt.

    How's that? Particular enough for you?

    PS - cunt

  52. Is this article a gullibility test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [nt]

  53. Doesn't affect Chrome on Android by AcerbusNoir · · Score: 1

    Chrome v45 for Android is unaffected.

  54. Nothing happens. by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    I use chromium 34.0.1847.137 and ... nothing happens when I copy/paste that url (yes - I deleted that space).

    No Crash. No nothing.

    So I guess Google added something to their Chrome that breaks stuff.

    1. Re: Nothing happens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hit enter. Duh

  55. Yup, crashes Chrome (stable) 45 on Fedora x64 by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    I'm running Chrome-stable 45.0.2454.93-1 on Fedora 21 (kernel 4.1.6-100.fc21)

    It rewrote the URL as "a/%00" then paused for a moment before the window vanished. On restart, it displays the "Chrome did not shut down properly" message.

  56. Nope, crashed my whole browser. by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    I tested it as a solo tab, then again as a 2nd and 3rd tab. Every time, it kills the entire browser. (Chrome-stable 45 on 64-bit Fedora 21)

  57. I concur. by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    My GalaxyS5 is not affected, and it's running Chrome 45.0.24.54.94

  58. Problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Running it on XP I clicked send on the window offering to send a trouble report to Microsoft. I'm sure they'll have it fixed in a business day!

    1. Re:Problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old versions of Chromium under XP 32-bit won't crash. Will just refresh the current page.

  59. Re:Gee, I tried a 16-character URL and it worked f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. There is a 16 character URL. Clicking on a 16 character URL (that one, specifically) crashes the browser.
    What they didn't say is "any 16 character link".
    So, they got it right. (Actually, what they said was ambiguous/vague; they could have said "this 16 character link". I still say that "a 16 character link" describes the problem fine, accurately.

  60. Thanks for the tip! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just so happens I wanted to crash my web browser and I didn't know how. Now I do. Thanks, and happy crash landings everybody.

  61. Facebook URL Sharing... by fatp · · Score: 1

    Tried to share the URL in FB. It seemed trying to load the link forever. Wonder whether some threads (or whatever request processing mechanism) has crashed :)

  62. Bet Chrome team hasn't heard of "afl" yet* ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you use fuzz testing.

    Exactly. They have excellent tool developed by a talented researcher right there.

    *) at not least yet listed on that "The bug-o-rama trophy case" table afl page.

  63. Re:Does not crash Chrome on my Win7 laptop by elwinc · · Score: 1

    It does not crash the copy of Chrome running on my Win7 machine. I let the machine automatically update when it feels like it; the machine is currently running Chrome 45.0.2454.93

    When I paste http: //a/%%30%30 into the address bar, I seem to get a web search for 30 30, with the first two hits being .30-30 Winchester - Wikipedia & 30/30 Poetry. I get the exact same behavior pasting into the search box. So it seems the current default behavior is to treat a malformed URL as a text search.

    P.S. This meme should be a bonanza for the good folks at 30/30 poetry!

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  64. http://a/%%30%30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://a/%%30%30

  65. Re: Gee, I tried a 16-character URL and it worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not type ANY 16 char url, so being pedantic isn't even your thing.

  66. why this happened? root cause analysis by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

    Considering the product is made by some of the best brains and from a great company and used by billions of folks, how come this bug managed to hide so long? and how it got introduced in the first place? Reading that it's the presence of a NUL char, it seems two different software modules used different abstraction of a string -- may be one using a traditional NUL terminated string [C definition] and another module could be using a String class [where length is explicitly stored along with an array of chars]. I'm just guessing here -- so a string which breaks this assumption and passed across these modules triggered the crash path. So moral of the story.. when you use apples, use only apples; don't mix apples with oranges [In this case, the apple and orange where assumed to be identical..when they are not]

    1. Re:why this happened? root cause analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not really a bug! It was an intentional feature from Google and it has a different purpose, not just crashing Chrome browsers.

  67. Re: Does not crash Chrome on my Win7 laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get rid of the space

  68. Re:Does not crash Chrome on my Win7 laptop by Reziac · · Score: 1

    This starts to look like it's somewhere between browser and OS, rather than just in the browser. Or at least requires something from the OS to trigger the bug.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  69. .30/.30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A day later and it doesn't crash me on v45.
    I just got my duck duck go page talking about .30/.30 winchesters.

  70. Malicious test case development, not just fuzzing by billstewart · · Score: 1

    These days, there's enough spare CPU and virtual machines to throw around to do random-junk fuzzing, but decades ago when I was taking CS100, and we were being taught to never ever ever trust input and always check for corner cases and off-by-ones and other malformed input, we had to run most of our class programs against data sets that were designed to check whether we'd done everything correctly. Maybe your testers won't think of everything, but they ought to be putting as much effort into finding things that can go wrong and testing for them as the coders and designers are into coding and designing the code, and if you don't have enough QA people to do that, you don't have enough QA people.

    A QA engineer walks into a bar and orders a beer. Orders 32768 beers. Orders -1 beers. Orders a lizard. ...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  71. Chromebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried this on a Chromebook and sure enough it crashed. It is interesting when the browser on the Chromebook crashes because it feels as though the OS has crashed.

  72. Re:Does not crash Chrome on my Win7 laptop by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Looks more like a bug introduced in version 45. Of everybody giving their browser version, at least in this thread, everybody with version 45 and above gets a crash, while nobody with a version below 45 does. As opposed to summary, which says it's 45 and below.