Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

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.

63 comments

  1. Homeland security is imperative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how many resources are required. /ComplexSystemFailure

  2. Dunno, more memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    64 bit only gives you 2x 32 bit so maybe should lay off Googlie. Leave my memory be!

    1. Re:Dunno, more memory? by erapert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      64 bit only gives you 2x 32 bit

      Incorrect. I'll take your nerd badge now. Security will see you out and we will mail your things to you next week. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    2. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      If you're professing to understand math you should understand units. It is 64 bits of address space, not 64 bits of memory.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Chrome 63 so not any of this matters yet. Come back when Chrome finally reaches to 64 and then all can converse intelligently.

    4. Re:Dunno, more memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh! Give the guy a break. He's only off by 18 quintillion.

    5. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are professing to understand units you should understand what a unit actually is. The unit is a bit. Just a bit. Bits of address space, bits of memory, it's all bits. A 64 bit address is twice the bits of a 32 bit address. 64 bits of memory is twice the bits as 32 bits of memory. A 64 bit address is twice the bits of 32 bits of memory. A 64 bit address space may allow much more than twice the addressable memory of a 32 bit address space, but that has nothing to do with units. Your pedantry is weak.

    6. Re:Dunno, more memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll. 2(2^32) isn't 2^(32*2).

    7. Re: Dunno, more memory? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I know what you're talking about, but "math" doesn't have address spaces. And 64 bits are still 2x 32 bits, which *can* be a problem in pointer-heavy software (think trees, not float matrices). Which means you may have to use more memory cells to do exactly the same thing. Or use a smarter environment than C/C++ that doesn't try to waste space in 64 bit fields when it doesn't need it, but then I'd be demanding too much from most programmers...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You clearly know nothing about C, C++, or hardware architectures. A good rule of thumb is to know what you are talking about if you are planning an attempting to condescend. You have violated that rule.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re: Dunno, more memory? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I clearly know nothing about this, having programmed in C for only a quarter century and having only done 6510, 8051 and 8086 assembly programming. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That's correct. If you don't know that C and C++ give you complete control over data sizes and allow you to use the hardware optimally, and that it is literally impossible to create a language that does better than that, you know nothing about it. There are plenty of C programmers who are clueless about the underlying details. You have shown yourself to be one of them by your absurd statements.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re: Dunno, more memory? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If you don't know that C and C++ give you complete control over data sizes and allow you to use the hardware optimally

      No, they don't. Just look at DataDraw to see what hoops you have to jump through to get over the limitations of C/C++ overspecification that prohibits major memory optimizations. C can't see the forest for the trees, hence major opportunities are hidden from it and only available either through tedious hand-holding or through building tools above that see further. The mention of C++ I will treat with silent contempt.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: Dunno, more memory? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to waste my time, but if you give an example of what you think C can't do I'll be glad to explain why you are wrong.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  3. Patronizing Douche Nozzles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they always joked about Emacs being its own "operating system."
     
    Everyone dumped Firesux because of its bloat and crashiness and retarded UI.
     
    Chrome is no better.
     
    Google: See No Evil.

    1. Re:Patronizing Douche Nozzles! by sims+2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I jumped to chrome when it was released because it was much faster at the time. At the time it meant giving up a lot of things that I used all the time like adblocking and a lot of site compatibility.

      Then there was firefox's memory leaks.

      Stuff worked with firefox not so much with chrome.

      Today there's not nearly as much of a difference in speed but there's not really much reason for me to switch back either I don't like what firefox has become but I still miss a few of the addons.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  4. Chrome 63's memory usage is lower than Firefox 57 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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 port them because WebExtensions is too crippled.

    I started evaluating Chrome after Firefox 57 broke my extensions, and I think I'll be sticking with Chrome. I find it so much faster, and I find it uses less memory. Firefox's extensions used to be a big win for it, but now that those are gone I find that Firefox has no advantage over Chrome, and really all it has now is a lot of disadvantages.

  5. SO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  6. Memory by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advantage to do what? display some text on the screen?

    2. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use what you need, no more. There's way too much bloatware out there now. Gigs of ram to do what? display some text on the screen? Insane.

    3. Re:Memory by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

      Why bother even wasting power on your unused memory then? Might as well unplug it and sell it for a few bucks. If it uses those extra unused gigs to display pages faster then who cares? People brag about how much ram they own then bitch when something actually uses it.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone has unlimited memory in their computer. Not everyone only looks at a single webpage at a time and never has anything running in the background.

      Why shouldn't Chrome do some crypto-mining using your spare CPU cycles. Your CPU is just sitting there doing nothing most of the time. Don't let spare cycles to go waste. Even better, for each efficiency gain Chrome adds it should increase it's mining time by the same amount. That way you can't even complain about extra heat or electricity. Chrome would have been using it anyway.

      Sure the CPU may heat up more, but so does using more memory. Memory wears out and goes bad too.

    5. Re:Memory by dremon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Memory by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Memory by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Why bother even wasting power on your unused memory then? Might as well unplug it and sell it for a few bucks. If it uses those extra unused gigs to display pages faster then who cares? People brag about how much ram they own then bitch when something actually uses it.

      It's there to be used, but not wasted. Just because my PC has 64 gigs of RAM, doesn't mean Chrome can use all 64 gigs. In fact, I want Chrome to behave itself - to use as much memory as it needs, but no more. And to be well behaved enough in its memory access patterns than should it get swapped out, it doesn't have to swap everything in just to become responsive again. (Firefox was bad at this - if even a little bit of Firefox got swapped out, it became unresponsive until it was completely swapped back in).

      Lots of things on my machine use lots of RAM. Enough that there's no "free" RAM - if Chrome isn't using it, it's being used by something else - a VM, another application, etc.

      Extra Chrome memory usage isn't a problem, provided if it gets swapped out, it can be relatively performant by not requiring everything be swapped back in. Even if Chrome needs 32GB of RAM, if it still performs great when the OS cuts it down to 2GB of RAM (rest in swap), then Chrome is good. But if Chrome requires the OS to swap in 8+ GB in order to respond to a click on a tab, then it's using too much RAM>

    8. Re:Memory by nashv · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    9. Re:Memory by Entropius · · Score: 1

      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 to behave itself.

    10. Re: Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Memory does not wear out through use, though. It gets refreshed umpteen times a second whether you store anything in it or not -- the wear is constant when the power is on.

      Heat will kill it faster, and higher CPU temp usually leads to higher Ram temp as well due to them sitting next to each other.

    11. Re:Memory by nashv · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  7. Who do you trust more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google or APK? Should you use Chrome? Or should you use his hosts file? Waste memory AND cpu with bloated software! VERSUS dealing with a DERANGED maintainer of a host blacklist? YOU decide WHO is SuPeRiOr.

    1. Re:Who do you trust more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK is GOOGLE, GOOGLE is APK.

      PS: Where does Firefox fit in this comparison?

  8. When will FF get these security features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will FF be getting these security features? If so, when?

  9. Re:Chrome 63's memory usage is lower than Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, its true, some programs are unnecessarily bloated and could be written a lot better, but so what? So Chrome or Firefox uses a lot of RAM? It isn't 1987 any more. We're not trying to squeeze every last bit that we can. RAM is cheap and plentiful. I just don't get all of this constant wankering about memory use.

    If you have RAM just sitting there unused, what good is it? Seriously. What is the point of having RAM in a computer that isn't used?

  10. Re: Chrome 63's memory usage is lower than Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diff AC here. The problem I have with FF and how it uses way too much memory is that it affects my other processes. I do web dev and programming so I have editors and documentation and VMs and compilers and lots of other software running. Chrome plays nicely and uses a reasonable amount of memory. But FF often goes crazy and uses many GB of RAM. Even though I have 32 GB of RAM, FF using 9 GB of it can cause swapping which slows down my computer. FF doesn't leave enough free RAM for my VMs and large parallel C++ compilations and GIMP.

  11. Re:Firefox is just as bad as Chrome for tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn .. so all turn off able. Google, on the other hand is Google and snooping 24/7.

  12. Whatever, not enabled, but what about new freezes? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    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?

  13. Use is different from waste! FF wastes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome uses memory. It does something practical with it, and it doesn't use an unreasonable amount. FF, on the other hand, wastes memory, in my experience. FF doesn't do any more than Chrome does, but for some reason it uses a lot more memory. FF can use so much memory that it causes swapping, which then ruins the performance of my computer. Chrome doesn't seem to do that.

  14. Just one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't work. One of the reasons why I don't use Chrome is because I've had tabs crash that take the whole browser with it.

  15. More money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I misread the headline as "Chrome 63 Offers Even More Protection ..., Using Even More Money ".

    And it's probably true, browser makers are blowing loads of cash to add more features to web browsers.

  16. Best protection vs. malicious threats online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & NEW APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking vs. infection built-in)

  17. Quoted /.ers speak for me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised" - by mmell on Thursday February 16, 2017

    "I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good" - by BronsCon on Thursday February 11, 2016

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant on Monday August 10, 2015

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg on Friday September 25, 2015

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock on Wednesday September 09, 2015 (#50489401)

    "I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home" by OrangeTide on Friday December 01, 2017

    "I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK. Ever heard of him?" by 110010001000 on Friday October 27, 2017

    APK

    P.S.=> Need more? Ask... apk

  18. apk tries to speak for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a handy list of people who put themselves at risk.

  19. Re:Better idea to secure Chrome by theweatherelectric · · Score: 0

    forked from FireFox 4, at 1/10th the size of Mozilla's current crap, and supports everything Quantum does

    Seems unlikely. I just installed Firefox 4. None of the benchmarks on Browser Bench worked and the page itself didn't render correctly. I went to YouTube and got a message saying "Oops, your web browser is no longer supported.” I ignored the message and tried to play some videos anyhow but nothing worked (maybe it would work if I installed Flash, but YouTube works in the latest Firefox without Flash). I tried Vimeo and none of the videos worked there either.

    And it's actually faster.

    Didn't seem to be. Page load and render seemed slower and was frequently incorrect. Firefox 4 is too far behind these days. Just use the latest Firefox and be happy.

  20. Ahh, web browsers... by phozz+bare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. My code was audited by malwarebytes... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My code's audited by malwarebytes personnel proven safe & every antivirus @ VirusTotal proves it Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking vs. infection of it built-in)

    * EAT YOUR WORDS UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous troll (amicusNYCL)!

    APK

    P.S.=> As usual, I always win, via facts (vs. "your kind"'s bullshit)... apk

  22. Should one trust nonfree SW w/ said access? by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  23. You use revenge tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're unhinged and it is likely that on a whim you will substitute a bad hosts file in place of the one that malwarebytes has checked.

    PS => hosts file is not "code".

    CAPTCHA: violator

  24. Re:Better idea to secure Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You failed to read where they said "forked from FireFox 4"

    As in, they put their own code into it.

    More stupidity from 7-digit UIDs.

  25. Re:Better idea to secure Chrome by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

    As in, they put their own code into it.

    Cool, where can I download it? It is hosted on GitHub?

  26. You project YOU do all you say I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject + YOU stalk me by UNIDENTIFIABLE posts amicusNYCL after EATING YOUR WORDS https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11415277&cid=55646849/ https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11420419&cid=55704671/ & more you BROUGHT ON YOURSELF!

    * It's obvious you're also PROJECTING you are 'unhinged' too - Unbelievable! Classic & Hilarious...

    (I can't do what you also said - my program doesn't UPLOAD anything anywhere! It only downloads hosts from 10 reputable security community sites...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly: I never said hosts are code - & NOW You're also stooping to trying to put words in my mouth I NEVER SAID ontop of you PROJECTING you yourself are "out for revenge" too? BOTH = Weak (like you), lol... apk

  27. Chrome better watch out. by ShamblerBishop · · Score: 1

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

  28. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will it protect me from Tah Google?

  29. Re:Chrome 63's memory usage is lower than Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I just don't get all of this constant wankering about memory use.

    From top:
    5 GB Virtual 2 GB Resident for Thunderbird.
    4 GB Virtual 2 GB Resident for Firefox.
    35 GB Virtual 2 GB Resident for LibreOffice;

    I don't have enough RAM to fire up another program.

    I remember when 1 GB was enough RAM to fire up an office suite, web browser, and email client, and still have enough free RAM to load another program.

  30. Re:Better idea to secure Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you try the Firefox subreddit ? It seems better suited for your special abilities.

  31. APK is a confirmed liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject & and if didn't already know

    My code's audited by malwarebytes personnel proven safe & every antivirus @ VirusTotal proves it Safe

    P.S.=> Lastly: I never said hosts are code

    We know you lie. We know you try to get executables on every /.ers machine. We know you are manipulating host files entries to make attacks on your "enemies".

    ZIP

  32. I'd love to be on EVERY system... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: My goal is to help IMPROVE the situation out there as I have the ability + means to do so (which ought to be ANY REAL MAN's GOAL when & if possible, time permitting).

    * That's the idea in my book/life & my "++" inspiration = the great Charlie Chaplin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ/

    (Apparenty not yours as an UNIDENTIFIABLE "ne'er-do-well" troll!)

    I don't do ANYTHING to the imported data but sort/deduplicate & convert (blocking IP addresses used) + filter vs. false positives from 10 reputable security community sources - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> FACTS: People like my work & use it here on /, even (tall order, stiffest critics I've ever seen in 20++ yrs. or more online) https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11458575&cid=55704295/ & my code is SAFE AS IT GETS - uninfectable in fact (keeping users of it safer & getting them going faster + more reliably online) https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11458575&cid=55704683/ & NEITHER OF THOSE is a lie, liar (concrete verifiable UNDENIABLE truth from me)... apk