Google Chrome first look
- It's a front-end to WebKit much like Safari, with no bells-or-whistles
- The only add-ons are Web Inspector (from WebKit), Chrome's own Task Manager, and Chrome's own Java Debugger (they could have at least used Drosera which comes with Web Inspector / WebKit)
- The Google Updater software it installs runs as a separate process, is not a service, and installs itself into the registry to startup at boot
- Appears to somewhat utilize the Google Desktop API
- Wouldn't let me install Scroogle as the default search
- It does separate tabs by process. It gives them different Windows PID's, but the parent is still a Chrome process. I am guessing this isn't secure for XP, but on Vista it might be fairly solid
- Appears to support Flash, Java, QuickTime, et al out-of-the-box (note: this makes it just as secure as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox on Vista, which we all know have at least a few variations of attacks and exposure to at least some vulnerabilities)
- Does allow future search engines that conform to opensearch.org
Google Chrome is DOA (dead on arrival). Nobody is going to use a browser with such poor support and so completely unpolished. However, I agree with others' assessments: hopefully Google Chrome will make Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera aware of the several features such as tab-process separation (so that web application developers can also use this functionality).
Why didn't Google just do a request-for-comments or a peer-reviewed paper/presentation? What's the point of this loosely running code? I'm not sure yet, but it is possible that Google has left something out in their announcements and/or plans for this product.
From a risk assessment perspective, I can tell you that my threat-modeling spider sense went off from the moment of the download, was piercing my ears during the install, and became overstimulating during runtime. If security is the goal of this product, I'm afraid that Google has definitely failed.blog comments powered by Disqus