Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Well maybe it should have defaulted to a more restrictive scheme rather than a less restrictive scheme. I agree with that. The default should have been to move to next most restrictive option in each case. Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Mike wrote: Maybe I'm a little hard nosed when it comes to stuff like that but users should read the default security settings The problem here is that Facebook changed the defaults and applied the changed defaults to existing data. I don't use Facebook. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Amos Shapira amos.shap...@gmail.com writes: 2009/12/14 Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net: Amos Shapira amos.shap...@gmail.com writes: My main blocker against using it for now is that apparently it saves passwords in cleartext. More seriously, apply regular Unix permissions to the file, so that it is only readable to you. (Better, apply that to your whole home directory.) The idea is that if the keys are encrypted on the disk then even if the disk gets stolen (e.g. together with the laptop it's in) then the thieves won't gain access to my passwords. Maybe I should consider encrypting my entire home directory (I think ubuntu offers such an option) but there is really not much to hide there besides my online passwords. You could just encrypt the .config directory, I guess. That is a fair point, though, and not really one I was thinking much about when I wrote that. Besides - Firefox provides it (actually I think it's a separate module which is shared with other Mozilla projects) so why can't Chrome? Oh, there isn't any reason it can't. It just doesn't. :) Really, though, it should be a damn standard thing in Linux, rather than this crazy expectation that Firefox should have anything to do with securely storing secrets. Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
this is completely off topic but you'd know if you used facebook that when those changes went through the users were prompted upon login that security settings were changed. For the users that clicked through those prompts without reading or customizing anything, they got the defaults. it's not as if Facebook changed the settings without telling the users. I wouldn't normally side with Facebook but this isolated incident was totally pebkac On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo mle+s...@mega-nerd.com wrote: Mike wrote: Maybe I'm a little hard nosed when it comes to stuff like that but users should read the default security settings The problem here is that Facebook changed the defaults and applied the changed defaults to existing data. I don't use Facebook. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Mike Andy wrote: this is completely off topic but you'd know if you used facebook that when those changes went through the users were prompted upon login that security settings were changed. For the users that clicked through those prompts without reading or customizing anything, they got the defaults. it's not as if Facebook changed the settings without telling the users. .. and further, they nagged users about the fact that they were going to do it for at least two weeks before-hand. Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Terry Dawson wrote: Mike Andy wrote: this is completely off topic but you'd know if you used facebook that when those changes went through the users were prompted upon login that security settings were changed. For the users that clicked through those prompts without reading or customizing anything, they got the defaults. it's not as if Facebook changed the settings without telling the users. .. and further, they nagged users about the fact that they were going to do it for at least two weeks before-hand. How? Messages when they logged into Facebook? Was there a tick box that said Yes, I understand the implications of these changes? What if someone wasn't able to log into Facebook between when the warnings started and the change was made (sick on vacation, whatever)? Did they send emails? Did they require an acknowledgement email saying Yes, I understand the implications? Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:39:32PM +1100, Mike Andy wrote: this is completely off topic but you'd know if you used facebook that when those changes went through the users were prompted upon login that security settings were changed. For the users that clicked through those prompts without reading or customizing anything, they got the defaults. it's not as if Facebook changed the settings without telling the users. I wouldn't normally side with Facebook but this isolated incident was totally pebkac Partly but not totally pebkac. You would expect that your settings not be changed - i.e the 'defaults' should have been the ones closest to your existing settings. It was pretty underhanded or at least lazy of facebook in my not so humble opinion. The facebook founder himself buggered it up and his profile was public for a while, which was ... nice :-) The details are all over the net. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: How? Messages when they logged into Facebook? Was there a tick box that said Yes, I understand the implications of these changes? There might have been. :) I can't remember to be honest. What if someone wasn't able to log into Facebook between when the warnings started and the change was made (sick on vacation, whatever)? Did they send emails? Did they require an acknowledgement email saying Yes, I understand the implications? There is a difference between telling people something and ensuring that they understand it. Frankly, ticking a checkbox means nothing more than than the user has read the message. That's important, but it's no proof of understanding. Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Terry Dawson wrote: There is a difference between telling people something and ensuring that they understand it. Frankly, ticking a checkbox means nothing more than than the user has read the message. That's important, but it's no proof of understanding. What I was getting at was that Facebook sent a message but changed things without ensuring that the message had be received by the recipient. For recipients who they could not confirm receipt of the messages there should have no change. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Terry Dawson wrote: There is a difference between telling people something and ensuring that they understand it. Frankly, ticking a checkbox means nothing more than than the user has read the message. That's important, but it's no proof of understanding. What I was getting at was that Facebook sent a message but changed things without ensuring that the message had be received by the recipient. For recipients who they could not confirm receipt of the messages there should have no change. I don't think no change was an option. How long do you realistically wait? I suppose they figured that you hadn't logged in for two weeks you probably didn't care. What if it had been twelve months, would that have been better? Terry -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Terry Dawson wrote: I don't think no change was an option. How long do you realistically wait? I suppose they figured that you hadn't logged in for two weeks you probably didn't care. What if it had been twelve months, would that have been better? Well maybe it should have defaulted to a more restrictive scheme rather than a less restrictive scheme. If your ssh daemon can't validate a user with LDAP should the daemon left them in anyway or deny the user entry? Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Morgan Storey m...@morganstorey.com writes: I'd contest that last statement, yes it is faster than any other browser at the initial loading from my experience with it on windows, but a better net experience... when it has adblock plus and no script then I will look at it more seriously. https://chrome.google.com/extensions?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=ad+block No no-script extension yet, however. :) Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Thanks for the news. It's in repository for Debian: deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free main Dmitry. 2009/12/9 Alex iamajaya...@gmail.com: For all linux guys Google Chrome for Linux beta has been released. http://www.google.com/chrome check it out for faster browsing and better experience on net.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
When I looked at some evaluations on Google Chrome the alarm bells went off. I'm keen to know what the general consensus is on the whole Google/Linux/privacy issue... Whilst the following Chrome criticisms were posted back in 2008, one wonders about the ethical processes for Google's need to introduce something akin to keylogger in the first place and are some of these concerns still valid today http://blogs.computerworld.com/chrome_googles_biggest_threat_to_your_privacy and the subsequent follow up http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114369/Google_bends_to_Chrome_privacy_criticism Do you trust that Google have addressed these concerns adequately? Is the average Linux user concerned about their computing privacy? Is Google Chome a threat to the security of Linux machines? Meryl -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
My main blocker against using it for now is that apparently it saves passwords in cleartext. -Amos On 12/13/09, Morgan Storey m...@morganstorey.com wrote: I'd contest that last statement, yes it is faster than any other browser at the initial loading from my experience with it on windows, but a better net experience... when it has adblock plus and no script then I will look at it more seriously. Plugins in FF are what make ff great, not the browser itself nessesarily, just as the fleaxability of Linux makes it great not just the openness. That doesn't mean I am not going to install it, I always have at least two browsers on my system, then again Dillo I would say still loads faster :P On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Alex iamajaya...@gmail.com wrote: For all linux guys Google Chrome for Linux beta has been released. http://www.google.com/chrome check it out for faster browsing and better experience on net.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Amos Shapira amos.shap...@gmail.com writes: My main blocker against using it for now is that apparently it saves passwords in cleartext. Blame the Linux desktops for not having a single, sane standard like the MacOS KeyChain that provides a nice, independent mechanism for storing these with whatever security policy you prefer. ;) More seriously, apply regular Unix permissions to the file, so that it is only readable to you. (Better, apply that to your whole home directory.) By the time someone can obtain read access to it you have almost certainly already lost the fight to keep your data secure, since they either have root, or have access to your UID, and so can do much nastier things. Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Meryl, The particular issue around auto-suggestion in Chrome is really just embedding what has been in the standard http://google.com.au search box from any browser. Anything you type in that box is going back to Google in order to provide a suggested search string that it thinks in likely what you were going to type any way. And as the article suggested you can turn that feature off, or if you are more concerned you have opportunity to examine the source code to determine what other things it might be sending back. In my opinion most of the articles that highlight how much Google (or Facebook or Yahoo) know about us are really only amplifying what most people already know. At least Google are really upfront about what they use it for, it is the orgainisations that squirrel it away, and have next to zero stated policy or safeguards that are more of a concern. Regards, Martin martinvisse...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, meryl gnu...@aromagardens.com.au wrote: When I looked at some evaluations on Google Chrome the alarm bells went off. I'm keen to know what the general consensus is on the whole Google/Linux/privacy issue... Whilst the following Chrome criticisms were posted back in 2008, one wonders about the ethical processes for Google's need to introduce something akin to keylogger in the first place and are some of these concerns still valid today http://blogs.computerworld.com/chrome_googles_biggest_threat_to_your_privacy and the subsequent follow up http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9114369/Google_bends_to_Chrome_privacy_criticism Do you trust that Google have addressed these concerns adequately? Is the average Linux user concerned about their computing privacy? Is Google Chome a threat to the security of Linux machines? Meryl -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Martin Visser wrote: In my opinion most of the articles that highlight how much Google (or Facebook or Yahoo) know about us are really only amplifying what most people already know. It would probably help all us common folk it something like this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20091212/tc_nf/70579 happened to all of the executives of Google/MS/Yahoo/Facebook/MySpace/whatever. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 10:04 +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote: Blame the Linux desktops for not having a single, sane standard like the MacOS KeyChain that provides a nice, independent mechanism for storing these with whatever security policy you prefer. ;) GNOME Keyring, anyone? Now I have a reason to blame all those KDE users for being so divergent. ;) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:29:20PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: Thanks for the news. It's in repository for Debian: deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free main Dmitry. For Fedora-ists, you can install Chrome from yum (see the official download page) or install it's open source cousin chromium by putting the following in a file /etc/yum.repos.d/chromium.repo [chromium] name=Chromium Test Packages baseurl=http://spot.fedorapeople.org/chromium/F$releasever/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=0 and running yum install chromium -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
thank you everyone for all your feedback thoughts on Google Chrome. At the end of the day, as Daniel says, our real privacy controls are at our fingertips. I did enjoy Erik's article on Facebook, LOL thanks Erik ! cheers, Meryl -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
2009/12/14 Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net: Amos Shapira amos.shap...@gmail.com writes: My main blocker against using it for now is that apparently it saves passwords in cleartext. More seriously, apply regular Unix permissions to the file, so that it is only readable to you. (Better, apply that to your whole home directory.) The idea is that if the keys are encrypted on the disk then even if the disk gets stolen (e.g. together with the laptop it's in) then the thieves won't gain access to my passwords. Maybe I should consider encrypting my entire home directory (I think ubuntu offers such an option) but there is really not much to hide there besides my online passwords. Besides - Firefox provides it (actually I think it's a separate module which is shared with other Mozilla projects) so why can't Chrome? Thanks for the suggestion. --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
Maybe I'm a little hard nosed when it comes to stuff like that but users should read the default security settings and set them as need be, much like the iPhone virus, if people read that they should change their passwords then they would have avoided the headache. Install on Arch linux through the AUR / yaourt etc... It's not in pacman yet. On 14/12/2009, at 10:29, Erik de Castro Lopo mle+s...@mega-nerd.com wrote: Martin Visser wrote: In my opinion most of the articles that highlight how much Google (or Facebook or Yahoo) know about us are really only amplifying what most people already know. It would probably help all us common folk it something like this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20091212/tc_nf/70579 happened to all of the executives of Google/MS/Yahoo/Facebook/ MySpace/whatever. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
For all linux guys Google Chrome for Linux beta has been released. http://www.google.com/chrome check it out for faster browsing and better experience on net.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Google Chrome for Linux !!!
I'd contest that last statement, yes it is faster than any other browser at the initial loading from my experience with it on windows, but a better net experience... when it has adblock plus and no script then I will look at it more seriously. Plugins in FF are what make ff great, not the browser itself nessesarily, just as the fleaxability of Linux makes it great not just the openness. That doesn't mean I am not going to install it, I always have at least two browsers on my system, then again Dillo I would say still loads faster :P On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Alex iamajaya...@gmail.com wrote: For all linux guys Google Chrome for Linux beta has been released. http://www.google.com/chrome check it out for faster browsing and better experience on net.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
