

Anatomy of a hack: 6 separate bugs needed to bring down Google browser - felipe_csl
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/05/anatomy-of-a-hack-6-separate-bugs-needed-to-bring-down-google-browser/

======
slaven
The scary part was the limitation that hackers weren't allowed to exploit
Windows vulnerabilities. When you think of how many unpatched Windows 7 (or
older) machines are out there it's no wonder botnets keep growing..

~~~
fennecfoxen
I thought the scary part was the pink my-little-pony wielding a battle-axe
that Pinkie Pie chose as his ("his?" ... i assume) mascot. ;) But then,
different things scare different people different ways, and maybe I've just
become numb the Windows-scare already.

~~~
Zirro
Actually, that "pink my-little-pony wielding a battle-axe"-pony is Pinkie Pie
(<http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/Pinkie_Pie>) ;)

She's known for being able to break the fourth wall (unlike the other ponies
in FiM) and doing other "impossible" things, which I'm figuring the hacker may
have connected to breaking out of a sandbox.

You may also want to see:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/My_Little_Pon...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_fandom)

------
sparknlaunch12
Where do many of these hackers come from? What is their background?

I ask, as wish to know at a high level what tools and code they are using to
find and exploit Chrome.

------
unreal37
The article makes it sound like since "6 separate bugs" were needed to bring
down Chrome, it proves that its a more secure browser (than presumably IE or
Firefox). But in 10 days a teenager found 6 bugs in Chrome in 2012? That
doesn't sound more secure.

~~~
Xlythe
It's probably easier to find bugs the deeper you get. There's the assumption
that you're authorized, and fewer people get that deep so exploits come up
less. It's far from ideal, but most of the issues are listed as low (2) or
medium (2). Only one is listed as high (though the last is undisclosed).

