Google forking WebKitPascal Cuoq - 4th Apr 2013
Blink as seen from the inside
As you have undoubtedly heard if you follow at all this sort of thing, as of April 3, Google is forking WebKit. Its Chrome browser will henceforth rely on its own variation of the popular rendering engine, Blink. This is big news. If I were Google, I would have pulled a Gmail and made this serious announcement two days earlier. Google security engineer Justin Schuh gives the inside scoop.
Something particularly strikes me in Justin's post. This post reacts to that aspect of Justin's and to that aspect only.
As of 2013 Cybersecurity is an unsolved problem
Let us be honest cybersecurity in general in 2013 is a bit of an unsolved problem. Despite this state of affair or because of it it can be difficult to get some of the concerned companies to recognize there exists a problem at all.
Fortunately some are more open than others regarding security. Google is more open than most and when an exceptional event such as the forking of WebKit justifies it someone there may remind us of all the Chrome team does for security in a convenient list:
[…] the Chrome security team has taken a very active role in WebKit security over the last several years and really led the pack in making Webkit more robust against exploits. We’ve fuzzed at previously unheard of scale <goo.gl/R718K> paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in bug bounties <goo.gl/PGr89> performed extensive code auditing fixed many hundreds of security bugs and introduced a slew of hardening measures. […]
My point is only tangentially relevant to web rendering engines so I am taking the above list out of context and adding my own punchline: despite of all these efforts measured in millions of dollars it is likely that there is still one exploitable security flaw in Chrome and it is possible that as you read this someone somewhere is exploiting this flaw.
To be very clear I am not blaming Google here. Google allocates the millions of dollars that cybersecurity warrants. It is open about how it uses this money; Google uses all the techniques that have proved their worthiness: random testing bug bounties code reviews defensive programming. I am only saying that cybersecurity is difficult since even doing all this does not guarantee absolute confidence. If you were to embed Chromium on some kind of connected device even after doing all the above you had better leave room in the design for regular software updates.