Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #244225 > unrolled thread

Chromium security updates

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-20 01:30 +0100
    Re: Chromium security updates harryweaver@tutanota.com - 2022-01-20 02:30 +0100
    Re: Chromium security updates The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-20 04:20 +0100
      Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-20 11:40 +0100
    Re: Chromium security updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2022-01-21 19:30 +0100
      Re: Chromium security updates Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2022-01-22 14:50 +0100
        Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-24 00:00 +0100
          Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-24 13:10 +0100
            Re: Chromium security updates Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2022-01-24 18:10 +0100
              Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-27 13:30 +0100
                Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-27 14:20 +0100
                  Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-28 20:00 +0100
                    Re: Chromium security updates Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 21:50 +0100
                      Re: Chromium security updates Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2022-01-28 22:20 +0100

#244225 — Chromium security updates

I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
(Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
(Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
security vulnerabilities?

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates

Debian 10 is supported until 2024.

https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#244227

20 Jan 2022, 10:08 by richmond@criptext.com:

> I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
> (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
> (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
> security vulnerabilities?
>
> https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
>
> Debian 10 is supported until 2024.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
>

Aside from the usual disassociation of version numbers, I'm possessed of a quiet confidence that the `giving back' factor would have some lack of alacrity to it, once the party concerned has what it wants.
Yes.
Colour me cynical.Cheers!

Harry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244229

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2022-01-19 at 19:08, Richmond wrote:

> I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212 
> (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99 
> (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has 
> security vulnerabilities?

Roughly speaking, yes, but there's background and context here.

First up: the version of Chromium in Debian stable, like that of every
other package in stable, will remain unchanged until such a time as a
new Debian point release is made. However, there may be updated versions
made available in stable-backports in the meantime. (I do not use
stable-backports myself, so anyone who knows better than I do may feel
free to clarify, amplify, or correct on this.)

Recent-ish-ly, there was discussion about dropping Chromium from Debian
entirely (except for the version in stable, which would remain unchanged
and quickly become stale), because the packagers couldn't keep up with
updating the packaged version against the upstream releases, and as such
vulnerable versions were being shipped for too long anyway. If I recall
correctly and my archives are accurate, the chromium package actually
*was* dropped from Debian testing at that point, with the most recent
release before the drop having been 93.0.4577.82.

I followed parts of that discussion, and from what I can tell, the
outcome of it was that more people stepped forward and took up
maintenance of the Debian packages for Chromium. Version 97.0.4692.71 is
now in Debian testing, and I understand that a stable-backports build
was pending, as of the last word in the part of the discussion I was
following (about a week ago now); that version, or a successor, should
make it into an updated version of Debian stable at some point.

That may not help very much for now, but it should give hope for the
future on this front, as well as bring relief that at least things
aren't going to be ending up getting that much worse.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244231

The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> writes:

> On 2022-01-19 at 19:08, Richmond wrote:
>
>> I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212 
>> (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99 
>> (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has 
>> security vulnerabilities?
>
> Roughly speaking, yes, but there's background and context here.
>
> First up: the version of Chromium in Debian stable, like that of every
> other package in stable, will remain unchanged until such a time as a
> new Debian point release is made. However, there may be updated versions
> made available in stable-backports in the meantime. (I do not use
> stable-backports myself, so anyone who knows better than I do may feel
> free to clarify, amplify, or correct on this.)
>
> Recent-ish-ly, there was discussion about dropping Chromium from Debian
> entirely (except for the version in stable, which would remain unchanged
> and quickly become stale), because the packagers couldn't keep up with
> updating the packaged version against the upstream releases, and as such
> vulnerable versions were being shipped for too long anyway. If I recall
> correctly and my archives are accurate, the chromium package actually
> *was* dropped from Debian testing at that point, with the most recent
> release before the drop having been 93.0.4577.82.
>
> I followed parts of that discussion, and from what I can tell, the
> outcome of it was that more people stepped forward and took up
> maintenance of the Debian packages for Chromium. Version 97.0.4692.71 is
> now in Debian testing, and I understand that a stable-backports build
> was pending, as of the last word in the part of the discussion I was
> following (about a week ago now); that version, or a successor, should
> make it into an updated version of Debian stable at some point.
>
> That may not help very much for now, but it should give hope for the
> future on this front, as well as bring relief that at least things
> aren't going to be ending up getting that much worse.

Thanks. I have belatedly discovered the wiki
https://wiki.debian.org/Chromium which suggests
https://wiki.debian.org/ungoogled-chromium which is also out of date. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244287

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jo, 20 ian 22, 00:08:52, Richmond wrote:
> I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
> (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
> (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
> security vulnerabilities?
> 
> https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates

The plan was:

https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security

Unfortunately both Firefox and Chromium proved to be much more of a 
challenge then expected at the time of releasing Debian 10 "buster" (now 
oldstable).

Firefox appears to be in slightly better shape (updated version 
available in bullseye/stable, still pending for buster/oldstable).

Updated Chromium for bullseye/stable appears to be imminent, hopefully 
buster/oldstable will follow.
 
> Debian 10 is supported until 2024.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

As per https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using not all packages are supported 
by LTS.


Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244327

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:20:26PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 20 ian 22, 00:08:52, Richmond wrote:
> > I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
> > (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
> > (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
> > security vulnerabilities?
> > 
> > https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
> 
> The plan was:
> 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security
> 
> Unfortunately both Firefox and Chromium proved to be much more of a 
> challenge then expected at the time of releasing Debian 10 "buster" (now 
> oldstable).
> 
> Firefox appears to be in slightly better shape (updated version 
> available in bullseye/stable, still pending for buster/oldstable).

In fact support for chromium in oldstable has been discontinued, see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2022/msg00012.html . 

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244460

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:20:26PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Jo, 20 ian 22, 00:08:52, Richmond wrote:
>> > I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
>> > (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
>> > (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
>> > security vulnerabilities?
>> > 
>> > https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
>> 
>> The plan was:
>> 
>> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security
>> 
>> Unfortunately both Firefox and Chromium proved to be much more of a 
>> challenge then expected at the time of releasing Debian 10 "buster" (now 
>> oldstable).
>> 
>> Firefox appears to be in slightly better shape (updated version 
>> available in bullseye/stable, still pending for buster/oldstable).
>
> In fact support for chromium in oldstable has been discontinued, see
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2022/msg00012.html . 
>
> Regards,
> Salvatore

I've built Version 100.0.4845.0 (Developer Build) (64-bit) and it seems
to be working fine here on debian 10.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244516

Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> writes:

> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:20:26PM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Jo, 20 ian 22, 00:08:52, Richmond wrote:
>>> > I see debian 10's chromium is currently on version 90.0.4430.212
>>> > (Developer Build), whereas google-chrome is on Version 97.0.4692.99
>>> > (Official Build) (64-bit). Does that mean it is out of date and has
>>> > security vulnerabilities?
>>> > 
>>> > https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
>>> 
>>> The plan was:
>>> 
>>> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately both Firefox and Chromium proved to be much more of a 
>>> challenge then expected at the time of releasing Debian 10 "buster" (now 
>>> oldstable).
>>> 
>>> Firefox appears to be in slightly better shape (updated version 
>>> available in bullseye/stable, still pending for buster/oldstable).
>>
>> In fact support for chromium in oldstable has been discontinued, see
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2022/msg00012.html . 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Salvatore
>
> I've built Version 100.0.4845.0 (Developer Build) (64-bit) and it seems
> to be working fine here on debian 10.

Not OK actually, it is very slow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244524

On 2022-01-24 12:44 UTC+0100, Richmond wrote:

>> I've built Version 100.0.4845.0 (Developer Build) (64-bit) and it seems
>> to be working fine here on debian 10.
> 
> Not OK actually, it is very slow.

The reason are probably enabled debug options.

Personally I am not satisfied with the security support for any browser
included in Debian, I just use original Firefox and Chrome (and
Thunderbird), which are easy to install. If you don't like/trust Google
but want to use a Chromium based browser, you might consider using
ungoogled-chromium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244676

Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> writes:

> On 2022-01-24 12:44 UTC+0100, Richmond wrote:
>
>>> I've built Version 100.0.4845.0 (Developer Build) (64-bit) and it seems
>>> to be working fine here on debian 10.
>> 
>> Not OK actually, it is very slow.
>
> The reason are probably enabled debug options.
>
> Personally I am not satisfied with the security support for any browser
> included in Debian, I just use original Firefox and Chrome (and
> Thunderbird), which are easy to install. If you don't like/trust Google
> but want to use a Chromium based browser, you might consider using
> ungoogled-chromium.

I used:

gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0 blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0"

But it seems slow on tweetdeck with high cpu usage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244678

Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> writes:

> I used:
>
> gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0 blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0"
>
> But it seems slow on tweetdeck with high cpu usage.

Now trying:

gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0
blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0 is_official_build=true
chrome_pgo_phase = 0"

If you are wondering what's causing the energy crisis, it's me compiling
chromium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244748

Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> writes:

> Now trying:
>
> gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0
> blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0 is_official_build=true
> chrome_pgo_phase = 0"
>

I've built this version and it is working well.

As the problem with chromium is caused by the debian build tools,
perhaps it can be provided from the stable version build as an appimage?

Or perhaps it can be built without the build tools and just provided for
selected architecture?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244752

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 12:57 PM Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> wrote:

> Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> writes:
>
> > Now trying:
> >
> > gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0
> > blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0 is_official_build=true
> > chrome_pgo_phase = 0"
> >
>
> I've built this version and it is working well.
>
> As the problem with chromium is caused by the debian build tools,
> perhaps it can be provided from the stable version build as an appimage?
>
> Or perhaps it can be built without the build tools and just provided for
> selected architecture?
>

Thanks for your work.
Can you explain briefly the meaning of these 2 build parameters?:
v8_symbol_level, chrome_pgo_phase

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244753

Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 12:57 PM Richmond <richmond@criptext.com>
> wrote:
>
>     Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> writes:
>    
>     > Now trying:
>     >
>     > gn gen out/Default "--args=is_debug=false symbol_level=0
>     > blink_symbol_level=0 v8_symbol_level=0 is_official_build=true
>     > chrome_pgo_phase = 0"
>     >
>    
>     I've built this version and it is working well.
>    
>     As the problem with chromium is caused by the debian build tools,
>     perhaps it can be provided from the stable version build as an
>     appimage?
>    
>     Or perhaps it can be built without the build tools and just
>     provided for
>     selected architecture?
>
>
> Thanks for your work.
> Can you explain briefly the meaning of these 2 build parameters?: 

> v8_symbol_level

This is to remove debugging symbols (presumably from the V8 javascript
code) which I hoped would speed things up.

chrome_pgo_phase

This I set to zero to prevent an error caused by setting
"is_official_build=true"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web