Also, more basic things: Cookie creation is blocked, but existing ones still are present and are transmitted. Also, javascript history disclosure attacks are not blocked. Timezone is of course still available as well. http://gemal.dk/browserspy/ In short, Google's policy with Incognito appears to be that it only will prevent stuff from being recorded to the local disk. Any remotely exploitable privacy vulnerabilities are not covered in the scope of the mode :/ This includes, surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), Google Search History. It is not even disabled automatically during Incognito mode: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=95464&hl=en-US Also, Chrome lacks any sort of cross-platform extension API with which to fix this.. Tears all around. Thus spake Kyle Williams (kyle.kwilliams@xxxxxxxxx): > Hi all, > > I've been playing around with Google's new web browser and Tor. I thought > it might be good to share my findings with everyone. > After reading Google's privacy policy[1], I for one would not want to use > this on a regular basis, if at all. > > The first bug I tried was an old one I found with Firefox; the NEWS:// URI > type. > Any link that has a NEWS:// URI will launch Outlook Express and attempt to > contact the server in the URL...without using Tor. > > The second bug I found resulted in local file/folder disclosure. > This is very similar to the one I found in Internet Explorer. > > The third bug I found was with MIME-TYPEs, specifically Windows Media Player > supported formats. > The BANNER tag can also leak your IP address when the playlist is loaded > *IF* WMP is not set to use a proxy. > Also, a playlist in WMP can specify protocols that use UDP, hence, no proxy > support...no Tor. > > On the flip-side, it is very cool how each browser tab is it's own process, > making several types of attacks much more difficult. > However, with an invasive privacy policy, local proxy bypassing, and local > files/folders able to be read from your hard drive, I've decided not to use > this browser. > > It just doesn't feel privacy/anonymity friendly to me. > Anyone else want to chime in on this? > > > - Kyle > > [1] http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html > (Basically states you have no privacy when using Chrome) -- Mike Perry Mad Computer Scientist fscked.org evil labs
Attachment:
pgpyLFUZZYCj8.pgp
Description: PGP signature