| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. |
| 4 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium |
| 5 |
>> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's |
| 6 |
>> not a small app to build). |
| 7 |
>> Why is its code so, should I say prone to bugs, compared to |
| 8 |
>> other browsers? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You've made an assumption there. Correlation implies causation? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Perhaps there's more bugs found because of the bounties paid? Or maybe |
| 13 |
> its because the code is newer than the alternatives.... I don't think |
| 14 |
> its possible to make a judgement based on the information I have. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
At least one of the "multiple vulnerabilities" bugs linked to a Chrome |
| 17 |
update notice which didn't list any vulnerabilities. (Well, except a |
| 18 |
Flash update, which I didn't dig into) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
:wq |
Archives