Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 20 Jul 2018, 14:12
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 4 of 15 [224 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 17:28    Post subject:  

***NEW VERSION***

The current version, 53.0.2785.143 (with Pepper 23.0.0.162), released during the last 24 hours, is now available for download from the usual location.

This particular release fixes two CRITICAL CVEs; 2016-5179 & 2016-5180. According to the blog notes:-

Critical CVE-2016-5179: Incorrect validation of writes to paths on stateful partition.

Critical CVE-2016-5180: Heap overflow in c-ares.

Google go on to add:-

"Access to bug details and links may be kept restricted until a majority of users are updated with a fix. We will also retain restrictions if the bug exists in a third party library that other projects similarly depend on, but haven’t yet fixed."

This is probably a Windows vulnerability, but as demonstrated by stuff like Heartbleed and Shellshock in recent years, Linux is not invulnerable. Accordingly, I will suggest that in this case, it would be a good idea to upgrade as soon as.

Link as above in post #1. Please remember, as highlighted at the beginning of the previous page, these are manufactured in the older version of Slacko64, based on 14.1; not the newest release, based on 14.2. I haven't got there yet, and don't intend to for some little while to come.

Enjoy, as always. Any probs, I'm not going anywhere!


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
rufwoof

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 2393

PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 18:22    Post subject:  

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/c-ares

Debian Jessie was marked vulnerable, now marked as fixed for 2016-5180, so looks like not just Windows. Can't say I recall seeing it come through in updates however (I don't tend to look that closely so could easily have passed me by). I have Chromium installed from Debian repository.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 21:14    Post subject:  

Hi, rufwoof.

Well, it was released less than 36 hours ago. From what I recall from my time with Ubuntu, a couple of years ago, the repo maintainers aren't that much 'on the ball'; the available versions of Chromium, for instance, were always 3 or 4 versions behind. Even FireFox was never less than 2 versions behind.

But then, as I recall, installing Chrome in the Debian-based distros always entailed also installing the Google repo.....in theory to update itself. Trouble is, the update mechanism doesn't function under Linux like it does in Windows...

I simply keep an eye on the Chrome release and development blogs, and make use of the stable & beta release channels. Nothing magical about it.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 127
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Sun 02 Oct 2016, 22:24    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
***NEW VERSION***

The current version, 53.0.2785.143 (with Pepper 23.0.0.162), released during the last 24 hours, is now available for download from the usual location.

This particular release fixes two CRITICAL CVEs; 2016-5179 & 2016-5180. According to the blog notes:-

Critical CVE-2016-5179: Incorrect validation of writes to paths on stateful partition.

Critical CVE-2016-5180: Heap overflow in c-ares.



Thanks for the updated version... it seems to work OK.

A question about Chrome... the options are somewhat skimpy as
opposed to Opera or Firefox. I was looking for something like 'applications'
where you can tell the browser how to open certain filetypes.

There is a traffic camera sight here which apparently uses an MS format
of some kind. Once downloaded, the videos play nicely in GNOME MPlayer.

I would like to tell Chrome to use MPlayer for that filetype rather than
just downloading, but there is no 'applications' options other than their
extensions (which does not have a suitable application).

The link to the site in question is:

http://sparks.nvwx.com/reno_ndot_cams.php

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Wed 05 Oct 2016, 16:21    Post subject:  

Hi, orrin.

I've been researching this high & low the last day or two. Seems there is no way to accomplish this within Chrome. If the functionality is there, it's so deeply buried it just can't be found.

None of the blogs and/or Google forums seem to have an answer on this at all. Sorry I can't help with this one.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 127
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Wed 05 Oct 2016, 19:10    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
Hi, orrin.

I've been researching this high & low the last day or two. Seems there is no way to accomplish this within Chrome. If the functionality is there, it's so deeply buried it just can't be found.

None of the blogs and/or Google forums seem to have an answer on this at all. Sorry I can't help with this one.


Thanks Mike, for your efforts!

On another subject, I found an extension to Chrome called 'Cache Killer' which keeps Chrome from caching anything.
The pages load a little slower, but it seems to stop the occasional system freeze when the 1G of memory is filled with browser crap!

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
drunkjedi


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 897

PostPosted: Thu 06 Oct 2016, 01:47    Post subject:  

I tried editing /usr/local/bin/xdg-open for that, but couldn't get it to run in vlc by clicking on it. It goes to downloads.

I copied first cam's link,
http://wms.its.nv.gov/wme_-_i80_at_robb_dr
and it plays nicely in vlc when I select open network stream.
But I noticed the link changes from http:// to mmsh://

I have really bad internet since a week. I will look at this more later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 127
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Thu 06 Oct 2016, 21:46    Post subject:  

drunkjedi wrote:
I tried editing /usr/local/bin/xdg-open for that, but couldn't get it to run in vlc by clicking on it. It goes to downloads.

I copied first cam's link,
http://wms.its.nv.gov/wme_-_i80_at_robb_dr
and it plays nicely in vlc when I select open network stream.
But I noticed the link changes from http:// to mmsh://

I have really bad internet since a week. I will look at this more later.


Don't bother.... the workaround is to use the copy of Firefox that came with my Slacko 64-6.3.2, It plays then just fine... it would just be nice to be able to do everything in one browser!

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 15 Oct 2016, 05:56    Post subject:  

***NEW VERSION***

The current version, 54.0.2840.59, released during the last 24 hours, is now available for download from the usual location.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/l8lkuo39z6gq8/Chrome_SFS_packages

This release has fixed a whole heap of vulnerabilities. I'm not listing them, but here's a link for anyone who's interested:-

https://googlechromereleases.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html#gpluscomments

I will say this much; the Linux version appears to run smoother, and a wee bit faster, than previously. I'm impressed. Naturally, I'm posting from it now..!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There's also a new method of obtaining PepperFlash for Chrome.

Chrome no longer ships with PepperFlash installed within the new release. If you look in /opt/google/chrome, you will see there is no PepperFlash folder any more.

When I first realised this, I was all excited; I thought Chrome had finally gone all HTML5! No such luck.....

What now happens is as follows:-

1) Enter 'chrome://components' into the address bar, and click on it, or just hit 'Enter'. (You may wish to bookmark this, for future use.)

2) You'll see a list, as below:-



3) Look down to where my cursor is pointing. When you first open this page, Adobe shows version '0.0.0.0', because it's not installed. Simply click on 'Check for update', and.....all things being equal, it will fetch & install the current version of Pepper direct from Adobe. Couldn't be simpler!

It doesn't create a 'PepperFlash' folder, though......and doesn't place 'libpepflashplayer.so' in a user-accessible location; it appears that Pepper is now contained within, and runs from, the Chrome binary itself. This 'Components' page has existed within Chrome for many, many releases.....but this particular function hasn't worked within the Linux version until now.

Simplest way to check which one's installed.....go to 'chrome://version'. Pepper is listed here.

Of course, this does mean that from this release onwards, there will be no need for a PepperFlash .pet, if Adobe updates Flash before the next version of Chrome comes out. Simply update Pepper from within Chrome itself.....making it a bit closer to the version of Chrome produced for Windows, which has been far more automated for long enough.

I will, of course, continue to produce the PepperFlash .pets. Not everybody constantly runs the newest versions.....especially if you're on 32-bit!

Any problems, you know where I am. Enjoy!


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 127
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Sun 16 Oct 2016, 21:17    Post subject:
Subject description: Slacko 64-6.3.2
 

Hi Mike,

I got version 54 and it seems to be working OK, but when I went to
'chrome://components', Pepper was already there!

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Mon 17 Oct 2016, 10:04    Post subject:
Subject description: Slacko 64-6.3.2
 

orrin wrote:
Hi Mike,

I got version 54 and it seems to be working OK, but when I went to
'chrome://components', Pepper was already there!


Hi, orrin.

What can I say? Lucky you!

It's possible this new system continuously checks for updates, and downloads automatically.....though I'd be surprised if it did. Linux has always been the 'poor relation' when it comes to proprietary technologies; we're usually way down the list of development priorities.

We'll have to monitor this and see what happens.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 127
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Mon 17 Oct 2016, 12:36    Post subject:
Subject description: Slacko 64-6.3.2
 

Mike Walsh wrote:


Hi, orrin.

What can I say? Lucky you!

It's possible this new system continuously checks for updates, and downloads automatically.....though I'd be surprised if it did. Linux has always been the 'poor relation' when it comes to proprietary technologies; we're usually way down the list of development priorities.

We'll have to monitor this and see what happens.


Maybe that's what it did! When I started the new version for the first time,
it took a while before it came up! I thought it was broken and was
about to go back to '53'.... then it appeared! I did not notice if there was
internet activity during this time.

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Mon 17 Oct 2016, 16:03    Post subject:  

Mm. I frequent Bleeping Computer quite a bit. One of their members is also on the Peppermint OS forums.....they've been batting this back & forth for the last couple of days..!

https://forum.peppermintos.com/index.php/topic,4475.0.html

We're not the only ones furiously trying to work out what to do...(and how to do it!) But this is what I love about open-source, and Linux in general;as soon as a problem rears its head, people dive in head-first, all around the world, to 'have a go' at fixing it..!

orrin wrote:
Maybe that's what it did! When I started the new version for the first time,
it took a while before it came up! I thought it was broken and was
about to go back to '53'.... then it appeared! I did not notice if there was
internet activity during this time.


That's the one thing everybody is noticing; the delay. Easily explained by the fact that it's no longer reading instantly from a pre-installed 'local' file.....it's having to download it first, before it becomes a 'local' file. And then it's got to be extracted before it can be used... It's not instantaneous..!

And of course, trying to get straight answers from Google about the workings of Chrome is like trying to get blood out of a stone; they're as cagey as hell about what proprietary stuff they add to Chromium, when they transform it into Chrome. No Google staff member on any of the product forums will give you a straight answer to a straight question. I think they're all training to be politicians!

(Either that, or news-readers. Or trying to get into Public Relations; another bunch of idiots who won't give you a direct answer to anything..!)


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
belham2

Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Mon 17 Oct 2016, 18:48    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
Mm. I frequent Bleeping Computer quite a bit. One of their members is also on the Peppermint OS forums.....they've been batting this back & forth for the last couple of days..!

https://forum.peppermintos.com/index.php/topic,4475.0.html

We're not the only ones furiously trying to work out what to do...(and how to do it!) But this is what I love about open-source, and Linux in general;as soon as a problem rears its head, people dive in head-first, all around the world, to 'have a go' at fixing it..!

orrin wrote:
Maybe that's what it did! When I started the new version for the first time,
it took a while before it came up! I thought it was broken and was
about to go back to '53'.... then it appeared! I did not notice if there was
internet activity during this time.


That's the one thing everybody is noticing; the delay. Easily explained by the fact that it's no longer reading instantly from a pre-installed 'local' file.....it's having to download it first, before it becomes a 'local' file. And then it's got to be extracted before it can be used... It's not instantaneous..!

And of course, trying to get straight answers from Google about the workings of Chrome is like trying to get blood out of a stone; they're as cagey as hell about what proprietary stuff they add to Chromium, when they transform it into Chrome. No Google staff member on any of the product forums will give you a straight answer to a straight question. I think they're all training to be politicians!

(Either that, or news-readers. Or trying to get into Public Relations; another bunch of idiots who won't give you a direct answer to anything..!)


Mike. Wink


Mike, there's a clear & direct reason why Google has been acting this way recently, It all has to do with their impending launch of their new OS----which is going to blend Chrome & the old Chrome OS desktop completely with the world of Android, all in a new secure-oriented environment. If you think they are cagey with stuff in Chrome right now, it is just going to keep getting worse. Word is, whether the Chromium team(s) know it or not, they are eventually, possibly quite soon, going to be cut out for good. Google is making good on their promise to go to a complete walled, vetted garden with this move of theirs, hopefully to eventually run over their new Internet (with new protocols) they are developing (and hence why they've been spending billions laying dark fiber all over the freaking planet, along with their cities they are set up for high-speed Internet access.

Next 10-12 months is going to be a volatile as hell time to be a Chromium user......I've done moved away from it completely, and have swallowed the pill that when I need Chrome for certain things, I use Google Chrome, but only for that. Otherwise, it's the fat, slow, bloated turtle of FF for everything else.....until Google can clearly set how this new OS is going to function. Remember; this new OS is NOT going to be based on Linux. it's gonna be 'gut-check' time for the Linux world these next two years, unfortunately. Google supports currently supports quite a bit of the ecosystem in Linux, whether people realize it or not. Question what's going to happen to this going forward. One thing that scares me is their move to completely build their own servers (chips, boards, etc, etc...the whole 9 yards) which other companies are also doing, but Google's are definitely not going to be running Linux. That's a big 'ugh...'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3917
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Mon 17 Oct 2016, 19:50    Post subject:  

Hi, belham2.

Mm. So from what you're saying, it rather sounds as though Google have every intention of becoming 'The Internet'; period. And I suppose anybody who doesn't use their OS is going to have a very restricted access to the real web.....

That'll be the the biggest monopoly in the history of mankind.

And you're trying to tell me that if Linux as a whole doesn't watch out, it'll be pushed right out of the picture? From what you're saying here, it sounds as though Google have been covertly laying down the biggest infrastructure of all time, on the QT, without anybody else having a clue what they're up to. I'm sorry, but I've got one thing to say to that:-

BOLLOCKS.

Man, you've been watching too many 'conspiracy theory movies...' I know Google have got some grandiose ideas, but I don't see everybody else rolling over & laying down without one hell of a fight.....can you, in all honesty? Unless, of course, they've also been making making secret, back-room deals with all the hundreds of other tech companies who are needed for a smoothly-functioning web.

I take the view 'Better the devil you know', but even so; Google ain't that big that they can do everything themselves.....and just put two fingers up to the rest of the planet..!

Nope; your calculations are way out somewhere along the line, old son.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 15 [224 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0956s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0237s) ][ GZIP on ]