10/21/2021 0 Comments Chrome Waiting For Cache Mac
There are some closed tickets that indicate that the issue has allegedly been fixed, but Ive been able to reproduce this crash on three different macs using fresh installs of Chrome.The waiting list is three months long, but no job is too small (an. The bug is a showstopper the solution is to restart the browser. Theres a known bug where Chrome will completely lock up in this 'waiting for cache' state due to some sort of SSL issue.Sandboxing on the Windows variant of Chrome was a “complicated affair”, says Chromium developer Jeremy Moskovich, but for the Mac version, it’s all a bit easier and more straightforward. You probably won’t realise it’s there, but from a security point of view, sand-boxing is one of the most impotant factors in browser security, as it severely limits the amount of damage a security hole can do: sure, you’ve got a hole in the browser, but thanks to sandboxing, you’re pretty much locked in – until you break out of the sandbox, of course. One of the defining features of Google’s Chrome web browse is its sandboxing feature.
Select all folders by press command-A 4. Wirte following /Library/Caches > Go 3. Moreover, it can make the Chrome browsing experience slow and unstable.mac clear cache 1. When you are dealing with Waiting for proxy tunnel, the web pages don’t load even with an active internet connection. If you are facing the same issue, follow the below steps to fix waiting for proxy tunnel problem in Chrome. ![]() Chrome Waiting For Cache Software For TheMy guess is that any final release for the Mac is still a way off, with the Linux version taking even longer.No, I didn’t. While Linux’ diversity on all levels is a blessing in that it allows for natural selection and competition, it’s also a curse for developers trying to write an application that can work well on as many distributions as possible.I personally tested the recent Mac builds of Chromium on my Intel Mac (PPC is not supported because the V8 JavaScript engine isn’t available for PPC), and while it rendered pages just fine, it was still full of bugs and crashed constantly. That means no network access, and very limited or no access to files and Mach ports.” After this it gets a bit technical, so to prevent misquoting or errors on my end, I suggest you read the rest of the blog post to get an idea of how it works on Mac OS X.Again, we see a case where the fragmentation in Linux as a hindrance to companies releasing software for the platform. In our case we lock down the process pretty tightly. Sticking /home/ on its own partition and re-using it is something that I’ve done several times, is not particularly unusual, and not something that I think a given distribution’s security policy should add (several) extra steps too.Shorter version: SELinux isn’t important enough to be worth me doing a lot of homework.Edit: Actually, I think I did do something along the lines of relabeling it. It probably should “just work” in most cases, and it should only require the user to do a lot of learning and configuring if the user wants to do something that’s outside of, say, 95% of the normal use cases. Most of the other distributions I’ve used manage to get along fine without it (or, they’re very good at preventing me from noticing it): I wasn’t going to go to much effort to get something working that I wasn’t convinced I really, desperately needed.I guess my point is that, if you want most/all main-stream distributions to ship and enable SELinux, it needs to be much, much more unobtrusive and self-configuring than it is. It is not the fault of SELinux, but just an example of how the lack of standardization sometimes hurts the “end user”. It’s great to tell them to fill out a bug report, but it is not practical for most (by the way, I do report bugs in my distro, Ubuntu, at Launchpad).Most users are just trying to use their computers for daily work, and thus will either disable SELinux or use something else. My point wasn’t to get “help” for my individual issues, but just to point out the difficulty for the end user with SELinux. Other times it is an app that comes with the disto (networks apps in general come to mind). Some of the apps are 3rd-party apps and are really the application creators fault, such as the above Lotus Domino. That was the point that I said, “this thing isn’t worth the hassle,” and turned it off.I think many are missing my point – yes, each problem app can be resolved eventually (e.g., Lotus Domino Server on RHEL 5.0 – the install for Lotus Domino specifically instructs the user to turn of SELinux). The selinux troubleshooter in Fedora 10 and 11 is pretty damn good about telling you what to do to fix your selinux issues when their is a denial. Simply run restorecon /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplugin.so or whatever it is… then it will work.You can use chcon to change the context of a file if you want to do it manually as well or if you know another file that has the correct cotext you can use chcon –reference to fix the target file.And I know you’re saying why the hell do I need to know all that and even a little more… but in truth you really don’t. The easiest example I can think of:You extract the flash plugin and it is created in your home directory so now it has the context:Now you move it to /usr/lib/mozilla/pluginsMoving a file retains it’s context (copying would create the new copy with the correct context) so now it’s wrong. Velamma episode 8 pdf creatorThat’s true with every software, as you add more features to the software you also increase the chances of a bug hiding there.On the other hand, Google has a lot of money so it could hire a guy (or more) who knows how to “break” things and have him try to bring the browser down. It’s difficult if not even impossible to create a bug free software, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying, no? Google has an army of programmers so even if a bug is found it could quickly be fixed and pushed to the “clients” via an automatic update mechanism.Adding a security framework made by someone outside of Google is another vector for attacking Chrome, since if a bug is found in the security framework then Google wouldn’t have a way to fix the problem and will have to wait for a fix. To claim that ‘sand boxing’ is for the lazy is akin to saying that, “only wimps wear helmet’s”, “only bad drivers wear safety belts” and “only speeders need air bags”.All of you are right. Or disable the pluginI’d love for you to locate these angels of coding – these people who can magically put out hundreds of thousands of lines of code without a single error because apparently for the last 30 years the software industry have been using the wrong person maybe a CEO can give you a courtesy call as to finding out the location of these programming wizards that you claim exist.I for one want to see more sand boxing, isolating of plugins, tabs, extensions and so forth so that when one crashes the whole thing doesn’t come down in a screaming heap when one component has a security problem the whole software stack doesn’t become a giant hole that a 747 could fly through.You call it lazy, I call it good old fashion common sense facing reality and doing something about mitigating those risks. And regarding the plugins… collaborate with the plugin developer to fix whatever bugs are found. They should code without any bugs in the first place so there won’t be anything that a hacker could find to crash/exploit the browser. The obvious candidates are AppArmor and SELinux. Mozilla is fixing bugs in Firefox all the time and still the user base increases.Ideally, it’d be easy on Linux. History has also shown us that many users don’t switch the browser they like even if bugs are found… see the Internet Explorer share so there is no risk in announcing that you found a bug and FIXED it. It’s no shame to say “hey, we found a bug and we fixed it already, please upgrade”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobbie ArchivesCategories |