Google Chrome to abandon older versions of Windows and Mac OS X April 2016

Back in November of 2015, Google made an unwelcome announcement which was some very bad news for older Windows and older Mac OS X users.

On their Google Chrome Blog posting at that time, Google announced that it will stop providing updates to Google Chrome for the following Windows and Mac OS X versions;

• Windows XP
• Windows Vista
• Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard)
• Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion)
• Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)

NOTE: Linux 32-bit Distribution users see the end of this article for your sad news too, but most of you are already aware of this since it happens this month!

This does not mean Google Chrome will stop working in these OS versions — which would almost be better security wise. Instead, Google has decided to simply stop providing updates to the installed versions of Google Chrome for these OS versions.

This is very bad news since Google Chrome has Flash built in (which is updated as needed with Google Chrome). These older versions of Windows and Mac OS X will be doubly vulnerable. Over the years, these users have gotten used to not having to update Flash separately like you need to do in other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Opera, earlier versions of Internet Explorer, Pale Moon, etc.
Because Flash is built in to Google Chrome, these abandoned users will not be getting the Flash updates either.

This will make these older versions of non updated Google Chrome extremely vulnerable to browser attacks from infected websites. Malware purveyors will quickly begin to adjust their attacks (if they have not already in anticipation of this change) to look for these older vulnerable systems using outdated/vulnerable versions of Google Chrome as new attack vectors for these abandoned Windows and Mac users.

Those thinking that being a Mac user will make you impervious to attack, think again. Browser attacks are one thing that every operating system including Windows, Macs and Linux have been subject to these days. Sure Windows users get hit more often but that is because they are the biggest user base and they have the largest target on their back, but Mac users and Linux users can still get hit at times if they have outdated operating systems, Flash, Java, etc. Even Android has been hit by a banking trojan these days – reported March 9, 2016 by ESET’s We Live Security Blog.

With other browsers, you could simply remove Flash from the system and be done with it if you were concerned about it and didn’t mind losing the ability to see YouTube videos and other Flash supported content on other websites. Although, with HTML5 support coming right along, that could be moot.

Some might be quick to blame Adobe Flash, but apparently this is not the case as Adobe is quick to point out in at least two places that they support these OSes:

• Adobe Flash – Archived Flash versions
• Adobe Flash Player – Tech Specs

Plus other browsers such as Firefox clearly still support these OSes and Flash on these OSes. However, they will have to update their supported browsers to NOT include Google Chrome after April 2016 unless Google rethinks all this for at least a couple of the newer, of the older, OS versions. 😉

If Google does not give a reprieve/stay of execution, once Adobe makes their final update to Adobe Flash in April 2016 and Google updates Google Chrome the final time for these OS version users that includes that last Flash version, it will apparently be the last Google Chrome AND thereby Flash update that these Google abandoned OSes will see Google based on the Google Chrome blog article posted November 2015.

Google has been very quiet on the subject since that date so no reprieve or stay of execution even for the newer OS versions to be abandoned; Windows Vista and Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion).

It seems quite harsh to drop support for these two OS versions (Vista and Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)) since Google supported the earlier noted OS versions like Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) for so many years! But there it is.

If you are using one of these older OS versions of Windows or Mac OS X, read it and weep for the loss of a great browser like Google Chrome, and make be wise to make the move to Mozilla Firefox newest version to-date 44.0.2 (STILL supports Mac OS X 10.6 Mountain Lion), or Opera (however NO support for Mac OS X 10.6 Mountain Lion, but does support Lion and Mountain Lion), which have not, so far, abandoned these users. But they are not the only players still in the game…

There is also another browser project that has gained a lot of popularity among Windows users — the Pale Moon browser. There are versions for Windows: Pale Moon, Pale Moon 64, Portable. There are also versions for:  Atom/XP, Linux and Android on the Download tab on the website.

There is also a Mac OS X version of Pale Moon 26.1.1 Unofficial available as of February 2016. As noted on their forum page:

Important note:
The Mac OSX version of Pale Moon is still very much in development. Your assistance in bringing this build to fruition is greatly appreciated, but you can expect there to be bugs and problems for a while yet!
Any specific bugs you find that don’t have their own topic yet: please make a new topic; one bug per topic please to keep things organized.
Please also note that these builds are currently created by BitVapor and Moonchild will likely not be able to provide insight or assistance due to lack of Mac hardware and OS/build knowledge for Mac.

Windows XP Vista already shows No Support Yellow Info band in Google Chrome

Those using these older versions of Windows (See image to the right), and Mac are already getting an annoying yellow warning info band across the top of their Google Chrome browsers.It is advising them to move to a more modern operating system. Wise move on Google’s part and it also servers to show that they  do not appear to be backing down from their November 2015 announcement.

That means Google Chrome users will need to do something to address the issues by either upgrading to a more modern operating system where possible, getting a newer computer with a more modern operating system since all of these operating systems are older and most have been abandoned by their creators anyway except Vista which is coming next April 2017 (preferable security wise), or barring all that, changing to a supported browser, or using an extension to address the old version of Flash issue (see end of article posting).

If you move to another browser, it will be very important to keep Adobe Flash updated since only Google Chrome in Windows 7, 8.1 and Windows 10, or on Mac OS X: Mavericks, Yosemite and El Capitan! will include Flash updates automatically with browser updates after April 2016.
NOTE: In addition, in Windows 8.1, the latest versions of Internet Explorer (IE10, IE11), and of course the new Edge browser on Windows 10 include Flash built in and updated for you like Google Chrome does.

Older versions of Windows and Mac are not the only users to be abandoned/axed by Google Chrome in early 2016. ALL 32-bit Linux distribution versions are also being abandoned — this month — March 2016 as noted in BetaNews, Slash Dot, and PCWorld and other news outlets back in November and December 2015.

Even though many and maybe even most computers these days are 64-bit, there are still a lot of 32-bit computers and 32-bit operating systems in use around the world today so this may be a move forward for 64-bit, but it is also a sad day for all the 32-bit hardware/operating systems worldwide.

Of course, there are still several browsers like Firefox, Opera and Pale Moon available for Linux 32-bit computers —  just as there are for Windows and Mac users. There are also some alternative browsers based on Firefox available (Pale Moon noted earlier here is included), and distro-specific versions of Firefox like Iceweasel in Debian Linux, etc.)

For all users of Google Chrome, there are some Flash blocking or control Extension possibilities that can protect everyone, but particularly these older users from having Flash run all the time if they choose to continue to use Google Chrome:

• uBlock Origin
• Flash Control

Critical Java SE update due Tuesday fixes 40 flaws

Critical Java SE update due Tuesday fixes 40 flaws – The Reg

And yes, most are remotely exploitable

According to Oracle’s security announcement, the patch pack addresses 40 different vulnerabilities. All update levels of Java SE 5, 6, and 7 are affected by the flaws, as are all versions of JavaFX.

Of the 40 bugs, all but three are remotely exploitable over a network without the need for a username or password.

Oracle plans to release its latest Java SE Critical Patch Update on June 18, 2013.

Watch for it and install it if you have Java installed on your system. If you are sure you don’t need Java for anything, it would be best to uninstall it or disable it until the update, or at least disable Java in your browsers.

Certificate Authoritities, DigiNotar, GlobalSign, OSes, Browsers, Adobe, more

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]DigiNotar Breach Affected 531 Certificates (Tom’s Hardware):

The break-in in Certificate Authority (CA) DigiNotar back in July was much worse than previously thought.

A preliminary analysis of the incident now claims that there have been 531 fraudulent certificates. The hackers may have explored DigiNotar’s servers for the first time in early June and gained control on June 17. The company detected the hack on June 19, but failed to prevent the creation of the first rogue certificate on July 2. The hacker activity apparently ended on July 22.

As a Aryeh Goretsky stated at Scot’s Newsletter Forums noted so succinctly:

DigiNotar, a company which issues digital certificates used to establish cryptographically-secure connections to web sites, was hacked, and over 500 certificates were acquired for high-profile web sites. Amongst other things, this would allow someone* to monitor what would otherwise be secure, private connections to those sites. Passwords, emails, personally-identifiable information and other sensitive data could be viewed by someone* who would otherwise not be able to see that information.

*Such as a government, ISP, or government-owned ISP.

Aryeh, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

And highlighting the fact that it could be a government, ISP, or government-owned ISP is spot on to the concerns.

There was recently an article that suggested that this has already happened in Iran.

Hackers steal SSL certificates for CIA, MI6, Mossad (Computerworld):

Criminals acquired over 500 DigiNotar digital certificates; Mozilla and Google issue ‘death sentence’
…
Among the affected domains, said Markham, are those for the CIA, MI6, Mossad, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft’s Windows Update service.
…
Google has pointed fingers at Iran, saying that attacks using an ill-gotten certificate for google.com had targeted Iranian users.

Much more in this two page article where a link to Markham’s blog details more about this:

On Monday August 29th at 6.30pm BST Mozilla was informed by Google about a misissued certificate for *.google.com which was being used in active attacks on users in Iran. This certificate was chained to the root of the Dutch CA “DigiNotar”. Since that notification, I have been part of the Mozilla team working on our response.

…

The CNs concerned were as follows:

*.10million.org
*.balatarin.com
*.google.com
*.logmein.com
*.microsoft.com
*.mossad.gov.il
*.skype.com
*.torproject.org
*.walla.co.il
*.wordpress.com
addons.mozilla.org
azadegi.com
DigiCert Root CA
Equifax Root CA
friends.walla.co.il
login.yahoo.com
Thawte Root CA
twitter.com
VeriSign Root CA
wordpress.com
http://www.cia.gov
http://www.facebook.com
http://www.sis.gov.uk

So much more in Markham’s blog posting.

Delay in disclosing SSL theft put Iranian activists at risk, says researcher (Computerworld)

The delay in disclosing a theft of the digital certificates for some of the Web’s biggest sites, including Google, Skype, Microsoft and Yahoo, put Iranian activists’ lives at risk, a researcher argued Wednesday.

But I think EFF explains the issues best.

Iranian Man-in-the-Middle Attack Against Google Demonstrates Dangerous Weakness of Certificate Authorities (EFF)

What’s worse than finding a worm in your apple? Finding half a worm.

What’s worse than discovering that someone has launched a man-in-the-middle attack against Iranian Google users, silently intercepting everything from email to search results and possibly putting Iranian activists in danger? Discovering that this attack has been active for two months.

People all over the world use Google services for sensitive or private communications every day. Google enables encrypted connections to these services in order to protect users from spying by those who control the network, such as ISPs and governments. Today, the security of this encryption relies entirely on certificates issued by certificate authorities (CAs), which continue to prove vulnerable to attack. When an attacker obtains a fraudulent certificate, he can use it to eavesdrop on the traffic between a user and a website even while the user believes that the connection is secure.

The certificate authority system was created decades ago in an era when the biggest on-line security concern was thought to be protecting users from having their credit card numbers intercepted by petty criminals. Today Internet users rely on this system to protect their privacy against nation-states. We doubt it can bear this burden.

This latest attack was reportedly caught by a user running the Google Chrome browser in Iran who noticed a warning produced by the “public key pinning” feature which Google introduced in May of this year. Basically, Google hard-coded the fingerprints for its own sites’ encryption keys into Chrome, and told the browser to simply ignore contrary information from certificate authorities. That meant that even if an attacker got a hold of a fake certificate for a Google site—as this attacker did—newer versions of the Chrome browser would not be fooled.

Certificate authorities have been caught issuing fraudulent certificates in at least half a dozen high-profile cases in the past two years and EFF has voiced concerns that the problem may be even more widespread. But this is the first time that a fake certificate is known to have been successfully used in the wild. Even worse, the certificate in this attack was issued on July 10th 2011, almost two months ago, and may well have been used to spy on an unknown number of Internet users in Iran from the moment of its issuance until it was revoked earlier today. To be effective, fraudulent certificates do not need to have been issued by the same authority that issued the legitimate certificates. For example, the certificate in question here was issued by a Dutch certificate authority with which Google had no business relationship at all; that didn’t make it any less acceptable to web browsers.

Much more in the article…

This problem is not only related to issues of privacy related to people who’s lives would be in danger, but also, victims of malware purveyors as well.

Cryptographic keys for SSL sites are only as good as the honesty of the holder and issuer of those keys, as well as the honesty and security diligence of the issuer, in this case DigiNotar.

They would like us to think that SSL is extremely safe, but it’s not as safe as those who issue them would like us to believe either. Anyone with money can purchase a SSL certificate, and there have been malware purveyors that have also bought them so folks would ‘feel’ secure. If you see the lock, you think, “Safe”. That’s what they want you to think.

However, just like anyone can purchase what is considered a ‘legitimate’ SSL certificate, good, bad or indifferent, there are worse things.

‘Legitimate’ SSL certificates can be created by site owners as well, good, bad, or indifferent.

The companies that sell SSL certificates and browser makers put out root certificates for their browers and show green or gold with the lock for those obtained by big name sellers of these certificates. So if you are legitimate site owner who creates their own to save money, you are automatically assumed to be ‘not legitimate’ by browsers and it shows as red/dangerous to users.

I don’t see what the solution is, but it really doesn’t matter whether you make your own, or if you buy one, you are still playing craps with SSL certificates in many ways these days.

As Corrine noted in the same topic at Scot’s Newsletter Forums:

Microsoft Security Advisory 2607712 has been updated to revoke the trust of the DigiNotar root certificates by placing them into the Microsoft Untrusted Certificate Store.

The update is available via Automatic Update and applies to all supported releases of Microsoft Windows, including Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2.

Within short order, Mozilla sent out updates to their products including Firefox, Thunderbird, et. revoking the certificates.

Opera has done the same thing yesterday, disabling the root store for DigiNotar.

Because Apple was slow to act, one researcher (thanks Corrine) rapped Apple for not blocking the stolen SSL certificates, and various places on the Internet were trying to help Mac users to take care of disabling and removing the DigiNotar certificates from the KeyChain so Safari and other browsers would be safer online on the Mac. Since then, Apple released an update to revoke DigiNotar from their trusted list:

If you are running an older Mac you can still protect yourself, but you will need to do it manually. You can follow the excellent instructions posted over at the ps | Enable blog.

And most recently, Adobe has posted instructions on how to remove DigiNotar from the Adobe Approved Trust List (AATL) for Adobe Reader.

And here we go again (thanks zlim)…

GlobalSign Stops Issuing Digital Certificates After Hack (PCWorld)

Second firms stops issuing digital certificates (CNET)

How many more will have fallen before it’s all said and done? I am beginning to wonder if we wouldn’t be better off just generating our own SSL certificates, it would likely be as safe as this fiasco has become…

New Flash Player Zero Day

[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]ZDNet reports, Adobe warns of new Flash Player zero-day attack:

Hackers are embedding malicious Flash Player files in Microsoft Word documents to launch targeted attacks against select businesses, according to a warning from Adobe.

These are being used to steal secrets from corporations, likely through downloaded and emailed MS Word documents such as Excel.

Adobe is working on patches for Flash 10.2.x and for earlier versions as well, for just about every OS out there.

Adobe Reader X protected mode will “prevent an exploit of this kind from executing.” The actual fix won’t come till their normal patch cycle in June for Adobe Reader. So be sure to get the latest version (Adobe Reader X)!

Much more in the article including information and links to Adobe’s security release.