Is Google Gears safe?

Offensive dialog


I imagine that is the question most users will ask when they see this dialog box:

google gears dialog box

There are a couple of things I don't like about this dialog. First, the website is defined only by a URL. The problem is, it's a plain http connection so there's no SSL certificate involved, so I can't easily check the identity of the site. This one is Google, so it's not too difficult; but what if it is some other site? It is not particularly easy to verify the ownership of a URL; whois information is not reliable.

Second, what are the implications of my decision? If you click "What is this", you get this page, which explains offline functionality but doesn't mention security. It does mention that Gears is a beta - personally I think this should be up-front in the security warning dialog as well. Do you trust this beta software?

If you go to the Frequently Asked Questions, there is still no mention of security. Is nobody asking about it? This article is the closest I can see, but merely repeats the information in the original dialog, that Gears allows websites to write to my computer. Enquiring minds ask: where can they write data? Where can they read data? Could they install malware or execute code?

We could do with a link to this page, about the Gears security model. This tells me that Gears uses a same origin policy:

A web page with a particular scheme, host, and port can only access resources with the same scheme, host, and port.

It also says:

Google Gears data files are protected with the user's operating system login credentials. Users with separate login names cannot access each other's Google Gears data files, as enforced by the operating system.

The bit about "as enforced by the operating system" should be highlighted. If your users have local admin rights, as on some Windows boxes, they will be able to access files belonging to other users.

But is Gears safe? What if I'm taken in by a scam site and give it permission to use Gears?

It may not be too bad. Gears can't write anywhere on my hard drive, only to a location in my local profile or home directory. It doesn't use the browser cache, presumably because it isn't reliable; it may get cleared. Still, I guess some sort of attack might be possible along the lines of: write an executable to my local resource store, then give me a link to click and run it. Gears could fill your home directory with stuff you do not want, of course, but that's the explicit permission you give when you agree to let a site write to your computer.

This presumes that Gears does not have security bugs. There may be and probably are ways to mount attacks using Gears that I have not thought of.

Bottom line: Gears is probably fairly safe, provided that the site really is trustworthy, but it is a beta and the usual caveats apply. Check that URL carefully. Avoid Gears when used by smaller organizations that might not have sites well defended against malware. I still don't like the dialog though; and I'm surprised that Google does not make it easier for users to examine the security issues.

This post is prompted the announcement of Offline access to Google Docs.

This article originally appeared in ITWriting.

Copyright (c) 2007, ITWriting.com.

A freelance journalist since 1992, Tim Anderson specializes in programming and internet development topics. He has columns in Personal Computer World and IT Week, and also contributes regularly to The Register. He writes from time to time for other periodicals including Developer Network Journal Online, and Hardcopy.


Other stories you might like

  • Ubuntu 21.10: Plan to do yourself an Indri? Here's what's inside... including a bit of GNOME schooling

    Plus: Rounded corners make GNOME 40 look like Windows 11

    Review Canonical has released Ubuntu 21.10, or "Impish Indri" as this one is known. This is the last major version before next year's long-term support release of Ubuntu 22.04, and serves as a good preview of some of the changes coming for those who stick with LTS releases.

    If you prefer to run the latest and greatest, 21.10 is a solid release with a new kernel, a major GNOME update, and some theming changes. As a short-term support release, Ubuntu 21.10 will be supported for nine months, which covers you until July 2022, by which point 22.04 will already be out.

    Continue reading
  • Heart FM's borkfast show – a fine way to start your day

    Jamie and Amanda have a new co-presenter to contend with

    There can be few things worse than Microsoft Windows elbowing itself into a presenting partnership, as seen in this digital signage for the Heart breakfast show.

    For those unfamiliar with the station, Heart is a UK national broadcaster with Global as its parent. It currently consists of a dozen or so regional stations with a number of shows broadcast nationally. Including a perky breakfast show featuring former Live and Kicking presenter Jamie Theakston and Britain's Got Talent judge, Amanda Holden.

    Continue reading
  • Think your phone is snooping on you? Hold my beer, says basic physics

    Information wants to be free, and it's making its escape

    Opinion Forget the Singularity. That modern myth where AI learns to improve itself in an exponential feedback loop towards evil godhood ain't gonna happen. Spacetime itself sets hard limits on how fast information can be gathered and processed, no matter how clever you are.

    What we should expect in its place is the robot panopticon, a relatively dumb system with near-divine powers of perception. That's something the same laws of physics that prevent the Godbot practically guarantee. The latest foreshadowing of mankind's fate? The Ethernet cable.

    By itself, last week's story of a researcher picking up and decoding the unintended wireless emissions of an Ethernet cable is mildly interesting. It was the most labby of lab-based demos, with every possible tweak applied to maximise the chances of it working. It's not even as if it's a new discovery. The effect and its security implications have been known since the Second World War, when Bell Labs demonstrated to the US Army that a wired teleprinter encoder called SIGTOT was vulnerable. It could be monitored at a distance and the unencrypted messages extracted by the radio pulses it gave off in operation.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021