Google Chrome 103 update fixes 11 security issues – Ghacks
Google has released a security update for its Chrome desktop and Android browsers. The update brings the stable channel version of Chrome to 103.0.5060.134 on the desktop, and to 103.0.5060.129 on Android.
The security update is already available. Most Chrome browsers will receive the update automatically, thanks to the built-in automatic updating functionality. Chrome users may speed up the installation of the security update on desktop versions of Chrome by loading chrome://settings/help in the browser’s address bar.
The current version is displayed on the page and Chrome runs a check for updates to find out if a new version is available. If not installed already, Chrome will download and install the security update. A restart is required to complete the upgrade. The Android version of Chrome does not support such an option, as updates are distributed exclusively via Google Play.
Google Chrome 103 security fixes
Google published an article on the Chrome Releases Blog to inform Chrome users and administrators about the update. The blog post confirms that 11 different security issues are patched in the new Chrome release. Six of these, all reported by third-party researchers, are mentioned specifically on the blog. Google does not list security issues that it found internally on the blog.
The maximum severity rating of all 11 security issues is high, the second highest after critical. Here is the full list as reported by Google:
Google makes no mention of attacks in the wild. It is still recommended to update Chrome to the latest version as soon as possible.
Google released the first Chrome 103 release earlier this month; this update included a fix for a 0-day vulnerability that was exploited in the wild.
Now You: do you use Google Chrome?
Speaking of Chrome, the new download bubble (which will soon replace the current download shelf) now supports ‘Quick actions on hover’:
https://redd.it/w2spqe
And in Chrome Canary you can already test a *preview version of the new ‘Notes’ feature:
https://redd.it/vz05sa
.
@Iron Heart
> Who talks about Chrome …
The article does and it is to Google’s Chrome I was referring to. The article is not about Chromium based browsers.
Semantics regarding ‘alternative’. Alternatives to Google’s Chrome, that very one, again, mentioned in the article.
Regarding the fact a “same vision’ wouldn’t satisfy an alternative criteria, I don’t quite agree. You mention yourself Chromium based browsers and I understand you differentiate them from Google’s Chrome and I’ll presume you consider them as alternatives consequently. To make it concise and precise : anything but Google’s Chrome browser, is my opinion and one shared by many privacy-conscious users. From there on, some will worship ‘Brave’, others consider ‘Firefox’, or any of the plethora of available browsers on the market, chromium based included … but not Google :=)
@Tom Hawack
> The article does and it is to Google’s Chrome I was referring to. The article is not about Chromium based browsers.
The article’s info is about security bugs affecting all Chromium-based browsers, not just Chrome. Chrome should hardly have any security issues of its own considering that it’s Chromium + some proprietary binary blobs + different branding essentially.
The wording of this article is false to begin with and should state “Chromium” instead of “Chrome”.
> I don’t quite agree
Reasons for your disagreement? Mozilla supports the following openly:
– Centralization instead of decentralization.
– Censorship (requiring the aforementioned centralization to work).
– Search engine monopoly.
– Content creators having no alternative to ad networks siphoning off user data.
Seems like the exact things Google also wants. Google funds Mozilla and they work together in various work groups including extension API standardization (extensions should empower the users, API revisions recently take that away). Google and Mozilla are also both members of the WEF, just so you know. I’ll play along with your “Mozilla Corp., only alternative to Google” nonsense for now even though it’s clear that they are pseudo-opposition at best.
So you’re claiming that Mozilla is “the loyal opposition” for Google / Alphabet?
I figured that out years ago.
The article is about Chrome. Yes, some of the vulnerabilities affect other Chromium-based browsers, but this is not the scope of the article.
@Martin Brinkmann
False, the article is about Chromium because you are describing Chromium security bugs, not Chrome-specific security bugs (of which there are hardly any). You don’t even get that right, and seemingly need comments to correct you.
It’s also 100% clear from how Tom’s comment is written that it is meant as a reply to a comment I have written, but which has since disappeared. Kind mod, would you please tell me which rule of your rule set I have violated this time to warrant the removal? Or is the removal the completely unjustified, arbitrary joke I believe it to be? You limited Tom’s freedom of speech too and not just mine btw, you removed his comment as well… Just saying.
> You limited Tom’s freedom of speech too and not just mine btw, you removed his comment as well… Just saying.
Kind of you but I’m not complaining and cannot have the feeling of having been censored when what has been removed concerns a rude wording about a forum and its comments in perspective. My answer was nested and therefor removed. By the way my comment was empty in terms of pertinence regarding the article. No problem here. I guess my comment was useless anyway. I’ve never been censored here and censorship is *really* not the trademark of the place. As long as we stay correct and I dare say Martin is educated ands open-minded so when a comment is removed it is legitimately.
Closed as far as I’m cocerned. Let us carry on.
@Tom Hawack
> censorship is *really* not the trademark of the place.
Disagree.
> rude wording
Realistic is not the same as rude.
> I guess my comment was useless anyway.
Agree.
> I’ve never been censored here
The sentence before that may explain why you have never been censored. Too bland for even Martin to touch.
How are you, Mozilla?
Someone wanted to ban Brave Heart and I responded.
What is going on with this comment section?
How about banning Neuteredumbo for a start?
Please click on the following link to open the newsletter signup page: Ghacks Newsletter Sign up
Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers.