3 ms·
What makes you believe Chromium has better sandboxing than Firefox? That may have been true in the past, I doubt it has much truth to it today. Furthermore, if
by rvern 10y ago
What makes you believe Chromium has better sandboxing than Firefox? That may have been true in the past, I doubt it has much truth to it today. Furthermore, if you use GNU/Linux it should be trivial to give your web browser better sandboxing than what it does by itself. (You can use AppArmor or SELinux, you can run it in a systemd-nspawn container, you can use Firejail…)
- pjmlp 10y agoNot something that the average joe and jane can do.
- idobai 10y agoThe average joe and jane will click on large "DOWNLOAD ME!" buttons and download torrents without an antivirus.
- rvern 10y agoNeither the article nor Hacker News are intended for the average Joe.
- pjmlp 10y agoYou right, average Joe only uses Chrome, Edge and Safari on their mobile phones and desktop computers.
- NTripleOne 10y agoBut the issue itself is one that both affects and is caused by the "average Joe".
- AgentME 10y agoChrome has a process for each tab that's sandboxed so that most exploits would be trapped and unable to escalate out of the sandbox. Firefox has nothing like that yet, but it's coming eventually with the new multiprocess architecture that they're ramping up.
- rvern 10y agoFirefox has sandboxing for tabs as well, and has had it before e10s.
- esprehn 10y agoWhat sandbox are you referring to?
- gcb0 10y agothat's not how processes works...
- AgentME 10y agoProcesses don't imply sandboxing, but once you have things split up into multiple processes there are powerful process-sandboxing tools that are available for Firefox to use in the coming future.
- startling 10y agoAll of that is only marginally helpful without X sandboxing.
- danieldk 10y agoI agree, but the same applies to Chrome on X11.
- startling 10y agoNo, I mean that even if you add additional layers of sandboxing, the chrome process can still access the X socket. A process with the ability to read and write to the X socket can record keypresses, issue mouse and key events, etc etc. (There's not a well-supported way to avoid this, but there are some tools that use Xpra for it.)
- danieldk 10y agoI know. My point was that Chrome does not have a security advantage over Firefox on X11, since the discussion was about the security advantages of Chrome/Chromium over Firefox. We are in full agreement. On X11, the security model is: every application can see/do everything. You should only run an application in X11 when you fully trust it.
- viraptor 10y ago> What makes you believe Chromium has better sandboxing than Firefox? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Linux https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Linux and https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/linux_sandboxing.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs... There's more details than I can easily describe in a HN post, but in general read those links to learn why > if you use GNU/Linux it should be trivial to give your web browser better sandboxing than what it does by itself There's a difference between sandbox separating it from the system (what apparmor/selinux can do) and sandbox of each content and plugin (what browser itself can do, mostly with seccomp). Or in a practical example - why do I care that a website can't write to my home directory, if it still has full access to my bank in another tab. e10s helps a bit, but it's still in early stages. It wasn't even enabled for everybody until 12th Sept this year. Even now, I believe (please correct me if untrue) that there's only one child for all web content, not one per tab.