17 ms·

I'm a bit hesitant to use a closed source browser. Browsers these days have such a large attack surface... I wouldn't trust something that is not developed and

I'm a bit hesitant to use a closed source browser. Browsers these days have such a large attack surface... I wouldn't trust something that is not developed and updated in the open

chairmanwow 10y ago
I wonder if for a company with less security resources than Google, it actually more secure to develop to develop close-sourced? Is source helpful when developing exploits? Intuitively it seems that it would be extremely helpful for the devious minded-individual.
- SXX 10y ago
  Their browser based on Chromium and when there is source available it's at least possible to see how fast they apply security fixes from upstream. For end-user of product there no way closed source browser can ever be more secure.
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    to clarify be more secure _because_ it is closed source.
  - garyx 10y ago
    https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/
    - smhenderson 10y ago
      Huh, so what it the license then? I notice that 1.8 is the latest version for downloading but on the source page you linked to the latest is 1.7. Do they release source for previous version only? I looked around a bit and didn't see anything about the license on their site. If I missed it and someone has a link that would be appreciated!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- pjc50 10y ago
  Security researchers are very used to attacking binaries. The small bit of obscurity you get from hiding the source buys you very little security. And the most insecure internet-facing bits of code of the past decade - Flash and Acrobat PDF viewer - have always been closed source.
gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago
I would have moved to vivaldi a while ago if it were open source. I've tried it out and it seems nice and powerful. Yes I know they publish some source and no I don't use Chrome - for the same reason.
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  They actually haven't published much at all - just their chromium patches, not even close to enough to build the browser with.
mtgx 10y ago
As an "alternative browser" I prefer Brave. It seems to load tabs the fastest, even faster than Opera with its own native ad-blocking. I used to like Opera before, but I stopped using it when it was bought by that Chinese group, and after seeing what they did to Opera Max, and app I found essential for saving data roaming costs. But they pretty much killed its usefulness when they started pushing their ads through it all the time. https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
- balladeer 10y ago
  I wish http://midori-browser.org http://midori-browser.org would run on macOS natively. This is one app that I miss from my few months with (unstable) Elementary OS. Clean, simple, light, very functional.
- sspiff 10y ago
  I second Brave! It's pretty fast, they have some smart security people on board to prevent them from making dumb mistakes (though that doesn't mean there can't be security flaws, obviously). Best of all, it's open source: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE....
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  Brave is awful. It removes ads on websites and replaces them with their own ads, which is incredibly unethical. Please, please don't use it.
  - jpttsn 10y ago
    It's about as unethical as removing the packaging from groceries and serving them on your own plates.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
      What?
    - lucideer 10y ago
leni536 10y ago
There is "Otter Browser"[1] that is FOSS. It aims to be an Opera 12 clone (it doesn't use presto of course). I don't use it but it seems to have active development. [1] https://otter-browser.org/ https://otter-browser.org/
Accacin 10y ago
I always used and loved Firefox because it was open source, but there have been a few articles now showing exactly how insecure Firefox is compared to Chrome. For this reason I've started to use Chrome until Firefox ups it's game.
- deckiedan 10y ago
  Could you share those links, please?
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Apologises in advance for using sarcasm and an analogy: Cars without the very very very best armour are completely unsafe. Don't use this nice, good, performant, practical and mostly bulletproof van, instead settle for the google armoured car because think if someone starts shooting at you with a 50 cal sniper rifle from a perfect angle! PS: for extra goodness the hood of the google car is welded (closed source even if we know the engine from chromium), pulling trailers (real extensions) is not possible and by default it records your every turn of the wheel and sends it to Google because you never know... PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle. Me: happily using Firefox. Happily driving a reasonable family car. There are certain places I won't drive that car at night but I can live with that. (Feel free to bookmark and reuse. : )
  - sigmar 10y ago
    You could have saved yourself some typing by just writing "risk assessment." Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser. As a seasoned IT pro I should know. Yet in the last 20 years I was hit by a drive by exploit once. Other people: tons of times. By some weird coincidence this seems to be the same people who insist on trying to run the latest crack of Photoshop etc. I do explain to people that just as there are certain places you won't go at night there are certain places they shouldn't necessarily visit on the Internet. Other than that it is tech support scams, driver update scams etc, but not many drive by exploits on places I frequent (HN, occacionally dzone, reddit and slashdot, technical blogs, mainstream and not so mainstream (both very correct and somewhat uncorrect ones) news in my language etc.
Osiris 10y ago
You can open and edit all the UI JavaScript and CSS. While it's not open source, it does allow for local modifications of the entire code.
lucideer 10y ago
The most striking thing about Vivaldi's decision to remain closed-source is its provenance. Granted, von Tetzchner does have a history of working with closed-source software, but one would think after the loss of Presto (excepting that one brief leak[1]), that any ex-Opera heads would understand the potential value of open source and community contribution. As someone who put a lot into the old pre-12 Opera community, I will never use a closed-source browser again. This is not a commentary on quality - Opera was hands down the best browser ever built, despite being closed-source - but rather on commitment. If Vivaldi fails, all of its users will be left out in the cold. Again. Admittedly, it is not quite so bad a situation as Opera 12. Vivaldi is mostly/largely open source[2]. It still seems like a massive missed opportunity though. [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-Presto.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-P... [2] https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivaldi https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-s...
- jug 10y ago
  Yes, this is a bit concerning as Vivaldi development was last I heard self funded by Jon von Tetzchner (http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/wionspecial-ceo-explains-how-vivaldi-is-different-from-other-popular-browsers-9268 http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/wionspecial-ceo-explains...). He claims it's otherwise meant to get funds from search engine and bookmark bundle deals. Sounds like a fragile base to build on in a niche browser aimed for power users, who tend to be unusually quick at removing/reverting exactly such features? Isn't the way out of this via open source and community efforts essentially why Firefox has been successful despite not being OS bundled or backed by a huge search engine company like Google?
  - Touche 10y ago
    No, Firefox is successful because it's lineage from Netscape, and then subsequently releasing its browser during a time when the only competition was terrible. If Firefox had started today it would have the same problems as Vivaldi. Firefox definitely does benefit from community contributions (a lot), but the vast majority of the important code is written by paid employees.
Endy 10y ago
Given that I don't write code, I'm happier with the idea of a closed-source browser. The problem I have with using Vivaldi is that it's too much like any other Chrome hack without really bringing back the stuff that made Opera a wonderful browser in a fundamental and meaningful way. Then again, I feel that Presto (and the "limitations" of that engine) was one of the greatest strengths, along with a built-in mindset that the user should control all of what they load and/or see.
- kiliankoe 10y ago
  > happier with the idea of a closed-source browser How come? Is there an upside to this I'm not seeing?
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    After reading it a few times I presume the author is happier than 'somebody who writes code', in the same way that I'm happier to have my car stolen than somebody who needs their car every day.
    - kiliankoe 10y ago
      Ah thanks, that makes a lot more sense.
    - Endy 10y ago
      No, it's simple - if I don't know what I'm looking at, I don't want anybody who DOES know to get to look at it, either. The person who does know how to program in whatever language has an inherent advantage in that situation. Frankly, they also have no real ethical or legal imperative to prevent using whatever possible weakness they can exploit against me; doubly so if they can profit by it. Rather than the idea of "happier to have my car stolen, etc.", it's more, I'm happier to be the guy who rides the train rather than the bus. I don't know exactly how the train is operated (even if I know the concepts that make it work) - my knowledge extends only so far that I know that it does what it's supposed to. I'd go so far as to suggest that relatively few rail transit riders do know how to properly operate a train - and add to that, trains can only run on rails; i.e. they do one thing well (generally speaking - let's not discuss the number of issues NJTransit's had recently). The potential for hijacking is significantly reduced by inherent limitation and obscurity of control. So too do I want software along that same thought process. Relatively few users know how to do more than what they need to know; and even so those that would hijack it are locked into a specific set of operations.
rimliu 10y ago
Honest question: do you personally inspect the code of the browser of your choice; trust others to do that; or are just are you feeling better about having that possibility? Given the last few years of adventure in the OpenSSL land I make no assumption about superiority of the open sourced solutions security-wise. Hence the curiosity, what is the motivation of others.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Being hacked is only one of many security concerns. The authors of software don't always value the users wishes over their own, open source at least keeps them honest about what they're doing. A closed source browser (that I'm sure has some "telemetrics") who's main goal is to analyze browsing patterns is a privacy nightmare.
- Veen 10y ago
  No software is perfect, but I'm more confident that vulnerabilities will be discovered and dealt with on open source projects. Proprietary projects have different incentives. I wouldn't have a clue what to do with browser code, and I don't inspect the code of the browser I use, but I am happier if people who can understand the code and who aren't dependent on the project for their living can check it.
vasili111 10y ago
Here are sources of old versions: https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/
K_REY_C 10y ago
Agree, but beyond attack surface I just don't want to become accustomed to something that can be shut down, aqui-hire/closed down, or otherwise disappeared via the ongoing advance of technology. This feature looks nice and I hope other browsers adopt and adapt and make more meaningful end-user advancements like this that are visible to the eye.

I'm a bit hesitant to use a closed source browser. Browsers these days have such a large attack surface... I wouldn't trust something that is not developed and updated in the open

chairmanwow 10y ago

I wonder if for a company with less security resources than Google, it actually more secure to develop to develop close-sourced? Is source helpful when developing exploits? Intuitively it seems that it would be extremely helpful for the devious minded-individual.

SXX 10y ago
Their browser based on Chromium and when there is source available it's at least possible to see how fast they apply security fixes from upstream. For end-user of product there no way closed source browser can ever be more secure.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  to clarify be more secure _because_ it is closed source.
- garyx 10y ago
  https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    Huh, so what it the license then? I notice that 1.8 is the latest version for downloading but on the source page you linked to the latest is 1.7. Do they release source for previous version only? I looked around a bit and didn't see anything about the license on their site. If I missed it and someone has a link that would be appreciated!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 10y ago
Security researchers are very used to attacking binaries. The small bit of obscurity you get from hiding the source buys you very little security. And the most insecure internet-facing bits of code of the past decade - Flash and Acrobat PDF viewer - have always been closed source.

gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago

I would have moved to vivaldi a while ago if it were open source. I've tried it out and it seems nice and powerful. Yes I know they publish some source and no I don't use Chrome - for the same reason.

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
They actually haven't published much at all - just their chromium patches, not even close to enough to build the browser with.

mtgx 10y ago

As an "alternative browser" I prefer Brave. It seems to load tabs the fastest, even faster than Opera with its own native ad-blocking. I used to like Opera before, but I stopped using it when it was bought by that Chinese group, and after seeing what they did to Opera Max, and app I found essential for saving data roaming costs. But they pretty much killed its usefulness when they started pushing their ads through it all the time. https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/

balladeer 10y ago
I wish http://midori-browser.org http://midori-browser.org would run on macOS natively. This is one app that I miss from my few months with (unstable) Elementary OS. Clean, simple, light, very functional.
sspiff 10y ago
I second Brave! It's pretty fast, they have some smart security people on board to prevent them from making dumb mistakes (though that doesn't mean there can't be security flaws, obviously). Best of all, it's open source: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE....
Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Brave is awful. It removes ads on websites and replaces them with their own ads, which is incredibly unethical. Please, please don't use it.
- jpttsn 10y ago
  It's about as unethical as removing the packaging from groceries and serving them on your own plates.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    What?
  - lucideer 10y ago

leni536 10y ago

There is "Otter Browser"[1] that is FOSS. It aims to be an Opera 12 clone (it doesn't use presto of course). I don't use it but it seems to have active development. [1] https://otter-browser.org/ https://otter-browser.org/

Accacin 10y ago

I always used and loved Firefox because it was open source, but there have been a few articles now showing exactly how insecure Firefox is compared to Chrome. For this reason I've started to use Chrome until Firefox ups it's game.

deckiedan 10y ago
Could you share those links, please?
reitanqild 10y ago
Apologises in advance for using sarcasm and an analogy: Cars without the very very very best armour are completely unsafe. Don't use this nice, good, performant, practical and mostly bulletproof van, instead settle for the google armoured car because think if someone starts shooting at you with a 50 cal sniper rifle from a perfect angle! PS: for extra goodness the hood of the google car is welded (closed source even if we know the engine from chromium), pulling trailers (real extensions) is not possible and by default it records your every turn of the wheel and sends it to Google because you never know... PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle. Me: happily using Firefox. Happily driving a reasonable family car. There are certain places I won't drive that car at night but I can live with that. (Feel free to bookmark and reuse. : )
- sigmar 10y ago
  You could have saved yourself some typing by just writing "risk assessment." Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser. As a seasoned IT pro I should know. Yet in the last 20 years I was hit by a drive by exploit once. Other people: tons of times. By some weird coincidence this seems to be the same people who insist on trying to run the latest crack of Photoshop etc. I do explain to people that just as there are certain places you won't go at night there are certain places they shouldn't necessarily visit on the Internet. Other than that it is tech support scams, driver update scams etc, but not many drive by exploits on places I frequent (HN, occacionally dzone, reddit and slashdot, technical blogs, mainstream and not so mainstream (both very correct and somewhat uncorrect ones) news in my language etc.

Osiris 10y ago

You can open and edit all the UI JavaScript and CSS. While it's not open source, it does allow for local modifications of the entire code.

lucideer 10y ago

The most striking thing about Vivaldi's decision to remain closed-source is its provenance. Granted, von Tetzchner does have a history of working with closed-source software, but one would think after the loss of Presto (excepting that one brief leak[1]), that any ex-Opera heads would understand the potential value of open source and community contribution. As someone who put a lot into the old pre-12 Opera community, I will never use a closed-source browser again. This is not a commentary on quality - Opera was hands down the best browser ever built, despite being closed-source - but rather on commitment. If Vivaldi fails, all of its users will be left out in the cold. Again. Admittedly, it is not quite so bad a situation as Opera 12. Vivaldi is mostly/largely open source[2]. It still seems like a massive missed opportunity though. [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-Presto.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-P... [2] https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivaldi https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-s...

jug 10y ago
Yes, this is a bit concerning as Vivaldi development was last I heard self funded by Jon von Tetzchner (http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/wionspecial-ceo-explains-how-vivaldi-is-different-from-other-popular-browsers-9268 http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/wionspecial-ceo-explains...). He claims it's otherwise meant to get funds from search engine and bookmark bundle deals. Sounds like a fragile base to build on in a niche browser aimed for power users, who tend to be unusually quick at removing/reverting exactly such features? Isn't the way out of this via open source and community efforts essentially why Firefox has been successful despite not being OS bundled or backed by a huge search engine company like Google?
- Touche 10y ago
  No, Firefox is successful because it's lineage from Netscape, and then subsequently releasing its browser during a time when the only competition was terrible. If Firefox had started today it would have the same problems as Vivaldi. Firefox definitely does benefit from community contributions (a lot), but the vast majority of the important code is written by paid employees.

Endy 10y ago

Given that I don't write code, I'm happier with the idea of a closed-source browser. The problem I have with using Vivaldi is that it's too much like any other Chrome hack without really bringing back the stuff that made Opera a wonderful browser in a fundamental and meaningful way. Then again, I feel that Presto (and the "limitations" of that engine) was one of the greatest strengths, along with a built-in mindset that the user should control all of what they load and/or see.

kiliankoe 10y ago
> happier with the idea of a closed-source browser How come? Is there an upside to this I'm not seeing?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  After reading it a few times I presume the author is happier than 'somebody who writes code', in the same way that I'm happier to have my car stolen than somebody who needs their car every day.
  - kiliankoe 10y ago
    Ah thanks, that makes a lot more sense.
  - Endy 10y ago
    No, it's simple - if I don't know what I'm looking at, I don't want anybody who DOES know to get to look at it, either. The person who does know how to program in whatever language has an inherent advantage in that situation. Frankly, they also have no real ethical or legal imperative to prevent using whatever possible weakness they can exploit against me; doubly so if they can profit by it. Rather than the idea of "happier to have my car stolen, etc.", it's more, I'm happier to be the guy who rides the train rather than the bus. I don't know exactly how the train is operated (even if I know the concepts that make it work) - my knowledge extends only so far that I know that it does what it's supposed to. I'd go so far as to suggest that relatively few rail transit riders do know how to properly operate a train - and add to that, trains can only run on rails; i.e. they do one thing well (generally speaking - let's not discuss the number of issues NJTransit's had recently). The potential for hijacking is significantly reduced by inherent limitation and obscurity of control. So too do I want software along that same thought process. Relatively few users know how to do more than what they need to know; and even so those that would hijack it are locked into a specific set of operations.

rimliu 10y ago

Honest question: do you personally inspect the code of the browser of your choice; trust others to do that; or are just are you feeling better about having that possibility? Given the last few years of adventure in the OpenSSL land I make no assumption about superiority of the open sourced solutions security-wise. Hence the curiosity, what is the motivation of others.

jasonkostempski 10y ago
Being hacked is only one of many security concerns. The authors of software don't always value the users wishes over their own, open source at least keeps them honest about what they're doing. A closed source browser (that I'm sure has some "telemetrics") who's main goal is to analyze browsing patterns is a privacy nightmare.
Veen 10y ago
No software is perfect, but I'm more confident that vulnerabilities will be discovered and dealt with on open source projects. Proprietary projects have different incentives. I wouldn't have a clue what to do with browser code, and I don't inspect the code of the browser I use, but I am happier if people who can understand the code and who aren't dependent on the project for their living can check it.

vasili111 10y ago

Here are sources of old versions: https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/

K_REY_C 10y ago

Agree, but beyond attack surface I just don't want to become accustomed to something that can be shut down, aqui-hire/closed down, or otherwise disappeared via the ongoing advance of technology. This feature looks nice and I hope other browsers adopt and adapt and make more meaningful end-user advancements like this that are visible to the eye.