14 ms·
It is admirable that they took on this job, but I would probably stay away from it for serious things because of security aspect. Modern browsers (Chrome - Fire
by mda 8y ago
It is admirable that they took on this job, but I would probably stay away from it for serious things because of security aspect. Modern browsers (Chrome - Firefox) are probably a much safer choice.
- amelius 8y agoOn the other hand, browsers with a large user base are a more likely/profitable target for hacking.
- smacktoward 8y ago> A system or component relying on obscurity may have theoretical or actual security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that if the flaws are not known, that will be sufficient to prevent a successful attack. Security experts have rejected this view as far back as 1851, and advise that obscurity should never be the only security mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
- boffinism 8y agoSecurity through obscurity is bad, but the original comment wasn't about security through obscurity in that sense.
- mkl 8y agoThis is Chromium-based, so is part of the largest user base, and because it's downstream it will always be at least a bit out of date. I think there are lots of useful things alternative browsers could do, and I'd like to see some succeed, but this problem seems difficult to get around.
- pard68 8y agoI don't think that is a reason to not attempt developing new things. And anyways, this is using the QTWebKit, my understanding is most of the security related aspects are from there. Since it is a fork of WebKit I imagine it gets security updates from there.
- lima 8y agoBut a good reason not to use it. QtWebKit has a horrible security track record: https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-security-updates/ https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-secu...