4 ms·
It depends on what your threat model is. A lot of people prefer the no doubt privacy tire fire that Chrome is over the security tire fire that Firefox has beco
by dfrage 8y ago
It depends on what your threat model is. A lot of people prefer the no doubt privacy tire fire that Chrome is over the security tire fire that Firefox has become. It's one thing to trust Google, quite another to trust Mozilla and ever more 3rd parties which it adds to Firefox.
In my old version of Linux I've been using straight Firefox primarily for one-off financial transactions. On the scratch installation of the new version I'm now reminded again of all the intrusive third party screwups. I'm moving my primary browser, with shields like a very paranoid uMatrix, to Chromium to party address the privacy issues, and have about decided to also install Chrome, starting it up just for my financial transactions and then exiting. I think there's a lot lower chance Google will siphon off my account information than one of Mozilla's current or future 3rd party partners, especially as Firefox's declining market share makes it ever more desperate.
- Yoric 8y agoLast time I checked there were no third-parties bundled in Firefox.
- dfrage 8y agoUbuntu 18.04, stock Firefox installed with the desktop, version 64.0.1, has in your face "Recommended by Pocket" items. One encourages me to use DuckDuckGo, but....
- Vinnl 8y agoPocket is owned by Mozilla. But you're right, it does include support for Google search, by default, which is a third party. Not that that'd leak your financial details.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago> Pocket is owned by Mozilla. Does this really matter from the user perspective? It's still bullshit.
- dfrage 8y agoAccording to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". Echoing AnIdiotOnTheNet, it's in your face bullshit that clearly tells us about Mozilla's mindset today. The Firefox security story has sailed compared to Chrome's, Pocket was independent but bundled in from June 2015 to February 2017, the Mr. Robot stunt, and Cliqz. Through the lens of corporate governance, three strikes and you're out till a long period passes with good governance. Support for X search doesn't matter in the start up a browser with a single tab to do a financial transaction and then close the browser, which is how I've been using a single installation of Firefox, and will now be using Chrome. That scenario doesn't demand a good session manager, something that Firefox's transition to Quantum has ruined as I say in another comment in this topic.
- Vinnl 8y ago> According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". It still means its goals aligns with Mozilla's, so you have to trust them as much as you have Mozilla. (Though of course, it should have been open sourced by now.) But really, if three strikes and you're out is your policy, you really shouldn't use Chrome - it has an order of magnitude more strikes, and they are far worse, at that. But to each their own.
- dfrage 8y agoYou're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? And I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla.
- Vinnl 8y ago> You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? Well, you were referring to Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot, which where trust issues, not security issues. Google has at least as many of those. > I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla. That makes sense, because they're the same. You should distrust Google even more.