4 ms·

Im sorry but if you are using Chrome as a “pro” nowadays, its your own fault. There are countless alternatives available, starting from Firefox, to Brave, to so

by tacker2000 3y ago

Im sorry but if you are using Chrome as a “pro” nowadays, its your own fault. There are countless alternatives available, starting from Firefox, to Brave, to some exotic browsers, and if you must use Chrome, then there is a de-Googled one called Chromium. Its clear that Google is milking every single one of its users using their browser, since they have access to your computers. Probably this is the “vector” they use to gather the most info about users, apart from Android maybe.

maleldil 3y ago
> there is a de-Googled one called Chromium There's Chromium and there's Ungoogled Chromium[1]. If you're looking for (some) independence from Google, you want the latter. Or just avoid it altogether and use other browsers. I wouldn't recommend Blink-based browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.) You're still indirectly giving Google power over the web by using their engine. [1] https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
- akyuu 3y ago
  IMO the browser is far too important to use third-party builds containing patches that don't receive serious audit. For example, the Chromium packages provided by the vast majority of Linux distros disable security features like CFI (check your favorite distro's x86_64 Chromium package build log and look for the "is_cfi" argument). I think Arch is the only exception. ungoogled-chromium has similar problems https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/ https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/ If you are going to use a Blink-based browser, I would recommend just using the official Google release, or maybe Edge or Brave if you trust the organizations behind them. Otherwise, just switch to Firefox. It has its own problems, like being overall less hardened than Chromium, but it's far less user-hostile. And regarding security, for browsing untrusted sites, I think you should always virtualize the browser since they're all routinely exploited anyway.
  - bmicraft 3y ago
    > Linux distros disable security features like CFI Why would they even do that?
    - akyuu 3y ago
      I'm not sure, but I think CFI also requires building Chromium as a single binary with LTO, and this has extremely high memory requirements that their build infrastructure might not be able to handle. Also, I think some distros use GCC instead of LLVM/Clang, so CFI isn't even an option.
leokennis 3y ago
Just want to pour one out to my fellow corporate drones on locked down work laptops, who can usually choose between a pre-installed and managed installation of Chrome (a rock) and/or Edge (a hard place).

maleldil 3y ago

> there is a de-Googled one called Chromium There's Chromium and there's Ungoogled Chromium[1]. If you're looking for (some) independence from Google, you want the latter. Or just avoid it altogether and use other browsers. I wouldn't recommend Blink-based browsers (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.) You're still indirectly giving Google power over the web by using their engine. [1] https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

akyuu 3y ago
IMO the browser is far too important to use third-party builds containing patches that don't receive serious audit. For example, the Chromium packages provided by the vast majority of Linux distros disable security features like CFI (check your favorite distro's x86_64 Chromium package build log and look for the "is_cfi" argument). I think Arch is the only exception. ungoogled-chromium has similar problems https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/ https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/ If you are going to use a Blink-based browser, I would recommend just using the official Google release, or maybe Edge or Brave if you trust the organizations behind them. Otherwise, just switch to Firefox. It has its own problems, like being overall less hardened than Chromium, but it's far less user-hostile. And regarding security, for browsing untrusted sites, I think you should always virtualize the browser since they're all routinely exploited anyway.
- bmicraft 3y ago
  > Linux distros disable security features like CFI Why would they even do that?
  - akyuu 3y ago
    I'm not sure, but I think CFI also requires building Chromium as a single binary with LTO, and this has extremely high memory requirements that their build infrastructure might not be able to handle. Also, I think some distros use GCC instead of LLVM/Clang, so CFI isn't even an option.

leokennis 3y ago

Just want to pour one out to my fellow corporate drones on locked down work laptops, who can usually choose between a pre-installed and managed installation of Chrome (a rock) and/or Edge (a hard place).