5 ms·

> the most security hardened browser, which is Google Chrome Cite, please.

by derleth 14y ago

Karunamon 14y ago
Here's a 2011 article: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_is_most_secure_of_the_top_three_browsers_study_finds.html http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_... Summary: * Study (commisioned by GOOG but methodology is open for inspection) puts them #1 out of 3 (being IE and Firefox) * Patched faster and more often than others * Untouched at least year's pwn2own Edit: Oddly enough, this was the #1 result for "chrome most secure browser" on Google. One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  You should use (vanilla) Webkit or Chromium if you want to be really safe. As I'm sure you know perfectly well, Chrome is closed source and you really don't know what's going on inside it (Chromium, that is a different beast, is open source). Chrome might be safer (than Safari, Firefox or IE) for this kind of malware, but I sure as hell wouldn't run a browser made by an company that makes money by collecting personal data for the benefit of advertisers if I wanted to be "safe". I see no reason to believe Microsoft, Apple or Google haven't put some spyware/backdoor in their browsers. But I really don't care about it, so I use Safari which is the best browser on Mac, IMO.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I'm not going to touch the typical FOSS arguments because that is going to lead down a rabbit hole we've both been down about a thousand times I'm sure. That said, while Safari is a nice browser, it's horribly insecure. Just looking at Pwn2Own, it gets killed straight off every year, and those involved usually remark about how trivial it is.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      You're right. I said I use it because I really don't care that much about security, and find it better suited to my needs. But if I did care about security, I certainly wouldn't run Chrome either (for the reasons stated); I'd use Webkit or Chromium, or plain old lynx like our friend Richard.
    - sedev 14y ago
      My impression is that Pwn2Own skews hard towards Safari for two reasons: the Air that's normally a prize is more desireable than the random cruddy Windows laptop, and Flash is a much softer security target than Safari itself, so that's usually what gets exploited.
- derleth 14y ago
  > One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag. No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. > Patched faster and more often than others Not necessarily a good thing. Also doesn't really help people off of Google's forced-update scheme. Also, plugins are an important part of any browser now; NoScript and the ad blocking/anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox.
  - quadhome 14y ago
    > No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Cite, please.
    - alecthomas 14y ago
      This is true IIRC, or at least, was. Chrome extensions can only hook in to the DOM after it has been evaluated. You can see this occasionally with Adblock when ads flicker in briefly.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    As the creator of [citation needed], I refute this. There is no need for someone to believe a claim from a particular source if there is no citation involved. It is indeed up to the author to provide the citation. However, should someone else provide a citation, then this will also do - and the author should really thank that person for doing the hard work in providing a more meaningful discussion.
  - JonAtkinson 14y ago
    > the ad-blocking and anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox Cite, please.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Perhaps, but it adds much more to the discussion and comes across as less prickish if you say something along the lines of "I don't see any data to support that, could I see yours?" rather than "Citeplz". Especially when it's literally one google search away on result #1. It just smacks of laziness. And while I agree with you on plugins, we're talking security. I was going by the study's methodology (which seems mostly sound).
- lloeki 14y ago
  > Untouched at least year's pwn2own That's so '11... ;-) > Team VUPEN: 0day: Google Chrome: Full sandbox escape and code execution http://pwn2own.zerodayinitiative.com/status.html http://pwn2own.zerodayinitiative.com/status.html Safari was apparently the only one without a 0day, though exploited via CVE-2011-0115 and CVE-2010-0050, weird since the former is patched since 5.0.4 [0] and the latter is fixed in iOS 3.1.3 [1] and Safari 4.0.5 [2]. Aren't they supposed to target fully patched, latest OSes and browsers? [0] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4566 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4566 [1] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4225 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4225 [2] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4070 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4070

> the most security hardened browser, which is Google Chrome Cite, please.

by derleth 14y ago

> the most security hardened browser, which is Google Chrome Cite, please.

Here's a 2011 article: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_is_most_secure_of_the_top_three_browsers_study_finds.html http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_... Summary: * Study (commisioned by GOOG but methodology is open for inspection) puts them #1 out of 3 (being IE and Firefox) * Patched faster and more often than others * Untouched at least year's pwn2own Edit: Oddly enough, this was the #1 result for "chrome most secure browser" on Google. One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag.

pooriaazimi 14y ago
You should use (vanilla) Webkit or Chromium if you want to be really safe. As I'm sure you know perfectly well, Chrome is closed source and you really don't know what's going on inside it (Chromium, that is a different beast, is open source). Chrome might be safer (than Safari, Firefox or IE) for this kind of malware, but I sure as hell wouldn't run a browser made by an company that makes money by collecting personal data for the benefit of advertisers if I wanted to be "safe". I see no reason to believe Microsoft, Apple or Google haven't put some spyware/backdoor in their browsers. But I really don't care about it, so I use Safari which is the best browser on Mac, IMO.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  I'm not going to touch the typical FOSS arguments because that is going to lead down a rabbit hole we've both been down about a thousand times I'm sure. That said, while Safari is a nice browser, it's horribly insecure. Just looking at Pwn2Own, it gets killed straight off every year, and those involved usually remark about how trivial it is.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    You're right. I said I use it because I really don't care that much about security, and find it better suited to my needs. But if I did care about security, I certainly wouldn't run Chrome either (for the reasons stated); I'd use Webkit or Chromium, or plain old lynx like our friend Richard.
  - sedev 14y ago
    My impression is that Pwn2Own skews hard towards Safari for two reasons: the Air that's normally a prize is more desireable than the random cruddy Windows laptop, and Flash is a much softer security target than Safari itself, so that's usually what gets exploited.
derleth 14y ago
> One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag. No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. > Patched faster and more often than others Not necessarily a good thing. Also doesn't really help people off of Google's forced-update scheme. Also, plugins are an important part of any browser now; NoScript and the ad blocking/anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox.
- quadhome 14y ago
  > No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Cite, please.
  - alecthomas 14y ago
    This is true IIRC, or at least, was. Chrome extensions can only hook in to the DOM after it has been evaluated. You can see this occasionally with Adblock when ads flicker in briefly.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  As the creator of [citation needed], I refute this. There is no need for someone to believe a claim from a particular source if there is no citation involved. It is indeed up to the author to provide the citation. However, should someone else provide a citation, then this will also do - and the author should really thank that person for doing the hard work in providing a more meaningful discussion.
- JonAtkinson 14y ago
  > the ad-blocking and anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox Cite, please.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Perhaps, but it adds much more to the discussion and comes across as less prickish if you say something along the lines of "I don't see any data to support that, could I see yours?" rather than "Citeplz". Especially when it's literally one google search away on result #1. It just smacks of laziness. And while I agree with you on plugins, we're talking security. I was going by the study's methodology (which seems mostly sound).
lloeki 14y ago
> Untouched at least year's pwn2own That's so '11... ;-) > Team VUPEN: 0day: Google Chrome: Full sandbox escape and code execution http://pwn2own.zerodayinitiative.com/status.html http://pwn2own.zerodayinitiative.com/status.html Safari was apparently the only one without a 0day, though exploited via CVE-2011-0115 and CVE-2010-0050, weird since the former is patched since 5.0.4 [0] and the latter is fixed in iOS 3.1.3 [1] and Safari 4.0.5 [2]. Aren't they supposed to target fully patched, latest OSes and browsers? [0] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4566 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4566 [1] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4225 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4225 [2] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4070 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4070