3 ms·
People trading security (sandboxing) for performance (lower memory usage and faster speed in Firefox) deserve to be a) owned and b) have their whole browser cra
by martinced 14y ago
People trading security (sandboxing) for performance (lower memory usage and faster speed in Firefox) deserve to be a) owned and b) have their whole browser crash when one tab crashes.
I'd be using Firefox if they started to sandbox all the tabs. To me the argument that it's faster and use less memory because it's not sandboxed is a very poor one.
Actually that argument shows what is wrong with the mindset of many people in our field.
You should never trade security for a bit more perfs.
- venus 14y agoI don't believe Chrome took appreciably longer than Firefox to compromise in the recent PWN2OWN competition. Chrome's sandboxing implementation is not a silver bullet, and FF has run plugins out-of-process for some time. That said, full sandboxing is probably preferable and I believe it is on the agenda.