[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 9999083711868411.jpg (6 KB, 200x200)
6 KB JPG
We all know its bad from a privacy point of view, but is it the most secure against any kind of attacks that can happen thru browsers
>firefox
gecko is very behind in security when compared to chromium
>>
Unironically why the fuck wouldn't you just use Brave or Ungoogled Chromium + ublock? Then you can have the exact same Chrome security if not more + privacy.
>>
>>108798151
Brave independently indexes websites too, not sure if firefox does that.
>>
>very behind in security when compared to chromium
Proof?
>inb4 madaidan
>>
>>108797788
It literally has no defenses against any kind of attack. A site sending malicious notifications can wreck your computer beyond repair.
>>
>>108797788
It gets security patches faster than any other Chromium browser, which you need to use Windows or macOS to benefit from, or updoot constantly on Fedora or a Debian-based distro. Other than that I don't think there's any major differences between the Chromium browsers. They're all Chromium after all. Edge and Vanadium have something called drumbrake webassembly interpreter which is supposed to be more secure.
>gecko is very behind in security when compared to chromium
Let me guess, you read the madaidan article from 5 years ago. Here's something interesting to consider, earlier this year Chrome released 3 patches in under 10 days because of an exploit used in the wild.
>>
File: .png (237 KB, 1350x976)
237 KB PNG
>>108798151
>Then you can have the exact same Chrome security if not more
fake news.
only Google can do pic.
>>
File: .png (112 KB, 1178x408)
112 KB PNG
>>108798173
>>108798189
madaidan is still correct just the specifics moved.
if you want madaidan but updated, you need to follow grapheneos.
https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1945622753148584427
>>
File: .png (114 KB, 1178x408)
114 KB PNG
>>108798189
>earlier this year Chrome released 3 patches in under 10 days because of an exploit used in the wild
that's a good thing
>>
>>108798592
It is?
>>
>>108798592
Trying and failing to fix a security issue twice is a good thing how?
>>
>>108798585
>>108798592
Madaidan is outdated. What you posted is just a GrapheneOS account asserting things without elaboration. Chromium is generally considered to have a better security framework overall, but I feel the picture GrapheneOS paints is too harsh. Its not like Firefox users are getting hacked left and right. If that was something that was statistically significant, we'd be hearing about it. Those kind of advanced exploits you can only really fully mitigate with QubesOS.
>that's a good thing
Yeah that is the cope, but the reality is you would've been safer using Firefox during that time waiting for the Chrome security patches to come in.
>>
>>108798546
Firefox has safe browsing. The average /g/entooman doesn't even want most of this stuff and would probably laugh at you for wanting to integrate fully into the Google botnet so that it protects you better
>>
I hate Chrome so much
>>
No.
>>
>>108798790
>Yeah that is the cope, but the reality is you would've been safer using Firefox during that time waiting for the Chrome security patches to come in.
Well okay, thats probably too strong a statement since GrapheneOS are the security experts and know better than me, but personally I'd feel better during that time using a browser without the known exploit used in the wild.
>>
>>108798546
malwarebytes does the dangerous-site warning and download scanning for me, so i'm good
>>
>>108798173
https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-dbsc
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/device-bound-session-credentials
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/912
Everyone who says Firefox is secure doesn't know anything about security. It's developed by a bunch of people who think a useless UI redesign is more important than a cookie theft mitigation.
>>
>>108799515
>if someone fully hacks your computer it takes slightly more effort to get your chromium data than your firefox data
wowza
>>
>>108799676
Actually looks like a nice feature. It's pretty new though, what websites even implement this yet? Also it does hurt session portability for self-use, i.e. seamlessly transferring profiles/cookies between devices and being logged in already, in exchange for higher security.
>>
>>108798546
>main malware trying to block competing malware
almost poetic



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.