Browsers?

I'm currently using FF, but I was wondering if chrome would be a better browser in terms of speed and security? Also Ive heard about some privacy issues with chrome, what exactly are these issues? Also how well supported is Chrome? Will it work with most sites? Can firefox be configured to be as secure/fast as Chrome?

In addition to Chrome Im also interested in Iron. How is this different from Chrome? Does it have all the advantages of Chrome? How well supported is this browser?

What about Opera, what kind of advantages does it bring to the table? Basically Id like to know what are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the above mentioned browsers. Thanks!

 

For speed and security, Chrome is virtually unmatched. It starts up almost instantaneously even from cold, and while reports indicate other browsers come very close to it in HTML rendering, Chrome simply outstrips the competition by a gigantic margin when it comes to Javascript. You'll notice this most when using script-heavy sites like Facebook or Gmail.

Security-wise, Chrome comes with its own sandbox, which virtually guarantees against malware infection unless you shoot yourself in the foot. The closest equivalent to it would be IE7/IE8's Protected Mode in Vista. Sandboxing capability is reduced if you use FAT32 (which does not support NTFS-style file access permissions), and doesn't work against site vulnerabilities like XSS.

You can look up Chrome on Wikipedia, there's a section on Chrome's phome-home habits. Iron is basically a rebranded Chrome with those habits eliminated, or you can use UnChrome as well to patch Chrome and stop it from sending unique IDs back to Google.

Opera is basically Firefox, but minus the slowdown after extended browsing periods, comes with a download manager that doesn't surreptitiously insert ADS into your downloaded files, features are all built-in instead of relying on extensions, and far less security vulnerabilities. Webpages generally feel smoother as well, no such thing as jerky scrolling because the browser can't handle the background images.

 

FF is fine esp if you use extensions like No Script, WOT etc. Not sure the sandbox chrome feature is like sandboxie as such. Anyways browsers are commodities now so I would worry more about which one YOU like the best rather than other people's opinions.

 

What extensions would you suggest?

 

1) How secure is Chrome's sandbox? Is it equivalent to other 3rd party sandboxing/virtualising applications available to FF? Is Chrome compatible with said apps for extra security? Also how can I check if my system uses FAT32 or NFTS? Whats XSS vulnerability?

2) Are there any drawbacks to using iron? What are the pros and cons of using iron as opposed to a patch of Chrome and vice-versa?

3) Whats ADS? Which is more secure Opera or Chrome?

 

Go to the Add-On page in FF and scroll through the choices. You'll find ones that appeal to YOU. However. No Script, Flashblock, and a little beauty called Back to Top are must haves.

 

Experiences are personal ... security wise, if you never get infected, there is no meaning to comparing security, is there? As to ads, jerky scrolling, etc, I really don't know what you're doing with your browser, but I'd be glad to help you, as you seem to have a system problem that reflects on the browser, not a browser problem.

Gmail and Facebook are heavy? Really?

Mrk

 

Appreciate the offer. What do you think of this site: http://www.planetamd64.com/ ? The scrolling on that page is atrocious compared to sites like, say, this forum.

Smooth scrolling is turned on, btw. Firefox 3.0.7 on Ubuntu Intrepid.

What would you suggest as appropriate examples, then?

That's a rather questionable metric of security, if you ask me. Just as an extreme example - I've never got infected even when I used unpatched IE6 on unpatched WinXP, and I've also never gotten infected on Linux, but I think that comparing the safety of those two systems is hardly meaningless.

 

What are the "Must Have" extensions for Firefox??:
This thread will give some accumulated info: there are newer extensions since the last post, some have been left behind; but this is a good starter:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=122085&highlight=Firefox extensions
Lots of lists if you google.
Simple starters: NoScript, AdBlock Plus,TabMixPlus, CustomizeGoogle: then away you go.
There are so many cool tools for FF its getting hard to keep up.

 

Ahhhh. A 'which is best/ which should I use' thread that properly and tactfully points out that percieved issues or program prerequisites really are a users preference.

Great responses for a question with no true answer.

I salute you Wilders members!

Sul.

 

Hello,

I checked the site. That's an awfully badly coded site and looks ugly as hell ... however, it scrolls ok. No different than any other site. You get the impression that is scrolls badly because of the uneven layout of those boxes.

I have no quarrel with sites in general, everything loads reasonably ok. I usually surf with no js, so it's a bit difficult for me to point out troublesome sites, but when I do use sites that require js (like gmail), no issues.

BTW, if you have an anti-virus that uses some sort of an http scanner, web traffic plugin whatever, you may notice horrible slowdown in experience. At my former workplace, it would take ff approx. 2 seconds to open a tab with mcafee anti-bullshit installed. When I removed it, ff started behaving normally. Firewalls are also important. Bad firewall slow down traffic, increase latency.

It really depends on the setup. I've never had issue with ff startup time, memory leak or anything like that, but then, my security setup has always been minimalistic. Usually, just firewall.

Security: you claim chrome to be the best. Based on what? Have you tried infecting your system, say through opera or firefox versus chrome so you have any results? My bet is = 0 infections with these browsers, no matter what you try.

Mrk

 

Somehow I doubt that it's just perception. The site "snaps" downwards at discrete intervals, so to speak, and finishes a PgDn scroll in ~0.5s slower than on other websites. Using a bookmarklet to zap the background reverts Firefox to its usual, reasonably smooth scrolling. Yes, it scrolls "ok", without crashing or stuff, but it is jerky.

Opera and IE8 do not run into this problem.

I only run Firefox in Ubuntu now, so no antivirus. Firewall is ufw (and router).

Based on how Chrome was impregnable at the last Pwn2Own contest, and having the least number of security vulnerabilities to date. Surely those must count for something, even if you feel inclined to disregard Chrome's restricted-privileges access model.

As I've said, practical experience is not necessarily the only way to learn about things. One doesn't need to put one's hand into the fire to find out that it burns.

 

Chrome exists for approx. 0.1 time Firefox exists so ... Someone runs a hacking contest and all of a sudden it becomes a holy bible? Really ...

On a side note, if you're on Ubuntu, how can you compare FF with IE8 ...??

Either way, it does not matter. Use whatever you like. Just remember that no single test/experience means anything in the global scope. Take a look at the browser trends in the last 2-3 years, IE on the decline, FF on the rise, Opera on a slight decline, Chrome steady-slight rise. That means something, doesn't it?

Mrk

 

Firefox can be very fast, until plugins and addons are included (even just Adobe Reader and Flash). Once extras are included, Firefox can slow down significantly.

Also, I tried searching Wilders by user name, for example, and Firefox displayed a list of names (using javascript) as I started to type until a match was made.

In Chrome, you can't do this by default. You also bypass the first search page and display the second advanced search page immediately. If this is any indication, its possible the performance differential in Chrome may be due mostly to a loss in functionality instead of improvements in coding efficiency. It's just that most may not notice or need the lost functionality.


In terms of security, Charlie Wilson, the researcher who quickly broke through Safari on a MAC at the CamSecWest Security Conference said in an interview:

 

I don't see how Chrome's age excuses its stellar performance in this regard. Surely it's the other way round, and reasonable to expect the Mozilla folks, who've been working on and fine-tuning their product for 10 years, to do a better job than a new startup?

Though, of course, it's entirely possible that Chrome is just what Phoenix/Firebird used to be, and will progressively become slower and more insecure as time goes by.

Dual-boot, Virtualbox, a second laptop with Vista installed, etc.

I'll agree with this. Chrome may be fast and secure, but that's not everything as far as browsers are concerned. I can imagine that many people are reluctant to give up the creature comforts that Firefox and Opera provide; I myself miss Adblock and Firegestures as well when using Chrome.

 

Chrome breaks some new grounds and its a refreshing addition to the browser field, at least it has woken up many and garnered the right attention on where and how the browser development should be shaping up.

 

Google is not what you would classify as a startup. Also, they employ some of the brightest engineers in the world. As such, it is reasonable to expect them to develop an application that can equal or surpass that of Mozilla's own offering.

I actually think that Chrome's core functionality is pretty good. It just needs more time to mature. Hopefully, it will be as extensible as Firefox and won't turn into bloatware.

 

You do realize that you can have pretty much every browser out there installed at the same time, right?

While I prefer Firefox (with certain add-on extensions), I also just updated to IE8 from IE7 tonight, and I have in the past had Opera and Chrome installed. In all honesty, Chrome did nothing for me. Still, it is good that there are multiple browsers, as we do not all like the same things.

 

Chrome is the best for me. Simple, fast, secure, stable, elegant, user friendly.