Is Firefox still the safest web browser?

Also, why is open source considered as "safer"?

Furthermore, how much do Firefox software developers get paid?

 

Open source is considered safer for a few reasons.

1) Verify that the code is secure. When everyone can see the code they can verify that it's coded properly as well as ensuring that the code itself isn't malicious.

2) The "more eyes" idea. When more people can view your source code you're more likely to get input on security holes/ bugs.

3) When something is open source it can be compiled by the user. This is important for open source Operating Systems because you can build a program into the kernel (if it's made for it.)

 

Yes, together with latest ie, chrome, opera, safari.

 

Which one of them?

 

Can't believe I didn't answer your question lol sorry

In order of security and this si my opinion
Chrome
IE9
Firefox
Opera

IE9 is arguably more secure than Chrome in some ways. I personally think that Chrome still does a better job for a few reasons.

 

It may be your opinion but I will second it.

 

Any browser is as secure, or insecure, as you make it. Someone running IE in a Sandbox or Virtual Machine with appropriate configurations will be safer than someone running Firefox without any customization.

Whichever browser you choose, I'd highly recommend installing some measure of script blocking, ad blocking, and flash/plugin blocking. Also, if you're not running as a limited user, demote the privileges of your browser. If you can stomach it, use a virtual machine or some measure of light sandboxing. Taking these steps will drastically improve the security of your browsing experience.

But remember, nothing's bulletproof.

 

I think normally when security issues arise it's because of 3rd party plug ins or add ons which are either compromised or just malicious.

 

you're late to the party, Firefox hasn't been the safest browsers for a few years.

Firefox and Opera don't have any type of 'sandboxing'.

which leaves IE9 and Chrome for the top spot, as far as security goes.
IE9 is better for 'social engineering' type of malware.
Chrome is better vs exploits.

of course, any browser can be made as secure as you want with extra security added in.
but 'out of the box' ; definetely Chrome and IE9 are the safest.

 

And I will third that opinion.

 

Yeah, I reckon Chrome/Iron & IE9 are the safest 'out of the box'. Firefox has some pretty good security extensions/add-ons though. Including WOT, NoScript, Flagfox & many more.

 

I would have to argue that even when factoring extensions in Chrome and IE9 are both easily the most secure.

Even Firefox with NoScript can't make up for the lack of sandboxed tabs. Malware on one tab can compromise the entire browser and that's a core-issue that plugins just can't fix.

As for Opera? I could go on and on about its security or lack thereof.

 

Maybe. I have some faith in NoScript with ABP though. ABP works far better on Firefox than Chrome & there is no real NoScript equivalent for Chrome.

Yeah well, I have it on good authority that only three people actually use Opera. Four if you count the fact that I am using it to reply to this post.

 

You missed the other topics?

Adblock Plus works fine on Chrome with the WebRequest API. It even has DoNotTrack now.

ScriptNo works just as well as NoScript barring a few outstanding bugs. It even includes a few malware blacklists.

 

And I'm not saying Opera is a bad browser. I'm only commenting on security. Use what you like =p

 

Somehow I doubt it.

LOL! Dream on.

 

Boy, you really did miss the other topics.

Yes, they work well now. They're currently in experimental builds and use the experimental extensions API for WebRequest but the functionality is literally the same. Scripts and Ads are now blocked before they load/ as the page request is made.

 

I know ABP has improved for Chrome, but let's face it, Chrome's extensions are dodgy at best. I won't say that they are all bollocks, but some of those extensions & add-ons are for Chrome are basic at best compared to the Mozilla add-on equivalents.

Oh & don't get me started about ScriptNo ...

 

That's pretty baseless. The adblock plus dev has an extension for both Firefox AND Chrome and what I'm saying is coming from him.

The WebRequest API gives ScriptNo and ABP the functionality that they need to work literally just as well as Firefox.

 

Baseless? ABP in Chrome doesn't work as well as it does in Firefox, for me anyway.

Literally just as well? I just don't accept ScriptNo is anywhere near as developed or as good as NoScript running on Firefox.

Admittedly ScriptNo fried my Chrome portable & didn't even work for me, so I'm a little biased here, but I won't accept Chrome's extensions are in the same league as Mozilla's. It's like comparing a Sopwith Camel with Concorde.

 

Why?

That's fine. As I said it can be buggy and it sounds like your system is having an issue with it/ vica versa. The point is that the webrequest API provides the functionality necessary for it to work properly.

If you use experimental extensions api + experimental build of ABP your in-video ads will be blocked. That's a fact, I'm doing it right now - hulu ads are blocked.

If you refuse to accept it that's one thing but there's no reason. ScriptNo works just as well (in terms of its functions) as NoScript the only difference is that ScriptNo has a few outstanding bugs.

 

Firefox is open source & doesn't need API functionality work-arounds for NoScript to function properly & NoScript has also been around & well developed by Mr Maone for a much longer time. Ya don't need a degree in the 'bleedin' obvious' to figure this one out.

I've only tried ScriptNo on my notebook, there is no way that I'm trying it on my desktop. It will probably go into the China Syndrome!

I think I'll wait until it is out of the prototype & developed properly.

As I said, dream on. Dude, you're letting your fanboy obsession with Chrome & its extensions cloud your judgement.

ScriptNo has a few outstanding bugs? That's the understatement of the month!

That's cheered me up after a long day, thanks.

 

if don't need flash:
IE9 (also best out of the box)
Firefox
Safari
Opera
Chrome


if need flash:
Chrome
Firefox
Opera
IE9
Safari

sandboxied

 

Open source doesn't have to do with API. Chrome is open source as well. Dev time helps reduce bugs/ add in features but it doesn't make the program inherently better. ScriptNo still has the same functionality, just a few more bugs.

If you're having issues youd on't have to use it lol it's irrelevant to its functionality

Makes sense.

1) I'm not a fanboy. I sometimes joke that I am but I'll drop Chrome in a second if/when an alternative comes around that is legitimately better. That goes for every product on my system.

2) Yes, a few.
http://code.google.com/p/scriptno/issues/list

9 to be exact.

 

if don't need flash:
IE9 (also best out of the box)
Firefox
Safari
Opera
Chrome

Interesting. Any reason for this order?