Is Firefox still the safest web browser?

Eh, it's not a huge deal. It's certainly a hole though.

 

That's pretty extremist. I prefer to put some trust in AMO.

 

My guess is that it was ABP or Ghostery. Unfortunately it crashed & burned before I could analyse/experiment more.

 

I'm using ABP with it. Maybe Ghostery.

Can't say without testing.

 

yea.

this thread makes me want to switch browser
I'll probably go back to Opera now.

it has on-demand plugin and adblock thru .ini
no need for extensions and there's probably a reason why our Exploit Analyst Rmus uses Opera himself

 

Ghostery is often the culprit.

 

Not to say that you'll be infected purely based on your browser choice but in my opinion if you weigh up what each browser does to secure themselves Opera falls very short.

 

Can I use TOR with Chrome or Comodo Dragon?

 

heh
I have Sandboxie so I might as well use it to cover my opera's weaknesses

yes of course but the most recommended is to use TOR Browser bundle.

 

Found a post by the noscript developer in his forums.

from here -http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7020&sid=8c3873df3ea2a0cd6a1f7ffaf91218ad

 

On the Noscript/Informaction forum, the Noscript for Google Chrome? thread (page 5) holds the most interesting info thus far on "Noscript for Chrome". link.
Georgio Maone is in contact with Chrome devs (or viceversa).
"I've been recently contacted by the Chromium privacy team, who offered to ease the porting by lobbying for the necessary changes to be implemented in the browser. We're currently cooperating to that aim, but it won't happen overnight." (from Aug 2011).

 

@Skudo - that's fairly old, from August. Considering that the WebRequest API is recently out it can't really be used. Experimental builds have only very recently been released.

@Baserk - same story.

Maybe it's still the case.

As I said it's possible that some of the more advanced features are still not possible but in terms of blocking a script before it's been loaded... that's done.

 

Either way, this brings me back to my original point. I think that once Firefox has NoScript & a few other choice security extensions installed it is as good as Chrome or IE9. Basically it is a swings & roundabouts thing, what one has the other doesn't & vice versa.

 

Not necessary as the AMO Review Process is very strict. You should really check:

http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/02/04/overview-amo-review-process/
http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/02/04/overview-amo-review-process/comment-page-1/#comment-149550
https://wiki.mozilla.org/AMO:Editors/EditorGuide/AddonReviews

 

indeed. and there's probably a reason why Firefox is the browser used in TOR Browser Bundle... which also includes NoScript add-on

still.. I will have the three browser for different usage. thanks for the links
IE9
Opera
Firefox

 

Nonetheless, Firefox is very slow compared to Chrome. They really need to work on that.

 

Okay!

 

Exactly. As if anybody uses Chrome because it's more secure. They use it because it's not slower than super slow motion like good old FF

 

I still disagree. Even with NoScript Firefox can't make up for the core security features that are built into Chrome. No extensions will make Firefox's tabs sandboxed. A single infection in Flash for Firefox can attack every other tab and that goes for every other part of the browser.

Exploits in Firefox will also be more severe because it runs at medium integrity whereas Chrome runs with low.

While performance and usability are my main goals I still factor in security when choosing a browser.

 

Apparently Lynx Browser is also a choice

 

You've apparently never tried newer FF versions than 3.6.

 

That's my thought as well. It seems like some people are exactly like the "IE is bad because IE 6 was a security nightmare" crowd. They don't let go of outdated and long solved issues. FF7 to currently Alpha 10 is very, very fast for me generally. Actually, if you truly want the best speed out there, stick NoScript in Firefox. Screw Chrome's javascript benchmarks, if 3rd party scripts don't load, there are no slowdowns.

Chrome, however, there is no denying it is the safer option, IF you leave out alternatives like Sandboxie. With Sandboxie brought in, it really won't matter.

 

Yeah, Firefox 5-9 (the ones I've used) have been very quick.

I haven't run any seriously heavy things though. I know when I was running some really heavy stuff Chrome was the only one that could handle it.

Again, gotta disagree here. Sandboxie will add significant security but it still can't stop one malicious tab from reading another.

 

yeah, but if the whole thing is sandboxed and you're not doing anything sensitive in any of those tabs, then we're all good, right?

i feel like Professor Venkman in Ghostbusters.

 

Yes, if you have two tabs open and one is just a blank page and the other is malicious it isn't a big deal.