Of course there is. You must be kidding me! =p Reason to separate tab processes: 1) If one tab crashes the others don't. So stabilitiy. 2) If one tab has secure information on it (online banking) it is separate from EVERY other tab. If another tab is malicious you don't have to worry about it having access. In firefox/ sandboxie this is NOT the case, tabs have full access to each other. Reason to separate javascript renderer: 1) Obviously stability. 2) Rogue javascript is a huge security issue. Keeping it locked down means separating it from every other tab that it could effect. Acting like this isn't a HUGE security boon is to deny the greater part of attacks on users. Yes. Chrome's sandbox IS stronger because it isn't stuck in one large sandbox AND you can easily pair the two together, it's not one or the other. edit: Not to mention that Sandboxie has been breached multiple times and Chrome has been breached once. "Chrome lacks an Auto-Updater." Is this a joke? Chrome autoupdates all plugins, extensions, and the browser itself. "Security is great as long as it is Not sacrificed for Functionality. -Average users want Ease of Use/User Friendliness, too. -Average users want their pages to be correctly displayed, too." Chrome's inability to show webpages the same way other browsers do is not a symptom of it's security features, it's because webkit is so much newer. I have no clue why you keep pressing this when I've already agreed that firefox and IE are going to get you positive results in terms of webpage rendering, I'm simply saying that FF4 is falling behind. No I have no source or examples, I talked to the guy yesterday and he was talking about websites that he himself was creating. ""Why doesn't my Chrome show Wilders the way IE/FF do?" Is it the Wilders site to blame on it?" There can be multiple reasons why. If a site isn't following web standards, yeah, it's the sites fault. If webkit isn't following web standards, yes, it's webkit's fault. So in terms of redeeming qualities we have: Will show some webpages better than Chrome. Except that by that argument we should all be using IE9. The arguments thus far against chrome have been: 1) You can't tell that Chrome is faster. The fact is if Chrome is faster by 1 second even it's still faster, even if it's .3 seconds (this is a legitimate difference in pages with very little javascript) 2) It won't always display pages the way firefox/IE9 will. In terms of purely security you'd have to be hugely misinformed to believe that firefox (even with sandboxie!) is as strong as Chrome.
I've already said stability. Internet Access or Start/Run Restrictions does a far better job of protecting your personal info. The whole thing is locked down anyways. Being stuck in one large sandbox isn't such a strong disadvantage. You can pair almost any software with Sandboxie. Not to mention Sandboxie existed longer.
It's not a huge disadvantage, but to say that sandboxie somehow makes firefox close to Chrome's security.... is just silly. Especially when they can be paired together. And sandboxie's been around since 06. Chrome's been around since 08. I would bet more people use Chrome than use sandboxie. The fact is that sandboxie + firefox is not as strong as chrome alone and Chrome can use sandboxie as well.
Sandboxie was first released in 26 June 2004. The fact is, Chrome's sandbox is not stronger than Sandboxie. Also you've conveniently ignored Sandboxie's whitelisting restrictions twice now.
Please keep (probable) fact and opinion separate. The fact is that sandboxie + firefox is not as strong as chrome alone >>> opinion Chrome can use sandboxie as well >>> fact (easily verifiable)
It's really not much of an opinion... it's simple logic, but ok. 1) Says you. 2) You can use Chrome with sandboxie, so I can't even see how sandboxie is relevant to this conversation. What about it? Again, because sandboxie can be run in both it really isn't relevant to whether one browser is more secure than the other. The FACT is that Chrome has an additional layer of protection with its sandbox that firefox does not have. The FACT is that anything sandboxie does for firefox it can do for chrome. Historically chrome has also been quicker than firefox in adopting new technologies like DEP/ASLR/SEHOP into the browser.
1) Right back at you. 2) It was relevant as soon as you've claimed Chrome's sandbox is "far more secure" than Sandboxie. It clearly gives Sandboxie superior security over Chrome. First fact may be true. Second is blatantly false. Does Chrome's sandbox extend to your downloads? Does it have whitelisting restrictions?
Chrome scans all downloads (or at least the beta does) the same way that IE9 does. It's another security method and it's unproven how well it protects the user. The second is not blatantly false... what does sandboxie provide to firefox users that it does not provide to chrome users? Sandboxie will NOT stop malicious javascript from looking at your other tabs. That's just a fact. Chrome's sandboxing will. Chrome's sandboxing is inherently more secure than sandboxie's sandboxing because it uses multiple sandboxes instead of just two (extensions/ everything else)
Put it this way, most people on this forum that use Firefox seem to always need to suggest 3rd party addons such as No-Script and 3rd party software such as Sandboxie to secure the browser. IE9 and Chrome secure their browser without the need of 3rd party intervention.
That's a very good point. IE9/Chrome are OUT OF THE BOX more secure, I can't imagine anyone will be arguing against that. I'd still say that even with 3rd party apps they're more secure. http://blog.chromium.org/2011/04/protecting-users-from-malicious.html That's some info on Chrome scanning downloads.
It doesn't sandbox them though. How many times do I have to repeat restrictions for it to sink into you? I'll give you that much, except for the more secure part.
Why would you want to sandbox downloads? IE9 and Chrome filter out the malware and sketchy downloads so you should only be left with genuine files. Are you seriously telling me the reason you sandbox your browser isn't incase it is exploited, but infact, is because you're unsure of what you're downloading? You might aswell run your browser in a Virtual Machine if that's the case.
Did I say it sandboxes them? No. And why would restrictions not apply to Chrome? And when I say more secure than sandboxie I mean sandboxie's sandboxing feature vs Chrome's sandboxing feature.
@elapsed: You can scan with more accuracy like using VirusTotal and ThreatExpert. You can also run the download inside and see for yourself. Then restore or delete. @Hungry Man: If you include Sandboxie's Restriction feature, which you keep forgetting, that isn't true.
You can also do that without sandboxie. Which brings me back to my original point of being unsure of what you're running. In this case, you're using sandboxie as an alternative to a VM, which has veered far away from anything to do with browsers whatsoever. You could do this without sandboxing your browser.
I'm not forgetting anything. I've already responded to this... in terms of downloads Chrome does not sandbox, it scans them instead. There's no use trying to compare these two completely different methods right now. As for sandboxing the browser itself I think it's fairly clear: Sandboxie provides a single sandbox and Chrome provides multiples. Though this conversation has turned from "Firefox vs Chrome" to "Sandboxie vs Chrome", which I've already said is a useless conversation since they're stackable.
Excluding the security part which u experts are already debating il just say this the most important thng that chrome need to do is offer customization like firefox and addons as pwerful as in ff and il switch to chrome
I was referring to what that case: See THIS and THIS I know about the Technical aspect, BUT Average Users will Not care for it. Bottom Line: Whether it's a Site Fault or webkit Fault, Average Users will Not Give a Damn! Do you know what they are going to do? They will turn their back on Chrome and go back to IE and/or FF. Why? Because Functionality/Ease-of-Use is Equally important -Not to say More important- than Security for the Average/Inexperienced User who will start asking 'Why Google Chrome does Not show correctly this site, that site etc.?' 'Why Google Chrome opens this XYZ that way and Not the way IE/FF do?' -Do you know how many times I was forced to remove Chrome from Average/Inexperienced Users and get them back to IE and FF? When it comes to Security-Functionality Trade-Balance, then IE and FF are the Best for the Average/Inexperienced User. Hands Down! Case Closed! No need to comment on that... -IF IE9 had a Favorites Manager that maintains the non-Alphabetical Listing Order after Exporting & Importing Favorites. -IF IE9 TPL was equally effective with ABP. -IF IE9 offered more Customization (Add-ons, Themes etc.) Now, who's is Joking? Come on now. Do you think that the Majority of Users (i.e. the Average Joe) will care about milliseconds? What they (i.e. the Average Joe) will care is to have their Webpages opened without a problem. For the time being, Google Chrome (despite its Security aspects) canNot guarantee it! So, I prefer installing IE and FF with add-ons, Sandboxie etc. instead of having Friends, Relatives, Workmates, Customers etc. complaining about Chrome failing to A, properly shown B etc. Tell it to the people using FF (with NoScript, ABP, and other Security add-ons) together with Sandboxie. They enjoy High Security, but they also enjoy High Functionality! Besides, no one is so Naive to stay with Google Chrome sandbox as their Sole layer of Security. If it had been the case, then, users would have dropped Real-Time protection (Scanners, Firewalls, DNS services etc.)
The average user (like myself) will probably not run into a website that Chrome won't display properly. And if we're talking about balancing security and web display it goes to IE9 and definitely not firefox. Firefox doesn't provide any security functionality that IE9 doesn't while it still manages to not provide any websites rendering better than IE9. These are just random features. Chrome has pretty tabs lol so what? The conversation started out about me not finding redeeming qualities in FF lol it's turned into you defending FF for the average user. I have never had a problem with site display issues (M$'s site occasionally is weird but I've realized it's like that in IE9 too.) I KNOW that there are sites that will but I'm saying that Chrome does a pretty good job. It's up to the user what tradeoffs they expect. You need multiple addons to get firefox even close to as secure as Chrome. That's my point. Speaking of "the average person" do you really expect them to know what 10 different programs are? Do you really think they want to install all of these things and configure them to work with firefox just to get close to Chrome's security? I see why some people use firefox, it has a customizable UI, but I've never seen any appealing aspect after Chrome. Why? Because I've never come across a page that hasn't open fine in Chrome. Because even if it's a 30ms speedup in some cases I'll always opt into that 30ms speed up. Because it IS more secure out of the box than any other browser. edit: Oh and Chrome gets a perfect score on Acid3 and Firefox gets a 97.
My vote to Google Chrome.Fast and Secure.Clean and Plain.Besides,I probably able to open up to hundreds of tabs without issue.
To get this resolved (eventually...) and avoid further misconception, I use all Four (4) Browsers: IE9, FF4, GC11, and Opera 11. It makes a Huge Difference between the Average Joe (=Inexperienced user), who primarily focuses on proper Web-Page Rendering, and the Wilders members who primarily focus on Security. Let's Not confuse the Little or No Security concern of the Average Joe (=Inexperienced user) with the Security Expertise (not to say Obsession or Paranoia). To stay out of Trouble (= Complains about improper Web-Page Rendering), I've used the IE9 (and/or FF and Security Add-ons) with Sandboxie Free etc. on many PCs. I've ZERO (0) Complains in terms of Security and Functionality. With Chrome, I have had Problems leading to Complaints. I PM you ScreenShots of a site that Chrome canNot properly show. Wilders has problems with Chrome, too. HERE and HERE Do Not overlook these issues and solely focus on Security. Functionality is important, too. With Security add-ons, Sandboxie etc. I can make IE9 and FF secure enough. When a Friend, Relative, Neighbor, Workmate, Customer complains about Chrome's inability to Render Content properly, what do I have to do? How to convince them to continue using Chrome? The same happened with Opera when users couldn't enjoy Facebook Flash games etc. Sorry, but as long as Chrome and Opera do Not open Webpages the way IE/FF do, I will Not install them on other PC(s) except my Testing Rings!
