Google Chrome's malware protection

You've said it! A zillion times!

 

And I will keep saying =p

 

IE8 routinely warns about downloads possibly being harmful, as I recall. I use it so infrequently these days... almost NEVER. And being unable to migrate to IE9 (as long as I cling to XP), I am extremely pleased that I "discovered" Chrome.

(I know, I'm a bit late to the party, but at least I showed up.)

I'm learning so much about Chrome's security features, and its speed is sick.

 

Showing up is the best part

 

Apologies for making yet another point on this interesting thread. It is intended to inspire comment, not to provoke.

There are two more threads dealing with the merits of IE and Chrome ongoing at the same time as this one. They are slightly defined differently, but in practice all these three threads are very closely related.

If you have read the link put forward in post 86, you will see that IE9 has been hailed as the world`s best browser by a very BIG margin.

It is said that IE9 passed an independent test for comparative browser security at 92% whilst Firefox, Chrome, and Safari only achieved a miserable 13% and Opera was utterly sunk at 5%.

Now, nobody of any intelligence can be serious in believing that kind of ridiculous twaddle wherever it comes from, but it is supposed to be produced by a responsible source.

The information does rather make our arguing and bruising each other on the relative security issues of Chrome and Firefox - two allegedly most insecure browsers on the Planet - a rather futile and unnecessary bun-fight. Here we are scratching our eyes out about two miserable browsers having a security rating of only 13%, when IE9 rockets to infinite stardom at 92%. It is preposterous.

Just for the brave hearted, I have been involved in functional testing of competitive products many times during my Marketing career and treat this kind of stuff with a BIG pinch of salt.

Tests can be critically serious IF the result is of vital importance to product performance, but tests can also be doctored to show with actual "facts" to conclude whatever you wish. You decide the answer and feed the necessary criteria in so as to provide it. A typical Management and Government trick designed to induce the masses into believing some rubbish that gains Brownie points in the market place or amongst an electorate.

It is not the first time that the innocent is proven guilty, just a matter of how the questions are popped and the procedure orchestrated.

I do not attach any credence to the IE9 = 92% security gold medal awarded by this dubious source - had a really good laugh, but it does warrant the attention of all you highly respected and knowledgeable experts, fighting over the carcasses of two security lacking corpses.

John

 

Man, I just don't see any "arguing and bruising", "futile and unnecessary bun-fights" or "scratching our eyes out" except from one person. Guess who?

 

Well you are certainly a die-hard out, seeing your persistence in trying to undermine this thread.

 

Its so evident.

 

Don't worry John, when it comes to security, a good 'provoking' comment shouldn't be a bad thing. It is difficult to know what is actually real on an Internet that can produce so many 'statistics' anyway.

Yes, well, what is considered 'best' & what is 'good & practical' can be a debated point.

Apparently, this source. It may well be all true, it's about time IE became more security conscious anyway. I can't run IE 9 on my notebook as it eats too much RAM & wastes some of my desktop icons & sidebar. Something I have seen on other machines running Vista. However, it runs well on my Win 7 64 bit desktop. Either way, it still hasn't convinced me to use it regularly as a browser.

It's not going to change the mind of those who prefer Chrome or Firefox to change to IE any day soon IMHO.

I think that if you have a decent AV & utilise various add-ons/extensions to Chrome & Firefox , or have on-demand secondary scanners etc, much of this with IE 9 is a non-issue.

 

"Security ratings of only 13%" Not quite. They block 13% of the malware - that has very little to do with Chrome's overall security... though it is quite a bit of Firefox's.

 

A 3-month old article, but maybe some haven't read it?

Chrome's Security Crown Slips

As of the date of the article, the exploit was not in the wild, not publicly disclosed, and also the first attack to defeat Chrome's sandbox. On the bright side...

Betcha it was fixed quick... although VUPEN did not indicate they had shared any details with Google. One would hope so.

 

I can't imagine anyone on Wilders hasn't seen that - it was quite a bit deal.

Vupen did not share any of the details with Google and it's unknown whether or not it still exists. Flash was the attack vector and Adobe has patched hundreds of vulnerabilities since then.

 

A very recent (August 3rd) review, and one of the more in-depth looks at Chrome that I have come across...
Google Chrome CNET Editor's Review

 

I can assure you that people (like me) who have been content with what they are running and not actively looking for alternatives or replacements haven't seen it.

There might be a terrific article available today on some topic that I am not interested in right now, but if my focus changes down the road, today's article will be brand new to me then.

 

Haha I suppose. I just mean that it was a big deal when it happened.

 

That's why it's called cutting edge, my man.
Not everyone is on it.