I will make a controversial comment:
My experience is that security is a function of simplicity and individuals having a complete understanding of the code and implications of changes.
Implications:
– A smaller team will generally lead to more secure software than a larger team.
– Many security layers are counterproductive.
In studies, bugs per KLOC are relatively consistent. A 100-line program can be fully auditable. One with a JIT in a virtual machine in a sandbox looks, on paper, more secure. In practice:
– There are many more places to introduce bugs.
– Beyond some level of complexity, it’s impossible to understand the security model holistically.
– Bugs often cut across layers
– Layers are often used as an excuse (“We’ll leave this, since that other layer will catch it).
Layers can be okay if they’re well-understood, analyzed, and well-documented (e.g. postfix). However, the vast majority of the time, they’re not. People pointing to bigger workforce or sandboxes in Chrome aren’t selling me. It only takes one idiot…. And for sandboxes? I’ve never seen a clean block diagram of the Chrome security model.
To be clear: I’m not arguing which browser is more secure — simply that the arguments in this thread don’t sell me.
> My experience is that security is a function of simplicity
I don’t think this is controversial at all. For example: I keep using uMatrix to block (by default) or allow scripts, frames and XHR because it’s orders of magnitudes simpler to use than the way the same developer added that functionality to uBlock Origin. I still use uBO to block ads and hide unwanted elements from the DOM. It’s the difference between writing [pick your favorite high level language] and machine code. If all I had was uBO I would let those scripts run.
not sure why you say it’s a “controversial comment”…
What you say is well documented and you made a reasonable comment!
The bigger the software, the more likely it is to be exploited…
I was about to ask for the same thing. All best practices within the security domain point towards multiple layers of security, simply to have some fallback if one mechanism is compromised.
Let’s not talk about privacy (because there is no point in talking about it: Firefox is eons more private than Chrome – or any of it’s based browsers – can ever be)
About security: Chrome has a biggest workforce, yes. but let’s think about this a bit…
First, let’s not forget that chrome is also a bigger target.
let’s imagine this:
Consider that 90% of the users worldwide use chromium-based browsers, and you are an hacker who wants to steal peoples data or access their computers.
Would you bother targeting 10% of the users. Or would you just go after those 90%???
now add another detail into that thinking:
people who use Firefox are mostly techies, people who know about computers, gnu/linux users, developers, more security-conscientious users, people who actually know and care about the tech that goes bellow, people that knows what’s happening in the IT world, and people that simple don’t go with the flock without studding it’s path first… now… would you really bother targeting those when you have 90% of people – where probably 85% don’t know anything about computers or just don’t give a #$%& about it???
Would you go easy bait, or would you try to outsmart those who might be at the same level you are???
(sure, there is always exceptions!!!)
but then again… maybe that’s just me…
This is exactly it. I used Linux on PowerPC for the same reason: Literally nobody was targeting it, especially compared to Windows on x86. Even now, why would anyone waste their time targeting desktop Linux on x86. Basically unheard of, because it’s pointless (Except in targeted attacks.)
Thing is, targeting Linux on x86 will target high value users. Either servers, developers, sysadmins and the like. Yes you will hit less people, but the value of each hit is magnitude higher. It’s the same reasons apps first target iOS rather than android: apple users have an easier wallet.
I find this to be a bit of a weak argument. What you make makes sense, but of for some reason a glaring security hole is noticed, people are going to take advantage of it.
naturally! There are always exceptions and there will always be people that will bother targeting those 10%.
Even more: if they could create something that targets both platforms that will be even better…
The question will always be of Work Vs Gain. Will your work result in gain. Does it justify targeting those 10%? (if it’s an “easy thing to do” then we’ll all get targeted)
Going off the top comment’s simplicity is security paradigm, it’s hard to pitch Brave as a secure browser given its non-core complexity. (This would be as true if it were running a protein-folding simulation in the background as it is with its crypto bits.)
yeah… that’s the “details” i talk about we have to ignore.
They take privacy and security seriously but then they have all this “extras” (ads, cryptocoins, rewards and a bunch of other things i don’t like…)
All in all, i would say it’s probably the best within the Chromium-based browsers, but i still don’t use it!
> Let’s not talk about privacy (because there is no point in talking about it: Firefox is eons more private than Chrome – or any of it’s based browsers – can ever be)
Firefox with its default settings is both less private and less secure than Brave. On iOS, Firefox has refused for years to implement an adblocker.
It’s best to say nothing if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
yeap… i really don’t know what i’m talking about, how would I…
I also don’t like to go with the flock…
and… how cares about the defaults? You have the options you should care to configure things for yourself. if you don’t know how you should search and instruct yourself to do it.
About iOS… Have you even considered that Apple has forced their rendering engine ( https://gprivate.com/6btxx ) and that alone makes it impossible to have an adblocker – yeah… apple is THAT great!!! (in fact, their products are the best of the best. You should keep using them…)
but then again… i don’t know what i’m talking about, do I!!!
(also… you should learn how to be polite to others!!!)
In term of time to patch 0-day, Firefox is very quick to fix them (usually hours committed, days to publish). Chrome is quick too, so it’s not a competitive advantage.
Most of cyber-criminals however, will target Chrome because it’s way more used.
In term of control the password manager of firefox don’t need you to have an account. That is very important because, you want to use a password manager on the web and to be able to actually trust it. Google can close you account without previous notice.
Privacy aside, Google controlling so many parts of your life if you’re all-in on the ecosystem is insane, and they can nuke it all at a whim with no recourse possible.
I was using Google Workspace for my family, then realised that if Google decided to nuke my account I would lose so much, and migrated away from Google’s services to individual ones instead. Fastmail for mail, Tresorit/Dropbox for cloud storage, iCloud (with backup) for photos, etc.
Sure, you’re still at risk if a company nukes an account but you’d not lose your whole online life.
Larger teams actually mean slower changes, and more likelihood that the code is not great.
Integrations for Google accounts can be seen as a privacy violation. Google doesn’t need to know what other services I am using.
Google’s password manager still has my passwords saved after disabling the feature AND manually “deleting” each one individually. Do not trust them with your passwords.
There is no difference for 99.999% of people.
You are so unlikely to get exploited by a browser vulnerability (if you update) that it’s not worth writing about. The people powerful/rich enough have or can acquire an exploit for both.
The choice of browsers is more about what features you want and whether you want a browser engine monopoly or not. Firefox has a few features I like not present in chromium and it’s also not part of the monopoly so I use it.
I use Firefox so I don’t really have a meaningful experience with Chrome. What I can tell you is that any time I open the matrix of uMatrix (it’s one click on the toolbar) I often see a zillion of sites and potential script and XHR requests. Only a few are really needed to display the content of page or even to make some complex UI work. In almost no case blocking the scripts for telemetry, error reporting, etc break the page.
So I wonder how much unnecessary information people using Chrome leak to those sites and the third parties that receive, log and possibly sell those data.
Practically, the number of people infected with 0-day drive bys vs the number of computers compromised by exploiting the user is insignificant. A browser that helps me concentrate is _MUCH_ safer.
I don’t know if it makes sense to ignore “Google as a company” for this question. You can employ as many people as you want but it won’t make a difference if you don’t incentivise responsible and secure engineering.
Also, doesn’t Firefox also have a decent password management function?
I think chrome has better security model, sandboxing…
But Firefox seems to have much better security when it comes to reviewing extensions. Some popular extensions go through approval and source code review on every release.
Chrome Play store does not seems to have that. Google incentive even goes against something like UBlock. If extension gets sold, or developer account compromised, we may get widely distributed malware!
Last month, there was a significant buzz among those involved with Google Search (which includes almost the entire modern internet and all its developers). “Erfan Azimi,” the owner of an SEO firm, suddenly began sharing leaked documents revealing how Google’s ranking system works. It’s more complicated than just the search itself; it involves various APIs around it. Nonetheless, these APIs reveal a lot. The leak happened when a Google developer wrote a program to convert API calls into his preferred programming language but accidentally published everything (if you’re interested, I’ve included a link to the commit with all these descriptions [1]).
Multiple confirmations from reputable sources, including former and current Googlers, have verified the authenticity of this leak. It’s not a hoax or a joke but a genuine breach of information that has piqued the interest of all SEO researchers. Here’s a reliable summary of the findings:
– Google has allowlists of manually optimized sites, at least for certain topics, such as the 2020 elections or COVID-19.
– Domain names and subdomains are significant factors (despite Google’s previous claims).
– There’s a sandbox for new sites, which Google has always denied.
– Google directly uses data from EWOK (a system where paid users rate the quality of search results).
– User behavior on sites is actively used for ranking.
– Click data is collected not only from Google Analytics but also directly from the Chrome browser.
– Sites are categorized based on click volume, affecting their quality ranking and PageRank contribution.
– Google considers the overall brand size, including mentions across the internet, not just links.
– Content and links are secondary to clicks and site navigation behavior.
– SEO is almost irrelevant for most small companies and sites without a brand, user base, and reputation.
This is a monumental event in the world of Google Search, marking the most significant leak in the past 10-15 years. It suggests a potential discrepancy between Google’s public statements and its actual search practices [3]. The strategy has shifted towards clickbait and bot farms, challenging the long-standing belief that ‘content is king.’ Unsurprisingly, Google has chosen to remain silent [4]. I recommend reading this article on iPullRank [5] for a more comprehensive understanding.
If you want to stop giving all your data to Google, consider using a non-chrome browser like Firefox.
[1] https://github.com/googleapis/elixir-google-api/commit/078b4…
[2] https://sparktoro.com/blog/an-anonymous-source-shared-thousa…
[3] https://www.seroundtable.com/google-chrome-search-usage-1561…
[4] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/28/24166177/google-search-ra…
[5] https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak
For average user both are secure enough and privacy is more important concern.
I don’t think 0-day will be wasted on targeting random nobody.
To be more secure, only way is to reduce surface area. Someone like journalist should disable JS/cookies, all plugins and extensions and preferably browse through a locked down VM. Don’t know if there is any minimal browser that has actively removed features.
Firefox is much more private, but Chrome is more secure, although I don’t know to what extent and whether there is a difference in practice.
The main consideration is chance of zero days. Anyone knows?
Another non-technical consideration is market-share. Firefox’s share is low so exploiting a zero day on Chrome is much more profitable than on Firefox.
Chrome sends every address that you enter into your address bar to google. I noticed this when I decided to look through my google history and it contained all my duck duck go searches. That was enough to put me off of it.
The reason I was using duck duck go in those days was because I didn’t want google knowing everything I searched for. It’s caught up now, but it was a bit worse search in those days.
It depends on what you mean by safety.
Chrome is much more secure against browser exploits than Firefox. It is perhaps the most advanced piece of security software in the world.
Firefox is a lot more private than Chrome, given that Chrome is chock full of Google surveillance.
Ungoogled Chromium is the best of both worlds, but only if you manually build and update on a near-daily basis.
Note that most people’s advice on this topic is a non-expert, non-informed opinion. Browser choice is a pretty tribalistic, identity-tied thing. It’s like asking people “which is more secure, android or ios?”. (The answer is iOS by a mile, but most “security” types won’t give that answer because they don’t like it. Same goes with Chrome/Firefox.)
I would probably say it’s impossible to tell so both are equal in that security regard.
I would say other things like tracking for example poses a higher security risk and for that reason makes Firefox the safer choice. But you have other browsers that builds on their engines like Librewolf and similar that are even safer.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room, so to speak. Apple has a large share of mobile browser usage with Safari (a Webkit browser). Add to this also that any browser used on iOS is webkit.
That aside, what you are asking is really just you giving your personal preference of a browser and if we agree.
A lot of people are talking about privacy versus security as two different things. Surely knowing more about someone makes the likely hood of guessing a password, or targeting phishing attacks more likely.
A lot of security is down to social engineering tricks, no?
For Chrome, you have to deal with Google.
For Firefox, you have to worry about the next “pocket”, or the next “Mr. Robot”…
Manifest v3 is looming as well.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. /shrug
It’s not really equal though is it? One’s the biggest advertising company the world has ever seen that hoovers up personal data like there’s no tomorrow, and the other is a one-time stupid mistake that they rolled back and apologised for.
If you’re willing to include Chrome forks then I’d say Brave is, despite the issues surrounding their love for crypto, more secure than Chrome, and it has much better anti-fingerprinting if you care about that.
My take, it’s obvious that Brave is more private than Chrome – with Google being the biggest advertising company in the world;
And since “private” and “secure” are correlated…
Both browsers are very large, very old software. Both companies are big enough to support fast response to exploits. There’s really nothing technical you can point out that makes one more secure. Firefox scores better on privacy which tips the scales towards Firefox.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Hacker News – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40735973
