Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#71

Post by guerrilla »

tuetuopay wrote: post #52
guerrilla wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 covered that in my post. Those users are targeted specifically. There have been news stories about it recently. People don't develop general malware for x86 Linux that also happens to catch those users though. That was the point. If someone with resources is targeting you, you don't stand a chance regardless of what you do.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#72

Post by account42 »

mnahkies wrote: post #64
hulitu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is eons more private than Chrome cough* safe browsing cough*. /s Enabled by default.

My understanding of safe browsing is that a local database is maintained and lookups happen against that. Eg: no information about the sites you're visiting is leaked. Is this not the case / am I misunderstanding something? Ref: https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing-works-...

Your understanding is not (entirely) up to date. At some point they switched to downloading only a list of (partial) hashes. If an URL matches a partial hash then the browser asks Google for a lists of URLs for that hash. This does can let google get some information about what websites you visit. And those requests as well as the updates of the initial hash lists still ping Google with all the tracking posibilities that entails.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#73

Post by account42 »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #67
jorvi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Brave with its default settings is both less private and less secure than LibreWolf. > On iOS, Firefox has refused for years to implement an adblocker. Blame Apple.

Mozilla deserves some of the blame for misleading users into thinking that Firefox is available on iOS when all they really provide is a Safari reskin.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#74

Post by jmclnx »

I think so, but maybe not much better. I use noscript so I thing that helps a lot.

But, I tend to thing on OpenBSD both chrome and Firefox is more secure than other systems because those are patched with pledge and unveil. So most of the system does not exist for them.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#76

Post by account42 »

robin_reala wrote: post #30
nubinetwork wrote: post #17

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.

One’s the biggest advertising company the world has ever seen that hoovers up personal data like there’s no tomorrow. The other one is almost completely funded by said advertising company and has shown multiple times that they will put their profits over the users' wishes including but not limited to adding ads directly to the browser.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#77

Post by tristan957 »

account42 wrote: post #73
DEADMINCE wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave with its default settings is both less private and less secure than LibreWolf. > On iOS, Firefox has refused for years to implement an adblocker. Blame Apple.

Mozilla deserves some of the blame for misleading users into thinking that Firefox is available on iOS when all they really provide is a Safari reskin.

The average user doesn't care about the underlying browser engine. Why should Mozilla add that to their advertising when no other browser maker on iOS is?

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#78

Post by jorvi »

tristan957 wrote: post #77
account42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla deserves some of the blame for misleading users into thinking that Firefox is available on iOS when all they really provide is a Safari reskin.

The average user doesn't care about the underlying browser engine. Why should Mozilla add that to their advertising when no other browser maker on iOS is?

Err.. most other browsers on iOS do have an adblocker built in. It’s solely Mozilla dumping their users out in the cold.

These days ads are an attack vector. I’d never let my parents browse the web without a blocker.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#79

Post by jorvi »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #67
jorvi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Brave with its default settings is both less private and less secure than LibreWolf. > On iOS, Firefox has refused for years to implement an adblocker. Blame Apple.

> Blame Apple.

Blame Mozilla. Most iOS browsers have built-in adblocking.

Re: Ask HN: Is Firefox better than Chrome when it comes to user security?

#80

Post by jorvi »

maverick74 wrote: post #47
jorvi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

You are misleading people into making insecure choices. Go check Brave on iOS right now and tell me that it doesn’t have adblocking.

Given that, telling you to be quiet is about as polite as it gets.

Post reply on HN