141–150 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's even theoretically possible. How do you block JS font enumeration without crippling the browser font API?
Offer the same basic set to every site. Why does a website need to know the fonts you've installed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari's sandbox is weaker in some ways and stronger in others. Saying which is overall stronger would be a judgment call. I wouldn't make a claim like that without spelling out at least some of the details. This subthread is about the sandbox so I'm not sure why you threw in "and anti-exploit features". I'd probably say without qualification that Chrome has better memory corruption mitigations. I hoped you might hav…
In what ways would you say the Safari sandbox is stronger than Chrome's, on macOS? How would you compare Safari's anti-exploit technology (allocator hardening, Javascript engine hardening, &c) to that of Chrome? Do you think you do anything better than Chrome does on that front?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So battery life or security, take your pick?
I'm not saying it doesn't suck. But it's going to keep sucking as long as people are willing to pretend that Safari already has comparable security to Chrome.
According to another comment you work on the Chrome team. So unlike most everyone here, you're actually in a position to fix one of the two options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Chrome security team is probably the most sophisticated software security team in the industry Unfortunately the Chrome security team can't provide the kind of security I care about - security from Google's tracking.
If you don't have the kind of security Chrome provides, then in reality everyone can track you, because all they have to do to own up your machine is get you to look at a web page.
If that's true, then I'd rather go down fighting (no matter how futile that is) than willingly give up any more private information to Google. I think the time for pragmatism when it comes to privacy is long over.
Here's the official blog post explaining the feature in depth: https://webkit.org/blog/7675/intelligent-tracking-prevention...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, they were already tracking people, and now they can't (presumably). If ethics were a priority why were they working that job in the first place?
There is nothing unethical about using Google Analytics. I also am not entitled to this access, by the very nature of how it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't have the kind of security Chrome provides, then in reality everyone can track you, because all they have to do to own up your machine is get you to look at a web page.
So you're saying that privacy is impossible? If that's true, then I'd rather go down fighting (no matter how futile that is) than willingly give up any more private information to Google. I think the time for pragmatism when it comes to privacy is long over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck. But it's going to keep sucking as long as people are willing to pretend that Safari already has comparable security to Chrome.
Then why not fix the horrendous browser performance of Chrome? It's not like people's complaints about how much energy it uses relative to Safari are new. People have been complaining for YEARS. According to another comment you work on the Chrome team. So unlike most everyone here, you're actually in a position to fix one of the two options.
(b) I do not disagree about Chrome's energy usage. It sucks.
They're just being a little sophisticated in how they block third-party cookies. This will hardly stop other tracking scripts, tracking images, widely-used fingerprinting techniques and related js calls. So nothing remotely close to even Brave let alone a TOR or the Epic Privacy Browser.