New Research Says Chrome Browser "Most Secured" Against Attacks

This is a rare occasion that had you groping for words!

 

I must be slipping, I've not been too well of late.

 

Nope. Just Privoxy.

 

Looks good.

 

The domain list was lacking. I would really like another test besides NSS Labs or some Google funded project to show us the truth because the numbers we're seeing are so contrasting.

Hopefully something like this comes out.

I fully understand - not everyone needs to have random compsec stuff memorized =p

It's a bit more than plausibility. As I said, the motivations and conclusions may be bias but the information is really important to point out.

And that's an entirely fair conclusion =p I only wanted to make sure that this article wasn't overlooked entirely because I really do like how it's written and put together. There's a lot of great information in that article.

 

How so?

A lot of things are really important to point out: Playing with fire is dangerous. Water & electricity don't mix well. Don't run with scissors. Never eat yellow snow etc.

The only reason to make a case for Firefox having lacking security by Google is to spread FUD. It is propaganda dressed up as information. As with all good propaganda, there is information, truth, half-truth, obfuscation, omission & other forms of tendentious sleight of hand.

 

Because there's no way to twist "Yes it supports this" only the conclusions that arise from that. Whether Google is being evil or not doesn't change that the research is legitimate.

So the problem is that they're pointing it out? Or pointing out the obvious? Or what?

 

I thought Firefox had a bit of plug-in security, because they're in a separate process? Anyhow, looks worthy to read.

 

You're just not getting this; it's precisely because the research has a legitimacy that makes it FUD.

Wow! You're either trolling me now or you really just don't see this as propaganda LOL!

Maybe it's just my natural British cynicism, as I've stated earlier, this is just business to Google. I wouldn't say it was Dr Evil 'evil', but it wouldn't surprise me if Mr Bigglesworth didn't have a hand (or paw) in it somewhere.

 

Dostoevsky too boring?

Chrome doesn't figure here

Edit: and I'm not Bobro

 

Dostoyevsky is never boring.

I think that your Borgle implants are starting to chafe a little.

Neither am I.

 

Researchers accuse Google of plotting to undercut Firefox: NSS Labs argues 'Chrome-is-most-secured-browser' report is part of campaign to trim Firefox's share


The NSS Labs report is available here.

 

"However, given the deficiencies in the methodology it would appear that the main aim of the report was to undermine confidence in Firefox."

I think that says it all. As I said: FUD!

 

NSS Labs ... wasn't this the same one that showed that IE9 was miles ahead on some parameter or the other?

 

Probably. IE 9 is kilometres ahead in some things though I think.

 

Well, that's mentioned on page 1 of the article:

 

If they plan to re-invent themselves as a neutral and objective body, they could share more than "There's a reason why we don't do that anymore."

 

Yeah, I'm definitely not getting how you can turn fact into FUD.

 

To use an analogy: Global terrorism is a fact. Various governments utilise that fact to introduce policies & laws by introducing fear, uncertainty & doubt in their dialogues about the terror situation. If there was no fear, uncertainty or doubt amongst the general population about terrorism the techniques used by governments would not have any real efficacy.

This is no different, you just choose not to view it that way. That's fine, reality is an ontological subjectivity. There are other, less eloquent terms for this attitude however.

 

Global terrorism is a fact. The governments provide the conclusion that they need to "protect us" etc etc.

So yes, the report could be used to purport fear that some users are vulnerable more vulnerable than others. But if you're interested in security you put their conclusions aside and make the decision yourself.

Take the article as you will - I think there's a big difference between Global Terrorism: Government and this article.

EDIT: The reason being, with terrorism you have the government saying "You are in danger and youmust submit."

With this research it's not saying "Firefox is the worst browser, use Chrome" it's saying "By this methodology Chrome is the most secure browser." There is no one saying "Use Chrome or you'll be infected" or "Chrome is the fastest" or "Chrome has the best extensions" or whatever. It's a lot more journalistic.

But whether it's FUD or not, and I can see it as such, the information in it is really interesting.

 

I think that the analogy is cogent, if on a different scale.

LOL! It's in the subtext. There's no way you can justify this as merely information.

That's why it's such effective FUD.

 

You can't not read it and then say that it's not just information.

 

I've skimmed as much as I can understand. I do understand why it was published, you however are seriously in denial. I don't know why.

 

The vast majority of the report is cold journalistic information. The abstract/introduction and conclusions are not.

But almost every single page in it is pure information and nothing but information.