Chrome > Firefox

open source software gives me jit hardening if you know what i mean

>>51572920
Chrome still has a shitty bookmarks toolbar and extensions though.

When is someone gonna fork Firefox and make it better?

>>51572920
>uncustomiseable, our-way-or-the-highway, no options, literal botnet, killswitches, bloated, can't handle lots of tabs, addons in an "app store" with awful organization and search, Google owns your computer and data

No thanks, kek.

>>51572956
People have, forks also typically speaking are outdated versions of firefox. Which are... you guessed it! Vulnerable

>>51572962
I have chrome open daily, with 5 windows each with the maximum amount of tabs each window can handle before the icons disappear, on 8GB ram. Shut up. Addons can be installed from 3rd party sources.

>>51572983
>People have
No, they haven't. He asked when someone would make it *better*.
So far, every attempt is a placebo meme.

>>51572983
>People have
Which ones? None of them are actually better than current Firefox apart from maybe Iceweasel. And that is a bitch to get working on Windows last time I checked.

>>51573001
Palemoon browser, that's a fork. Removes the pocket/forced webrtc shite. On an old version of firefox...

Do you understand how hard it is to fork a browser, modify it then continue with the SDL cycle of this application? Try it. You'll jump out of a window from a high rise flat I gaurentee it.

>>51573017
See above

>>51573021
Palemoon has even worse support for useful browser extensions than Chrome though.

And is ridiculously outdated.

I just want Firefox without the botnet. There are already two for Chromium.

>>51572956
it was done years ago, its called pale moon. it's pretty good honestly.

>>51573059
That's my point, thank you anon. Firefox IS a botnet, as much as chrome. With chrome we have chromium made by guys who REALLY know what the fuck they're talking about. Have you seen some of their sandbox code? Fuck me in the ass..

I'm thinking of making an infographic much like the /g/ guide to tinfoil firefox or whatever on how to configure chrome/chromium securely.

>>51573077
I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. Which is fine but functionality/features != Security which is the point of this debate.

>>51573077
See >>51573059

Last time I used it only like 4 of my extensions worked.

>>51573084
>as much as chrome
Lol no. You don't see Tor bundling their shit with Chrome.
>chromium made by guys who REALLY know what the fuck they're talking about
It's still shit on Windows though.
And still a fucking botnet. Only now it's barely functional.

>>51573108
Nope I use it on windows. Does the tor browser bundle have pocket? No. Does it force WebRTC? No. Does it have noscript disabled by default? oh...

>>51573119
The tor browser bundle fork is probably vulnerable, but attackers typically speaking don't have access to firefoxes JIT implementation (For js) so they can't attack that. Which makes attacking firefox much harder.

>>51572920
Why you nigs always shit on firefox? It's open source and works fine. Is it because of non-issues like sjws in the community?

>>51573165
Again, you really don't understand the point we're getting at here. Security wise it's a joke compared to chrome.

>>51573119
Wouldn't call that using. More like barely scraping along with it's legs chopped off.

>Does it have noscript disabled by default?
Oh. How horrible to have to click a little icon and press "block". Truly that makes the entire thing unusable.

>>51573179
What security?
The entire browser is fucking compromised by default.

People have to go out of their way and fork the thing to actually make it secure.

>>51573185
That's my point, to use firefox securely you have to chop its fucking legs off. No it doesn't make it unusable it's just something you should consider. Once you enable noscript sure the entire web becomes basically unusable unless you're used to using elinks or something or browse static websites (I'm used to the latter) and it becomes difficult to exploit.

>>51573194
Can you please FUCKING READ THE THREAD FULLY. Fuck. Firefox is compromised by default now. Fuck off.

> people

> chromium development team
> same guys that do project zero
> people

>>51573165
cause it's pretty terrible

it went from good to terrible to good again and now back to terrible.

>>51573165
I was generalising because I see at least once a day threads about how firefox is shit. I know what just in time compilation is.

>>51573253
Woah you googled JIT. Cool! Do you know why not having JIT hardening is an issue?

>>51573212
>Firefox is compromised by default now. Fuck off.
Yes. So between Firefox and Chrome(ium) both being shitty with security. Might as well use Firefox since it's actually usable which Chrome isn't.

By people I mean the people that made Inox and Iridium. Which function is basically to be Chromium without the botnet features still in there

>>51573266
Actually never heard of those forks, ty anon I'll take a look at those and audit them today if I get time

Chrome/Chromium absolutely is usable, MAYBE it's just me but I've NEVER had any issues.

>>51573276
also Chrome/Chromium isn't shitty with security.. that's what the entire thread is about.. it's incredible...

>>51572983
>I have chrome open daily, with 5 windows each with the maximum amount of tabs each window can handle before the icons disappear, on 8GB ram.
either your monitor is <100 pixels wide or you're a liar.

>>51572983
>chrome addons can be installed from third party sources
false. google disabled that, apparently in response to the technically illiterate inadvertantly installing spyware extensions. even loading unpacked extensions makes chrome nag you to disable it every time you open the browser.

>>51573276
As discussed HTML5 support is awful on Windows. It has a lot of extensions missing that me and a lot of people absolutely rely on. It's uses more resources. And for me it takes fucking ages to start up.

>>51573286
>Chrome/Chromium isn't shitty with security
Oh, so Google isn't gathering our data? Silly me. I could have sworn that has been a topic once or twice.

>>51573361
1920x1080 I don't have five windows atm. Lol funny I knew someone would make this joke.

Just two windows open atm, a few youtube videos, 4chan threads and iPlayer.

>>51573367
Security != Features (Yes it's a feature)
Security I mean GETTING OWNED not having your data obtained by a company who know it already

>>51573367
I've never had those issues

>>51573263
So elaborate what jit hardening is then.

>>51573408
Oh I forgot. It's not a security issue that a organization records pretty much all your browser activity. Silly me. Guess I should not really care about getting malware and stuff anymore.

>I've never had those issues
Good for you.

>>51573408
ah, so you are a liar then. why do you insist on shilling this botnet piece of crap, anon?

>>51573422
Prevents memory corruption attacks because JIT cannot have nX enabled since it's executable, malicious javascript can gain control over execution flow with a buffer overflow, most browser exploits usually involve JIT + messing with heap allocation

>>51573447
Okay you make a fair point, I apologize I'm talking about memory corruption exploitation, happy?

>>51573422
>>51573485

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX0vIuxCS0s

Amazing talk on it by Chris Rohlf

It's not so much the botnet for me, instead it's a bunch of little things that make me hate Chrome. I don't like having that gay ass bell in my task bar (my browser doesn't need to send me notifications thanks - it's a fucking browser not a phone) and the user switching menu bullshit button on the top right (whatever it's called, can't be removed).

I also don't like being unable to pin my favorite sites in the new tab page and rearrange them for literally no reason - this was something you could easily do in old versions of Chrome but Google refuses to put it back in because reasons. Chrome gained market share because it was simple, minimal, fast and convenient. Over time it became none of those things.

>>51573501
You make good points, I agree chromes interface fucking sucks but once again we're talking about security here

Chrome is a great browser and i'd use it on windows until i saw what Edge's extensions are like. But chrome is made by Googlle, who are an advertising company, and who base every product and service around either collecting user information, or monitoring the user though advertisements. Also adblockers in chrome are not protected against snooping. the adblockers can track whatever you like about your browsing.

>>51573485
> javascript

found the issue

Yet again javascript and flash strikes to fuck everyone up along with java and faggots

>>51573515
*monetising

>>51573520
Have you tried using the internet without javascript? HTML5 needs to replace it.. one day.. same w/ flash and java

But yeah I agree.

>>51573520
Will there ever come a time when we will be free of their disgusting grasp?

There's been a lot of push to get rid of flash but so many fucking sites still use it it's ridiculous.

>>51573520
However the issue isn't javascript it's how the browsers interpret/compile that JS (with JIT) turning javascript into native code (for speed) if HTML5 was widely adopted we'd likely need something similar. Which no doubt would just be another vector of attack.

>>51573001
aurora.

you know. the one that comes bundled with tor.