What's Safari? Who uses that? It was good 10 years ago, but now it is Chrome or Firefox only.
I use it probably more than any other app on my Macs, and it is great. Faster than FF and Chrome - also without the tracking features, it syncs well with my other Macs and iPhone. Oh and supports handoff. Plus uses much less RAM than Chrome especially. Lots of people seem to be moving away from Chrome back to FF actually.
Yeah this guy is nuts, a rabid hater only. Safari is far more efficient and uses less power than Chrome. Plus has superior content blockers, plus cookie/tracker blockers. Chrome is a surveillance device for Google properties.
Is it only me, or have content blockers in Safari never been able to block the video ads on Youtube?
Apple products are regularly cracked at Pwn2Own, as are Microsoft's and third-party browsers.
Convenient how you don't mention Chrome or Firefox directly. Not a big fan of Safari?
No it's convenient how you don't bother reading the source for the story linked in the AI article to see why, yet want to imply AI is hiding something. Try this for an idea: Read it and you'll figure out for yourself why Chrome and Firefox weren't mentioned.
Because they weren’t involved. Firefox and Microsoft Edge up next on day two. Day three is for automotive software. No mention of Chrome, I guess because it’s so trivial to pwn because of its spyware base code.
It's now been three years since a hacking team has been successful with a Chrome exploit, $70K being the reward last year and $80K for 2019, far more than for Safari or Firefox or Edge. I won't go so far as to say the discrepancy in payouts is proof how trivial it is to pwn the others. Google may just put more effort into browser security making exploits far more difficult. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/chrome-most-secure-browser-research,35493.html
So it would appear Chrome is not nearly as insecure as some here would like to claim without actually verifying before posting.
[...] So it would appear Chrome is not nearly as insecure as some here would like to claim without actually verifying before posting.
My concern about Chrome is not penetration by third parties, but rather the invasive eye of the supplier. It seems prudent to be wary of using a browser supplied by a company that earns its income through data collection, particularly when that company has demonstrated unethical behaviour. Once by circumventing privacy measures in Safari then lying about it, and again by deliberately contravening the terms of its Enterprise Certificate with Apple. I don't hate Google and still use its search engine, but I don't know if I'm prepared to go so far as to use its browser (even if Google is probably already collecting the same amount of information about me through other means anyway).
[...] So it would appear Chrome is not nearly as insecure as some here would like to claim without actually verifying before posting.
My concern about Chrome is not penetration by third parties, but rather the invasive eye of the supplier. It seems prudent to be wary of using a browser supplied by a company that earns its income through data collection, particularly when that company has demonstrated unethical behaviour. Once by circumventing privacy measures in Safari then lying about it, and again by deliberately contravening the terms of its Enterprise Certificate with Apple. I don't hate Google and still use its search engine, but I don't know if I'm prepared to go so far as to use its browser (even if Google is probably already collecting the same amount of information about me through other means anyway).
Without an account I don't know that Google is collecting anything about you. I've not ever seen evidence anywhere of it.
If you ARE an account holder you can pretty much review, limit, delete, correct, or completely opt out of any data collection, which is not how it earns its income anyway. That's by advertising. By better knowing the anonymised buckets of "you" combined with others their ad service then becomes more valuable, so yeah they want to do a heck of a lot of user tracking. Perhaps uncomfortably so if you are already distrustful of it.
Have they been less than honest at times? I'm with you I think they have been too, and it's given you and some others reason to be cautious. Even I opt out of a lot of stuff. If I'm not benefiting in a way I can see I very often say no thanks, not interested. I block ads, opt out of YouTube data logging, opt out of some of their data collection with certain services...
It's unfortunate that Google has had at least two instances of CYA in my opinion, three or four according to others, and set themselves up for suspicion since they have an amazingly good search service and shoot themselves in the foot with silly excuses for bad behavior. It's become really easy for me to research various topics the more I look into them and Google better understands what results I've found to be important ones. Some won't ever realize the benefits due to Google themselves not being as forthright and immediately admitting to mistakes or judgement lapses when they occur. Every company makes them, and some don't handle them as honestly as they should. Google should not be one of those as their success hinges on user trust.
Comments
https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/pwn2own-2019-hackers-can-now-scoop-80-000-for-chrome-exploits
It's now been three years since a hacking team has been successful with a Chrome exploit, $70K being the reward last year and $80K for 2019, far more than for Safari or Firefox or Edge. I won't go so far as to say the discrepancy in payouts is proof how trivial it is to pwn the others. Google may just put more effort into browser security making exploits far more difficult.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/chrome-most-secure-browser-research,35493.html
So it would appear Chrome is not nearly as insecure as some here would like to claim without actually verifying before posting.
If you ARE an account holder you can pretty much review, limit, delete, correct, or completely opt out of any data collection, which is not how it earns its income anyway. That's by advertising. By better knowing the anonymised buckets of "you" combined with others their ad service then becomes more valuable, so yeah they want to do a heck of a lot of user tracking. Perhaps uncomfortably so if you are already distrustful of it.
Have they been less than honest at times? I'm with you I think they have been too, and it's given you and some others reason to be cautious. Even I opt out of a lot of stuff. If I'm not benefiting in a way I can see I very often say no thanks, not interested. I block ads, opt out of YouTube data logging, opt out of some of their data collection with certain services...
It's unfortunate that Google has had at least two instances of CYA in my opinion, three or four according to others, and set themselves up for suspicion since they have an amazingly good search service and shoot themselves in the foot with silly excuses for bad behavior. It's become really easy for me to research various topics the more I look into them and Google better understands what results I've found to be important ones. Some won't ever realize the benefits due to Google themselves not being as forthright and immediately admitting to mistakes or judgement lapses when they occur. Every company makes them, and some don't handle them as honestly as they should. Google should not be one of those as their success hinges on user trust.