Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Google chrome vs mozilla vs internet explorar

37 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#31

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:16 PM Edited by sivispacem, 15 August 2013 - 09:18 PM.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 22:07)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 20:23)
Plus Chrome has the Cupcake implementation of Tor which, unlike the Firefox 17-based Tor browser, wasn't subject to a zero-day exploit recently which compromised the entire basis of the anonymity network utilising the Firefox-based browser.

Well, that was obviously a screw up of Mozilla. However the tor browser bundle contains noscript, which blocks the exploit. Also as mentioned earlier, Chrome sends all the sites you visit to Google by default. And since Google helped with prism and the browser is proprietary software there's no way you can say that Chrome does a better job at keeping you anonymous than the tor browser bundle.

Actually you could perform the exploit using non-scripted elements like iframes, or in other forms of non-scripted content like HTML5 canvas. You can disable Google's use of tracking, their actual involvement in PRISM is questionable given the statistics they've released, your ISP logs all that stuff anyway and can probably perform MITM attacks against even Tor's implementation of multilayer TLS, so the whole thing is largely moot. Plus I never made the point that Chrome did a better job of keeping you anonymous than the Tor browser bundle. I merely commented that the Chrome implementation of Tor wasn't subject to an exploit which dumped you back into the visible, traceable web without any user prompting.

Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010

#32

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE
your ISP logs all that stuff anyway and can probably perform MITM attacks against even Tor's implementation of multilayer TLS

They would have to know who they're after though. How would they be able to trace you if they can only see that you send data to the tor network? They don't save the data you sent as far as I'm aware (unless they have a reason to).

Johan
  • Johan

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2011
  • Dominican-Republic

#33

Posted 16 August 2013 - 02:02 AM

Have been using Mozilla for years, but ran into Chrome around the time it was first shown to us and I haven't looked back since, extremely fast.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#34

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:46 AM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 22:52)
QUOTE
your ISP logs all that stuff anyway and can probably perform MITM attacks against even Tor's implementation of multilayer TLS

They would have to know who they're after though. How would they be able to trace you if they can only see that you send data to the tor network? They don't save the data you sent as far as I'm aware (unless they have a reason to).

They've got decryption hardware for use in informing police investigations and the like. Basically by sitting at a median point along the traffic flow they can intercept the key exchanges and use them to decrypt the TLS-encoded transmissions. It's like a hardware-driven man-in-the-middle attack. Even multi-layered TLS like Tor is vulnerable to it as the computer receiving the response from the end server still needs all the cypher keys to decrypt the data. They'd have to want to target you, sure, but it isn't hard.

unc13bud
  • unc13bud

    Weekend Answerer

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2010
  • None

#35

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:47 AM

i don't like none of these - i liked opera when they had the bad as cache you could just drag youtube videos out of. now they got the chrome engine also and suck even worse than chrome - i uninstalled comodo dragon (uses chrome engine) because it was using too many processes - i saw windows was waiting to install some vs chrome updater on startup? oh no, it had to go. awful stuff. i uninstall google earth on PCs i work on also - its also a fonky as resource hog, plus google and apple both big time illuminati bastions imo

CoDeNaMe JaCk
  • CoDeNaMe JaCk

    JACK

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2012

#36

Posted 17 August 2013 - 11:43 PM

The thing is that Google Chrome is #1 in the browsers list.
Second is the Mozilla Firefox.
And the IE lies somewhere in the corner, resting in peace.
You can use chrome as well as firefox as per your choice but I won't recommend IE anyone...
There are several other browsers out there like Opera, Safari, Netscape etc.
Even I use Mozilla and that is the browser which pleases me, more than the chrome...

winme05
  • winme05

    Ignore username. It's ATOS Productions.

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2010

#37

Posted 25 August 2013 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 19:23)
QUOTE (winme05 @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 17:43)
Faster load times???!! Since when?

Since forever. Chrome has consistently had the fastest rendering times of the major browsers. It's also much resource-lighter than Firefox.

QUOTE (winme05 @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 17:43)
If you need something resource-lighter, you can use Seamonkey.

Sorry but by what measure is Seamonkey lighter than Chrome? It's a continuation of the Mozilla Application Suite, which is more resource-intensive than Chromium. It adds various elements as part of the package- proprietary browser-based email and news feeds, which are both resource intensive, and as far as I can tell is more feature-rich than both Firefox and Chrome. So could you please quantify how on earth it can use less resources given the fact the source code on which it is based uses more? You've clearly got no idea what you're on about.

QUOTE (winme05 @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 17:43)
On the tracking part, there are various plugins for firefox, that allow tracker blocking, like gPrivacy and Ghostery. I've never seen those on Chrome (okay, maybe Ghostery)

There are numerous plugins that perform the same role on Chrome. Plus Chrome has the Cupcake implementation of Tor which, unlike the Firefox 17-based Tor browser, wasn't subject to a zero-day exploit recently which compromised the entire basis of the anonymity network utilising the Firefox-based browser.

QUOTE (winme05 @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 17:43)
Plus I just hate Google.

Ahh, now we come down to your real issue. If you'd just said "I prefer Firefox because I hate Google", instead of making up loads of utter bullsh*t to try and substantiate a point that isn't factually true, then that would be fine. Stupid, but fine.

Sorry to burst yo' bubble, sivis, but I did a little measuring, and:

While idling in my profile page of spoki.tvnet.lv, each of them with AdBlock, Firefox having even more active addons:

Seamonkey = 218 552 K
Firefox = 276 756 K
Chrome (all 3 processes added up) = 278 466 K

While playing back a YouTube video at 720p

Seamonkey = 198 816 K (I have no idea how, too)
Firefox = 291 820 K
Chrome (all 3 processes added up) = 216 796 K

If you want more measurements and pics or it didn't happen, you'll have to wait until I get a replacement PSU for my new build.

As you can see, the Firefox and Chrome are kind of similar in the first test, Firefox somewhat in front. Seamonkey in lead.
In the second test, Chrome beats Firefox, but still loses to Seamonkey.

And about me hating Google, that's not the true and only reason, it's one of many. Although I don't like them, I use their search engine, because I find it convenient. If I found their browser convenient, but wouldn't wanna use that, just because of it being Google, I'd use SRWare Iron.

LaUgHiN gUy
  • LaUgHiN gUy

    Reyes Crime Family Para La Vida

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2011

#38

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:02 AM





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users