Google Chrome vs Pale Moon
- Thread starter Paul.R
- Start date
- May 3, 2013
- 36
Littlebits said:As I have stated on this forum many times avoid clone browsers.
They always run behind the main browsers on applying patches, fixing vulnerabilities and other issues.
So Google Chrome would be a much better option since Pale Moon always falls behind on applying Firefox patches. The same applies to Comodo Dragon, Coolnovo, SRWare Iron, Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc.
Stick with the main updated browsers- IE, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or use other browser that keep updated like Sleipnir for Windows (updated Safari), Maxthon Cloud Browser, SlimBoat Browser, SlimBrowser, Mozilla SeaMonkey or Avant Browser.
Other browsers may have vulnerabilities that might not be patched for months or longer.
Thanks.
I see your point but you can't prove it. It's still a speculation and Comodo still update regularly compared to others.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Seany007 said:
Why would I need to prove this use common sense.
Clones rely on the core to be updated or they can't update.
Clone developers have nothing to do with developing the core components.
In a way clones just use a few little cosmetic alterations, the core components is what protects the browser from vulnerabilities.
I can remember back when Chrome had like 30 severe vulnerabilities discovered so Google patched the holes and released the Chromium core. It took Comodo Dragon another 3 months to patch the holes in the core.
This has happen on many occasions, however here lately Comodo has been doing a better job keeping Dragon updated but they have left it lying dormant several times. Still it could take Comodo over 30 days to patch critical vulnerabilities which makes Google Chrome more secure.
Pale Moon has also left open vulnerabilities for months after Mozilla had released patches.
It is simply not possible for a clone browser to be more secure when they rely on core components developed by others.
Thanks.
- May 3, 2013
- 36
Littlebits said:Why would I need to prove this use common sense.
Clones rely on the core to be updated or they can't update.
Clone developers have nothing to do with developing the core components.
In a way clones just use a few little cosmetic alterations, the core components is what protects the browser from vulnerabilities.
I can remember back when Chrome had like 30 severe vulnerabilities discovered so Google patched the holes and released the Chromium core. It took Comodo Dragon another 3 months to patch the holes in the core.
This has happen on many occasions, however here lately Comodo has been doing a better job keeping Dragon updated but they have left it lying dormant several times. Still it could take Comodo over 30 days to patch critical vulnerabilities which makes Google Chrome more secure.
Pale Moon has also left open vulnerabilities for months after Mozilla had released patches.
It is simply not possible for a clone browser to be more secure when they rely on core components developed by others.
Thanks.
My point here is that unless somebody will test Google Chrome vs browsers in Q and provide solid facts you can't say that Google Chrome protect better. Also you base your assumptions on 'what you know'.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
Google Chrome vs. Iron
Comparison between its features, but for updates they would gonna depend from its original source.
Comparison between its features, but for updates they would gonna depend from its original source.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Seany007 said:
I guess you are completely not getting the point, Google hires hackers to try to use exploits to find vulnerabilities in the Chromium core. Once a vulnerability is discovered they pay these hackers good money and then patch the holes. So yes this is tested by several professional hackers and confirmed by Google. After Google releases the new Chromium core with patches then the clone browsers like Comodo Dragon has to add the new components and release an updated version. So Google Chrome has always applied the patches first and the clones fall behind (sometimes months or longer). It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Sure Google made Chromium open-source for third-party developers to use but they knew they would always have the advantages. Still there is not one developer or company that helps update the core except for SRWare Iron, the rest just built front ends and rely on Google to do all of the hard work patching holes.
So what kind of test would like to see? professional hackers don't come cheap unless you want to match the salary Google pays them.
Google It
If you would like to keep informed about critical updates in Chromium then you can follow at http://feeds.feedburner.com/GoogleChromeReleases (look for Stable updates) after the updates and patches are applied then simple follow the news of the clone browser of your choice then you will see what I'm talking about.
Just set back and wait for them to patch the holes but have patients because you will need them. Please note that since Comodo and others can not keep up with Chrome updates sometimes they use Beta or Dev updates which are not stable and may have problems.
Thanks.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
Don't think there are any additional add-ons for SilmBoat, just the pop-up blocker and ad blocker that are built in. Problem I had with it was using Google Street View, it wouldn't work at all.Moose said:
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Moose said:
I don't think SlimBoat has any addons but still addons will not patch or protect against vulnerabilities neither will secure DNS. The core components must be updated.
If there are vulnerabilities in the core then they can bypass any addon protection features.
Thanks.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
Here's my take---Opera has such a small user base that malware and scam artists don't even bother programming for it. Opera also uses Phishtank as a URL filter and it does flag malware sites, too.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Moose said:
1. Google Chrome- fast development, sandboxed tabs and plugins. Google pays large sums of money to anyone who can hack it with an exploit. That proves they are serious about keeping it secure.
2. Mozilla Firefox- because of the large selection of security addons and security features.
3. Internet Explorer 10- the most improved version of IE with better security features like Smart Screen filter and tracking protection.
I have to agree with DrBeenGolfing about Opera, it is not as popular and usually not targeted by exploits. However since its Presto development is ending and switching to Chrome, I'm afraid future versions will not be as secure especially if it follows the Chrome clone pattern.
Thanks.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
IE11 is under develoment, so we'll see what that brings to the table.
And, the new BLINK engine from Chrome may be safer as they are getting rid of some of the bloat and codes that won't be used anymore.
Wonder if Opera will force an update? I'm just dreaming...
And, the new BLINK engine from Chrome may be safer as they are getting rid of some of the bloat and codes that won't be used anymore.
Wonder if Opera will force an update? I'm just dreaming...
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
Overkill said:
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/04/blink-rendering-engine-for-chromium.html
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/30/4286828/windows-8-1-lockscreen-app-alarms-ie11-developer-features/in/3908993
http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2013/hello-blink/
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
Littlebits said:Moose said:
I don't think SlimBoat has any addons but still addons will not patch or protect against vulnerabilities neither will secure DNS. The core components must be updated.
If there are vulnerabilities in the core then they can bypass any addon protection features.
Thanks.
Slimboat is likely to be another independent browser and same like Maxthon, Avant Browser and etc which bundled only important features.
No addons added is considered as late progress.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
What kind of High CPU/RAM usage do you speak of?
You could disable Flash Player (chrome://plugins),
Join the Youtube HTML5 trial,
Change Plugin settings to Click-to-Play (chrome://settings/content#plugins)
Have you tried the standard Firefox or Beta/Aurora releases, or the other 64-bit variant, Waterfox?
Firefox probably has the better built-in Password Manager (due to the Master Password setting).
Else I'd jump the built-in one for something like LastPass (online), also better if you multiple browsers so you're not tied down to a single browser.
You could disable Flash Player (chrome://plugins),
Join the Youtube HTML5 trial,
Change Plugin settings to Click-to-Play (chrome://settings/content#plugins)
Paul.R said:
Have you tried the standard Firefox or Beta/Aurora releases, or the other 64-bit variant, Waterfox?
Paul.R said:
Firefox probably has the better built-in Password Manager (due to the Master Password setting).
Else I'd jump the built-in one for something like LastPass (online), also better if you multiple browsers so you're not tied down to a single browser.
- Status
Similar threads
