8 ms·

Whose security? If Google can track everything I do online, that's not 'secure' in my book, so Chrome is out.

throwawaymath 7y ago
Security is distinct from privacy. The four mainstream browsers - Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari - have the most secure software, regardless of their producers' business models and data hygiene.
- falcolas 7y ago
  > The four mainstream browsers - Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari - have the most secure software I disagree that they are "the most secure" browsers, let alone software. They fail to isolate remote scripts properly; that people were capable of executing timing attacks against the CPU (Specter et.al.) shows that they are not really very secure. Browsers which don't execute Javascript and advanced CSS (Lynx being one extreme example) are going to be much more secure by default.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    There are four major dimensions to security: attack surface; depth of defense, or how much an attacker can do once they're in; proactive measures to find security bugs (e.g., fuzzing); and code quality. You're focusing on attack surface. But from a security standpoint, attack surface is probably the least important factor. Every sufficiently large application has a hole in it, and all attack surface does is crudely control how likely it is to stumble across that hole. Defense in depth, by contrast, lets you keep the attacker from doing bad things such as installing ransomware on your computer just because your HTML parser had a buffer overflow. The major browsers spend a lot of time sandboxing their scripts in separate processes, and then disabling capabilities of those processes using techniques such as pledge(1), giving them much better defense in depth. They also put a lot more effort into finding and closing security bugs through use of techniques such as fuzzing. No one questions their much larger attack surface, but they do have much more effort into ameliorating attack vulnerabilities. I should also bring up Spectre because you did. At its core, Spectre allows you to read arbitrary memory in your current memory space, nothing more. As a result, it basically means that you can't build an effective in-process sandbox... which everyone already knew to begin with. What Spectre did was show how easy it was do such arbitrary memory reads, since you can proxy it through code as innocent as an array bounds check. There are mitigations for this, which requires rebuilding your entire application and all libraries with special mitigation flags... guess which browser is more likely to do that?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      This is kind of a strange analysis. Sort of infamously, Dan Bernstein, who is sort of a pioneer in these privilege-separated defensive designs, foreswore them in a retrospective paper about qmail. Really, though, I'm not sure I'm clear on the distinction you're drawing between attack surface reduction and privilege separation, since both techniques are essentially about reducing the impact of bugs without eliminating the bugs themselves. You might more coherently reduce security to "mitigation" and "prevention", but then that doesn't make much of an argument about the topic at hand.
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        What I meant by "attack surface" here is probably a lot narrower than what you're used to. I'm using it to focus on the code size concern. I was trying to visualize it in terms of "how many opportunities do you have to try to break the system" (as surface area) versus "what can you actually do once you've made the first breach" (as volume), and didn't fully coherently rewrite the explanation to excise the surface area/volume distinction I originally made.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Google actually has additional security checks that require JavaScript, and they won't let you log into a secured account with JavaScript disabled. https://m.slashdot.org/story/347855 https://m.slashdot.org/story/347855
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Security is distinct from privacy. No, it's not. Security is not a goal in itself, it can not be, security is only about guaranteeing other goals, there is no security absent all other goals. What it means for software to be insecure is that it doesn't ensure your goals are met. For many, privacy is an important goal. If the software that you are using compromises your privacy that you value, then that software is not secure.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I am much more concerned about someone being able to impersonate me (security) than to know what I'm doing (privacy). This doesn't mean im unconcerned about the latter. If secure software compromises privacy in ways that concern you, it may not be the right software for you to use, but it is still secure (and potentially more secure than other software that you feel better protects your privacy).
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > I am much more concerned about someone being able to impersonate me Well, great?! > (security) Erm ... no? > than to know what I'm doing (privacy) Privacy is not about what your software knows, it's about who else gets access to that information. Software allowing access to your information to parties other than the ones that you intended is a vulnerability class commonly called "information leak". > This doesn't mean im unconcerned about the latter. And thus it is, as per the common understanding of the word, a security concern. > If secure software compromises privacy in ways that concern you That's just logical nonsense. You might as well be saying "If secure software kills you in ways that concern you, [...]". > it may not be the right software for you to use, but it is still secure So, let's assume your browser had a bug where for some reason, every website could read all the data in the browser. Like, could access the storage, cookies, cache, history, page contents, everything. But no write access. This is obviously purely a privacy violation ... but, according to your definition, not a security problem, right?
      - joshuamorton 7y ago

Security is distinct from privacy. The four mainstream browsers - Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari - have the most secure software, regardless of their producers' business models and data hygiene.

falcolas 7y ago
> The four mainstream browsers - Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari - have the most secure software I disagree that they are "the most secure" browsers, let alone software. They fail to isolate remote scripts properly; that people were capable of executing timing attacks against the CPU (Specter et.al.) shows that they are not really very secure. Browsers which don't execute Javascript and advanced CSS (Lynx being one extreme example) are going to be much more secure by default.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 7y ago
  There are four major dimensions to security: attack surface; depth of defense, or how much an attacker can do once they're in; proactive measures to find security bugs (e.g., fuzzing); and code quality. You're focusing on attack surface. But from a security standpoint, attack surface is probably the least important factor. Every sufficiently large application has a hole in it, and all attack surface does is crudely control how likely it is to stumble across that hole. Defense in depth, by contrast, lets you keep the attacker from doing bad things such as installing ransomware on your computer just because your HTML parser had a buffer overflow. The major browsers spend a lot of time sandboxing their scripts in separate processes, and then disabling capabilities of those processes using techniques such as pledge(1), giving them much better defense in depth. They also put a lot more effort into finding and closing security bugs through use of techniques such as fuzzing. No one questions their much larger attack surface, but they do have much more effort into ameliorating attack vulnerabilities. I should also bring up Spectre because you did. At its core, Spectre allows you to read arbitrary memory in your current memory space, nothing more. As a result, it basically means that you can't build an effective in-process sandbox... which everyone already knew to begin with. What Spectre did was show how easy it was do such arbitrary memory reads, since you can proxy it through code as innocent as an array bounds check. There are mitigations for this, which requires rebuilding your entire application and all libraries with special mitigation flags... guess which browser is more likely to do that?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    This is kind of a strange analysis. Sort of infamously, Dan Bernstein, who is sort of a pioneer in these privilege-separated defensive designs, foreswore them in a retrospective paper about qmail. Really, though, I'm not sure I'm clear on the distinction you're drawing between attack surface reduction and privilege separation, since both techniques are essentially about reducing the impact of bugs without eliminating the bugs themselves. You might more coherently reduce security to "mitigation" and "prevention", but then that doesn't make much of an argument about the topic at hand.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      What I meant by "attack surface" here is probably a lot narrower than what you're used to. I'm using it to focus on the code size concern. I was trying to visualize it in terms of "how many opportunities do you have to try to break the system" (as surface area) versus "what can you actually do once you've made the first breach" (as volume), and didn't fully coherently rewrite the explanation to excise the surface area/volume distinction I originally made.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Google actually has additional security checks that require JavaScript, and they won't let you log into a secured account with JavaScript disabled. https://m.slashdot.org/story/347855 https://m.slashdot.org/story/347855
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Security is distinct from privacy. No, it's not. Security is not a goal in itself, it can not be, security is only about guaranteeing other goals, there is no security absent all other goals. What it means for software to be insecure is that it doesn't ensure your goals are met. For many, privacy is an important goal. If the software that you are using compromises your privacy that you value, then that software is not secure.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  I am much more concerned about someone being able to impersonate me (security) than to know what I'm doing (privacy). This doesn't mean im unconcerned about the latter. If secure software compromises privacy in ways that concern you, it may not be the right software for you to use, but it is still secure (and potentially more secure than other software that you feel better protects your privacy).
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > I am much more concerned about someone being able to impersonate me Well, great?! > (security) Erm ... no? > than to know what I'm doing (privacy) Privacy is not about what your software knows, it's about who else gets access to that information. Software allowing access to your information to parties other than the ones that you intended is a vulnerability class commonly called "information leak". > This doesn't mean im unconcerned about the latter. And thus it is, as per the common understanding of the word, a security concern. > If secure software compromises privacy in ways that concern you That's just logical nonsense. You might as well be saying "If secure software kills you in ways that concern you, [...]". > it may not be the right software for you to use, but it is still secure So, let's assume your browser had a bug where for some reason, every website could read all the data in the browser. Like, could access the storage, cookies, cache, history, page contents, everything. But no write access. This is obviously purely a privacy violation ... but, according to your definition, not a security problem, right?
    - joshuamorton 7y ago