[Colton]

Chrome 5 Beta, Firefox 4 Beta 2, Opera 10.6 Final.


Firefox is falling behind.

(For those of you that don't know what Acid3 is: it tests a browsers' engine's graphics, pixel for pixel. 100/100 means that it matches, pixel for pixel, what the original image is.)

 chrome.png (131.04K)
Number of downloads: 22  ff4.png (179.15K)
Number of downloads: 23  opera.png (292.13K)
Number of downloads: 16

[dårk]

Colton, on 30 July 2010 - 02:06 AM, said:

Chrome 5 Beta, Firefox 4 Beta 2, Opera 10.6 Final.


Firefox is falling behind.

(For those of you that don't know what Acid3 is: it tests a browsers' engine's graphics, pixel for pixel. 100/100 means that it matches, pixel for pixel, what the original image is.)

chrome.png ff4.png opera.png

Interesting.... so what do you use?

[Colton]

I normally use Chrome 5 Beta, or Opera. Just depends on what I'm doing, and/or which browser I need to be using.

[Milkz]

does chrome have noscript or abp+ yet

[Colton]

There's an extension like ABP, but I'm not sure about noscript. I have Kaspersky Internet Security 2010, so it blocks all the ads and shit like that. Plus, I have OpenDNS, and a VPN if all else fails. Not all that worried about it.

[Cursing In Braille]

i uze internet explorer.
i am cool too? y/n?

[Secondary Protocol]

Cursing In Braille, on 30 July 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

i uze internet explorer.
i am cool too? y/n?

no.

[Colton]

Secondary Protocol, on 30 July 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

no.

lulz. IE is like the retarded kid that comes in last, and still thinks he won.

[Brian]

I don't give a shit about acid tests, I give a shit about security and right now FF is top dog (it also has a waaay better mouse gestures addon). I suppose you COULD run Chrome in a sandbox but sandboxie is a bitch, having to recover every downloaded file and the like, it gets annoying fast. GeSWall would be ideal but there's no 32bit version out, thus I'm fucked until v3.0 comes along. Chrome has some nice cute extensions like facebook photo auto-zoom but someone desperately needs to code a noscript and a good abp for it.. the ones it has suck pure ass. If chrome gets a bigger/better community based on developing extensions, then I can see it MAYBE overcoming Firefox, especially if it begins kicking firefox's ass resource wise and visually. Chrome right now uses far more resources than firefox (open 10 instances of 10 different websites in firefox, then do the same in Chrome, add up all the Chrome.exe's and compare to firefox's). Unless they've done some major work on the Chrome beta then it should use more mem than firefox.


Chrome
- Fast
- Sleek
- Some cool extensions, very little useful ones
- Horrible ABP ports
- No noscript
- Uses a lot of memory depending on # of tabs
- Has mouse gesture extensions but none of them are as good as All in One gestures for FF
- Some extensions are simply poorly coded and don't work very well, this can be true for FF as well, but from my experience faulty extensions are far more common with Chrome.

Firefox
- Fast (for me anyway, I hear people having firefox take forever to open, it's always instant for me though)
- Can be sleek if you customize it, has tons of customization options (with addons as well), more so than Chrome
- A lot of useful extensions (mouse gestures, security, etc), a lot of cool ones, not sure if anyone has developed a facebook photo-zoom yet though heh
- ABP
- Noscript
- Less memory use (presuming you're not on a shitty build that has a memory leak... eek)


Personally I don't like firefox 4 beta at all, I really hope they make some strides with it before releasing it... Chrome is good but it's just not catered to my personal preferences yet.

[Nebraska]

Quote

I don't give a shit about acid tests, I give a shit about security and right now FF is top dog (it also has a waaay better mouse gestures addon). I suppose you COULD run Chrome in a sandbox but sandboxie is a bitch, having to recover every downloaded file and the like, it gets annoying fast. GeSWall would be ideal but there's no 32bit version out, thus I'm fucked until v3.0 comes along. Chrome has some nice cute extensions like facebook photo auto-zoom but someone desperately needs to code a noscript and a good abp for it.. the ones it has suck pure ass. If chrome gets a bigger/better community based on developing extensions, then I can see it MAYBE overcoming Firefox, especially if it begins kicking firefox's ass resource wise and visually. Chrome right now uses far more resources than firefox (open 10 instances of 10 different websites in firefox, then do the same in Chrome, add up all the Chrome.exe's and compare to firefox's). Unless they've done some major work on the Chrome beta then it should use more mem than firefox.


Chrome
- Fast
- Sleek
- Some cool extensions, very little useful ones
- Horrible ABP ports
- No noscript
- Uses a lot of memory depending on # of tabs
- Has mouse gesture extensions but none of them are as good as All in One gestures for FF
- Some extensions are simply poorly coded and don't work very well, this can be true for FF as well, but from my experience faulty extensions are far more common with Chrome.

Firefox
- Fast (for me anyway, I hear people having firefox take forever to open, it's always instant for me though)
- Can be sleek if you customize it, has tons of customization options (with addons as well), more so than Chrome
- A lot of useful extensions (mouse gestures, security, etc), a lot of cool ones, not sure if anyone has developed a facebook photo-zoom yet though heh
- ABP
- Noscript
- Less memory use (presuming you're not on a shitty build that has a memory leak... eek)


Personally I don't like firefox 4 beta at all, I really hope they make some strides with it before releasing it... Chrome is good but it's just not catered to my personal preferences yet.

Brian, I totally agree. I just made the switch from IE8 to Fox 3.6.8 and it's a much better browser. Hasn't crashed on me once yet (IE was doing it multiple times a day) and it's much more civilized to my system when I have multiple tabs open (which is every hour of every day). The add-ons are better (all you need to know about is ABP/Noscript/FastestFox/Integrated GMail and we're done with the conversation). It does have some small flaws, though:

- It's not really that much faster. It just takes up less resources. This in theory makes it faster (and I do notice it in some situations), but it's like going from 400hp to 410hp. Only the benchmarks notice.

- Even though you check a box to "perform this function automatically" when opening/downloading a file type (use WinRAR for .rar, for example), all Firefox does is remember the program you selected. You still have to tell it to open/download the file.

- Bookmark organization (i loved the bookmark toolbar in IE8) (this is mitigated by using the Google Toolbar New Tab Page)

Anyway, long story short, FF is the way to go right now. I really want to join the Chrome bandwagon (and further sell my soul to Google), but there just isn't the community for it yet. From what I read, there isn't a ton of flexibility with the program, so they may need to open up options in order to grow the community and give the same kind of add-on flexibility.

[Kyle]

Brian, on 30 July 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Personally I don't like firefox 4 beta at all, I really hope they make some strides with it before releasing it... Chrome is good but it's just not catered to my personal preferences yet.

http://www.arewefastyet.com/

[Colton]

Doesn't really matter which browser I use, I love KIS. It even takes out the ads in Youtube videos.

Also, woot @ V8 being faster than JIT.

Chrome is getting better. People are beginning to make more stuff for it. There's been new extensions coming out lately. There's only a few (and I mean a few) add-ons available for Firefox 4. They have a compatibility reporter so that it will send reports to the owner of the add-on to tell them it's incompatible, etc. Have to go to the add-ons section to send the report to them, and tell them why it's incompatible (what's not working, or it's just not working period). They're getting a lot of user feedback.

The one thing I have noticed about FF4 is that it takes significantly longer for it to start up than 3.6.x did. Pretty sure this is because of all of the eye candy that they're trying to implement. They have a study that you can run that will collect stats on the performance of components in the browser for a week or so, and then send it to them to show the speed and such of each component. They're learning how to be a better open-source browser. I don't see Google doing anything like this in Chrome 5 beta. It's pretty nice, but it needs some work on the launch time.

I'm pretty disappointed in the graphics performance getting a 97/100 on acid3, while Chrome and Opera, even IE 9's platform preview gets 100/100. For it to be an open-source browser, it should be ahead of these other browsers by far.

[Brian]

Colton, on 30 July 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

Doesn't really matter which browser I use, I love KIS. It even takes out the ads in Youtube videos.

Yea but at what expense? KIS can be pretty heavy on resources. ABP takes ads off youtube videos as well, and it's just a filter list.

[Colton]

KIS has gotten a lot better at resources. It's running 2 processes right now. One is at 2.3MB RAM usage, the other is at 7.8MB RAM usage. They also have the gaming mode now, which is nifty. Keeps updates and stuff from running when you're in a game.

[Brian]

I ran KIS 2010 and it was bloated as a mother fucker, was there an update or some shit? Or do you just have a ton of shit disabled?

[Colton]

I have everything enabled. I don't know why it would have acted sluggish for you. I never have a problem with it.

[Brian]

A ton of people have reported problems with KIS, especially boot times. It slowed my boot time significantly. Some people report boot times of 10 mins. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the hardware of some of the comps it's happened on. Slowed my boot time, made all my applications open slower, just brought my system way down. No one has any idea why, it's like it chooses random victims.

[Colton]

My CPU usage is sitting at like.. 10-30%, and most of that is because I have music streaming. I can restart in ~2 minutes.

[JD­]

For windows I have to say......


Firefox + Noscript + Sandboxie


I have found nothing more secure, noscript blocks about already a bunch of the 0day exploits, but when with sandboxie there has to be less then 1% chance or none that you are going to be hit with a 0day that passes noscript and sandboxie at one go.

Forgot to mention...

With aslr... With aslr you are 100% and yes 100% due to random memory locations now no exploit could know the address in memory for a exploit to hit. All that after getting passed noscript+sandboxie...

http://en.wikipedia....t_randomization

[Colton]

Noscript and ABP are two of the few plugins that are available for FF4. TamperData also works, even though it says it's incompatible. Maybe they'll mark it as compatible once they get enough confirmations.

[Brian]

Colton, on 30 July 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

My CPU usage is sitting at like.. 10-30%, and most of that is because I have music streaming. I can restart in ~2 minutes.

How much of that is used by KIS? my cpu sits at 0% (49 processes total) and that's when I have all my standard apps open, firefox, thunderbird, steam, pidgin, wmp, and I have Avira free in the background with sandboxie, rainmeter, ATI's CCC shit, and of course, task manager. I've been watching it while typing this post, I also have TrackMania Forever running in the background and it's only fluctuated to 3% max so far. This will probably jump when I maximize trackmania. What CPU do you have? and JD I wouldn't exclude an AV, anything is exploitable. Sandboxes can do a lot but they're best used, imo, alongside a good AV. Unless the user isolates everything... as there are many ways viruses can spread that don't involve a browser or a program that utilizes an internet connection, heck they can spread via flash drives and that's common. GeSWall has some protection against this, not sure if sandboxie does though. Fucking geswall needs to come out with 3.0 so it has 64bit support... they're taking way too long

[Colton]

1% and 0%. lol.

Edit: It bounced up to 10% and 0% posting to the forums, scanning the network traffic.


Also, here's CPU specs.
 speccy.png (28.5K)
Number of downloads: 7

[JD­]

There only reason I am against anti virii programs is because they can not detect what is unkown (0days) . :/

ASLR all the way!

I've seen so many css exploits when people join a server the MOTD is rendering in an IE engine..... so running css in sandboxie saves you.

[Brian]

Yea you could disable the network scan or http scan, whatever they call it, if you ran firefox or whatever browser in a sandbox, noscript would help in this department. It's funny, in Avast5 that feature is only for 32bit internet explorer... doesn't work in anything else yet it's enabled by default.

[Colton]

JD­, on 30 July 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

There only reason I am against anti virii programs is because they can not detect what is unkown (0days) . :/

That's why it's always good to know where to look for 0days.

JD , on 30 July 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

I've seen so many css exploits when people join a server the MOTD is rendering in an IE engine..... so running css in sandboxie saves you.

Well, that's not really an issue in the new CSS. You can just disable HTML MOTDs.

[Brian]

JD­, on 30 July 2010 - 06:39 PM, said:

There only reason I am against anti virii programs is because they can not detect what is unkown (0days) . :/

ASLR all the way!

I've seen so many css exploits when people join a server the MOTD is rendering in an IE engine..... so running css in sandboxie saves you.

I've had a few AV's detect 0day exploits when testing them. I mentioned this before, KIS found a 0day exploit in a notepad doc that had custom obfuscation for the iframe which amazed me. +1 for KIS. This of course, is only good for 0day's that aren't FUD... so +1 to sandboxie or geswall in that department

[Colton]

Brian, on 30 July 2010 - 09:43 PM, said:

I've had a few AV's detect 0day exploits when testing them. I mentioned this before, KIS found a 0day exploit in a notepad doc that had custom obfuscation for the iframe which amazed me. +1 for KIS. This of course, is only good for 0day's that aren't FUD... so +1 to sandboxie or geswall in that department

Heuristics, for the win.

[JD­]

Colton, on 30 July 2010 - 08:42 PM, said:

That's why it's always good to know where to look for 0days.



Well, that's not really an issue in the new CSS. You can just disable HTML MOTDs.

I am talking about REAL 0day exploits, that are sold for large sums of money to help spammers spam more. You wont find these anywhere because the spammer want the exploit to retain it's effect on set browsers. You never hear about these and if you do it's because the spammer either got caught or the exploit was patched by a fluke in a update that was unaware of the exploit. Either way these exploits live without anyone knowing and by the time they are discovered the damage has already been done.

Whitehat security ftw

EDIT: I know anti virii will detect OLD OUTDATED 0day but then that's not a 0day now is it

[Brian]

My ideal setup would probably be Avira (good detection rates, low FP's, low resources), GesWall 3.0 (the main mother fucker), network tunneled through an ipv6 stack, not to mention I'm already behind a NAT, I could throw windows firewall in there for more control but it wouldn't be entirely necessary. Spybot for immunization, even though it wouldn't matter with geswall running, but you never know if a virus will miraculously find its way in and kill the geswall service, even so I'm sure I'd notice immediately. Firefox would of course be loaded with noscript with everything blocked, and abp for the pesky little ads, which would also double as protection against harmful ads, although those would probably have to be loaded in iframes which noscript already takes care of. This setup would be low on resources but offer some great protection. If I feel extra paranoid I can do occasional scans with malwarebytes and spybot. This + an always updated OS and always updated applications should do just fine. I'm on a horse.

[Colton]

JD , on 30 July 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

I am talking about REAL 0day exploits, that are sold for large sums of money to help spammers spam more. You wont find these anywhere because the spammer want the exploit to retain it's effect on set browsers. You never hear about these and if you do it's because the spammer either got caught or the exploit was patched by a fluke in a update that was unaware of the exploit. Either way these exploits live without anyone knowing and by the time they are discovered the damage has already been done.

Whitehat security ftw

EDIT: I know anti virii will detect OLD OUTDATED 0day but then that's not a 0day now is it

Indeed. I'm a whitehat freelance web designer. I'm running a web server, mail server, and database (just to name a few). I have to keep up with possible exploits to the system, because there is development work that takes place on my web server via subversion. Can't afford to have it go down in the middle of a transfer, or someone gain access to the repositories. Even worse, someone exploiting Apache or trying an SQL injection. All I have to say is honeypots are amazing. Also, I've never really seen spammers use anything much other than a RAT. Even then, they probably paid for it. There's only a few RATs that are still good, and free, but are detected by most AVs. You would have to have a crypter in order to bypass them. I was moderator on a forum full of little skiddies. Needless to say, I'm not a moderator on that forum anymore.