http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_...
Summary:
* Study (commisioned by GOOG but methodology is open for inspection) puts them #1 out of 3 (being IE and Firefox)
* Patched faster and more often than others
* Untouched at least year's pwn2own
Edit: Oddly enough, this was the #1 result for "chrome most secure browser" on Google. One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag.
Chrome might be safer (than Safari, Firefox or IE) for this kind of malware, but I sure as hell wouldn't run a browser made by an company that makes money by collecting personal data for the benefit of advertisers if I wanted to be "safe". I see no reason to believe Microsoft, Apple or Google haven't put some spyware/backdoor in their browsers. But I really don't care about it, so I use Safari which is the best browser on Mac, IMO.
That said, while Safari is a nice browser, it's horribly insecure. Just looking at Pwn2Own, it gets killed straight off every year, and those involved usually remark about how trivial it is.
That's so '11... ;-)
> Team VUPEN: 0day: Google Chrome: Full sandbox escape and code execution
http://pwn2own.zerodayinitiative.com/status.html
Safari was apparently the only one without a 0day, though exploited via CVE-2011-0115 and CVE-2010-0050, weird since the former is patched since 5.0.4 [0] and the latter is fixed in iOS 3.1.3 [1] and Safari 4.0.5 [2]. Aren't they supposed to target fully patched, latest OSes and browsers?
[0] http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4566
No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it.
> Patched faster and more often than others
Not necessarily a good thing. Also doesn't really help people off of Google's forced-update scheme.
Also, plugins are an important part of any browser now; NoScript and the ad blocking/anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox.
Cite, please.
However, should someone else provide a citation, then this will also do - and the author should really thank that person for doing the hard work in providing a more meaningful discussion.
Cite, please.
Perhaps, but it adds much more to the discussion and comes across as less prickish if you say something along the lines of "I don't see any data to support that, could I see yours?" rather than "Citeplz".
Especially when it's literally one google search away on result #1. It just smacks of laziness.
And while I agree with you on plugins, we're talking security. I was going by the study's methodology (which seems mostly sound).