[w00t]

I would say that from a security standpoint, without considering the implications of plugins, Chrome is currently superior. The security team at Google is very sharp, and the sandbox approach has raised the cost of exploiting Chrome to a level where it is unlikely an attacker capable of breaking the sandbox would risk the cost of losing an 0day to own you without a strong, distinct motive. This is not to discredit the Mozilla security team, however I feel as though Google had the advantage of seeing how other browsers were being compromised when they developed Chrome, making it less of a "catch-up" game for them.

Google is closed source, meaning only Google's development team gets to patch any exploits in the wild, and that only Google and reverse-engineers truly know what chrome is doing, which is a huge security flaw.

w00t, are you suggesting that because Chrome is built with some components which are not open source that it is inherently less secure?

No, I'm arguing that because parts of it aren't open source exploits found will remain in the wild for a long time, since a do-gooder that acquires it cannot fix it, and that because parts aren't open source you don't know exactly what google is sending back for it's database on you.

[4861636b]

I would say that from a security standpoint, without considering the implications of plugins, Chrome is currently superior. The security team at Google is very sharp, and the sandbox approach has raised the cost of exploiting Chrome to a level where it is unlikely an attacker capable of breaking the sandbox would risk the cost of losing an 0day to own you without a strong, distinct motive. This is not to discredit the Mozilla security team, however I feel as though Google had the advantage of seeing how other browsers were being compromised when they developed Chrome, making it less of a "catch-up" game for them.

Google is closed source, meaning only Google's development team gets to patch any exploits in the wild, and that only Google and reverse-engineers truly know what chrome is doing, which is a huge security flaw.

w00t, are you suggesting that because Chrome is built with some components which are not open source that it is inherently less secure?

No, I'm arguing that because parts of it aren't open source exploits found will remain in the wild for a long time, since a do-gooder that acquires it cannot fix it, and that because parts aren't open source you don't know exactly what google is sending back for it's database on you.

That's pretty much the same reason I don't trust chrome. Since you can't see the source for yourself, you don't know what they are doing. Who knows? They could be sending our browsing history to a 3rd party, and we'll never know about it.