Did Google Target Mozilla Through a Paid Security Report?
Should Mozilla be upset over recent findings by a Google-funded browser security analysis and the fact that Chrome is the most secure browser available right now?
NSS Labs, a provider of quarterly browser security reports, thinks so, as it states that the report was heavily skewed in Google's favor.
According to NSS, Google has taken unreasonable influence on the methodology of browser security testing, favored Google features over features in other browsers, did not showcase diligence in testing, and withheld important information in its blacklisting feed to discredit Firefox' ability to block malware.
NSS Labs criticizes the nature of this sponsored report, even if it was accused itself not too long ago to have taken funding from Microsoft for its reports, which usually present IE in a much better light than any other browser and typically focus on social malware exploits. Funded and commissioned studies always carry the inherent danger that a report could be skewed in on direction, which is, in fact, a reasonable assumption. Such studies are frequently funded to not only provide research data, but become marketing material.
Google engaged in a behavior that is common in the industry and some could claim that a focus on testing methodology may simply be a question of philosophy which features may be important and which not. In individual cases, this may be largely irrelevant. Even if you use the most secure browser, irresponsible behavior on the Internet can open doors to successful malicious attacks. However, if Google asked Accuvant to deliberately disable security features in Firefox (and other browsers), there is a clear problem and NSS has every right to spotlight Google's ugly strategy.
NSS noted that it analyzed Accuvant's study on request of some of its customers. I will leave it up to you to speculate which customers may have asked for that (unpaid?) favor.
No. Mozilla's target auditory is different from Chrome's. Keep enjoying your retarded streamlined interface, Chrome users... not saying it's a bad browser, but I loathe that interface; FF gets things done while in Chrome I keep cursing around looking under the dropdown menu for the item I need instead of using the traditional File/Edit/Tools/etc. which everybody is trying to rip away from us nowadays; hell, even Win7 tried!
No. Mozilla's target auditory is different from Chrome's. Keep enjoying your retarded streamlined interface, Chrome users... not saying it's a bad browser, but I loathe that interface; FF gets things done while in Chrome I keep cursing around looking under the dropdown menu for the item I need instead of using the traditional File/Edit/Tools/etc. which everybody is trying to rip away from us nowadays; hell, even Win7 tried!
didnt even know anyone still used that bar.. its been welll ages since i have used anything but the url bar in a browser.
Okay, np, np
That's why I stick with Firefox. Mozilla does not try to force FF down our throats, and the browser is really good. I definitely don't want adware in my computer, thats why Chrome will stay out of my hard drive.
Adblock + noscript means I'm pretty set.
Still I am going off firefox a bit with the release schedule, numbering and the direction of the UI.
Some ui bits look handy, however hiding the menus is pretty dumb. Browsers should have the ability to be modified (EASILY) by the user to create their own UI.
Instead of having everything but the url bar hidden. The type of users who only use that are probably going on farmville.
Don't say anything bad about Firefox. The members don't like it.
"Don't be evil... unless it's really really convenient."
Personally I don't mind the change in the user interface of any program. They have always been changing and 'updating' based on the style and preference of the times. If you really know what you are doing you aren't navigating much with that interface anyways, you are using shortcuts. Long story short I don't know how anyone can complain that the file menu is no longer there when it is a simple Alt-F away.
Ask most people what google is and they'll tell you that its a search engine.
This is completely wrong.
Google is first and foremost an advertising company, that just happens to have an okay search product which they use to collect as much personal information about their users as possible to be used in targeting their ads.
When you get your head around that little fact its hard to trust anything they do any more.
That's exactly why I hate tablets, Apple, "simplifying" and other bull$h!t - I don't want to end up like humans did in that movie!
There's no need for them to do this either, since the browser already is as big as firefox (about 25% each).
Also don't like the way they bundle the browser when, for example, downloading google earth.
one stupid thing, chrome has a setting for blocking third-party cookies, but it won't allow "exceptions", if needed.. that is stupid.. i know of one website where you have to use a "third-party cookie" in order to be able to login..
as far as "disabling firefox's security features", i would say that it doesn't have any, except for an option to disable javascript, globally, with no "exceptions", which is stupid.. without the "noscript" addon, which allows for tightening up firefox's security, firefox would be garbage, in my book..
the article in question brought out some interesting things, for me...