This was a surprise to me and I will probably use Chrome more .....

Hackers steer clear of Google Chrome, say too challenging

At the CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver BC, hackers were invited to find and exploit holes in modern browsers. A popular target for hackers at this year’s conference was Safari on a Mac — definitely the lowest hanging fruit.

Charlie Miller explains that it’s not whether a product has holes (all of them do), its how easy it is to exploit those holes — and on a Mac, it’s very simple:

It’s clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that’s only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There’s almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.

He did mention, in his interview with Ryan Naraine, that Chrome was pretty much in another league. Their “sandbox” makes it extremely difficult to exploit — not only do you need to find a problem, but you also have to figure out how to get out of their Sandbox (an environment that has no access to anything on the computer).

There are bugs in Chrome but they’re very hard to exploit. I have a Chrome vulnerability right now but I don’t know how to exploit it. It’s really hard. The’ve got that sandbox model that’s hard to get out of. With Chrome, it’s a combination of things — you can’t execute on the heap, the OS protections in Windows and the Sandbox.

I might have this bug and I might be able to get code execution. But now you’r ein a sandbox and you have no permissions to do anything. You need another bug to get out of the sandbox. Now you need two bugs and two exploits. That raises the bar.

No hackers took on Chrome at the conference, simply because everything else was easier.

Source is http://blogs.zdnet.com/Google/?p=1334&tag=nl.e550

Thanks! Very interesting information regarding Chrome!

Also switched to Chrome myself two weeks ago, but not on version 2 yet.

Google for Domains + Offline GMail + Chrome = an absolute winner.

Runs GMail (under my company domain and with logo) just like a regular windows application, regardless of whether I'm connected to the 'net. Well recommended for those wishing to ditch Outlook & Outlook Express.

Chrome 2 is now out as FINAL. I agree with PC Mag review... it underwhelms.

Chrome 2 is now out as FINAL. I agree with PC Mag review... it underwhelms.

Haven't found any faster browser so far! FF/IE are lame ducks compared to Chrome.

The only competitor when it comes to speed is Opera

Some people might not agree with you, webfact.

The fastest web browser is the latest Apple Safari!

Google Chrome is USELESS without extensions and lacks so many functions.

Also I don't believe that most of the people here need a faster browser than Firefox.

Cheers.

Some people might not agree with you, webfact.

The fastest web browser is the latest Apple Safari!

I am far from believing it specially when it comes to Safari for Windows.

Well, I have a business to run and not a software test lab.

Within my Windows based network, Chrome is verifiable the fastest browser.

In my post I was refering to Windows not Mac or Linux OS.

I should have expressed that more ambiguous in my posting.

FF is used as well and I personally work with 2 or 3 browsers at the same time.

I am not the Chrome or IE or Firefox defender, I use what works best for me.

Edited May 24, 200917 yr by webfact

<SNIP>

I am not the Chrome or IE or Firefox defender, I use what works best for me.

And that is the key here. I always laugh when people get so convinced their own experience defines what is best for everyone else. Just use what you like!

I wasn't referring to Mac or Linux either .....

Have you used Safari extensively yet?

Some people might not agree with you, webfact.

The fastest web browser is the latest Apple Safari!

Can please anyone explain to me how you check fast?

I tried so many browsers but the bottle neck was always the server at the other end. And I checked with 12 Mpbs in the States and 5 Mbps here. Chrome might be faster because there are no add-ons doing great things in the background - because they simply do not exist. I do not know if my browsers Firefox and Maxthon (IE) are fast. But especially Firefox is great with all the add-ons and is waiting for data from the servers like all other browsers. The CPU has no problem with any of the browsers.

I have Firefox here, Maxthon, Opera, Safari (eats all the computer memory...) How can I test the speed in a way so that I can compare them and see the difference?

With speed I don't refer to the speed of the data coming in, but rather the render and processing time of html, javascript etc. In other words how long it takes before the complete page is rendered when the data is received by the browser.

For individuals with the eye we might perceive one browser faster than the other. But those using benchmarks and sophisticated tools, might give us the answer. Like graphics cards, can you see which similar graphic card is faster without the use of benchmark tools?

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm

But you're right ... Although I like Safari very much, I keep on using Firefox because of its addons .... especially Flashgot I wouldn't like to miss as well as an instant Rapidshare link checker.

Edited May 24, 200917 yr by sniffdog

With speed I don't refer to the speed of the data coming in, but rather the render and processing time of html, javascript etc. In other words how long it takes before the complete page is rendered when the data is received by the browser.

I know what you mean. But do I really feel a difference in milliseconds at normal sites? The SunSpider is an extreme test for Java scripts. But I would like to see a test with a typical user and his sites and how many minutes he can save a day. Java script is not everything on a page. Perhaps Chrome can do Java script fast but the rest? Please correct me if I am wrong.

And then tools like add-blockers for instance - a performance killer somehow. But who has the fastest add-blocker and flash blocker and so on? A browser is a set of things and not only loops in Java scripts with formulas we do not know. And then the implications of a browser on the whole system performance - CPU load, memory consumption, HD space. What with multiple tabs running. I always have the feeling they get paid for their test.

I really like fast - will buy one of the best I7 in the next month with the rest of the system fitting to it. Hope it will me bring more than milliseconds then - do a lot of video rendering.

By the way - I use Firefox 3.5b5pre. It should be so much faster than the old version. But I tell you sometimes I started the old version by accident. I could not feel any difference. I did not realize it at all (both use the same profile and add-ons). At least I was busy for hours to make some add-ons to work with this pre-release

Let me know what you think. Perhaps I am completely wrong and just to lazy to switch browsers in the meantime.

Edited May 24, 200917 yr by Johnxxx

I like their ideas but I'll stick with Firefox until Adblock and Foxmarks modules becomes available .

Exactly the same reasons for waiting for testing Chrome.I love Adblock (especially on a certain forum )

Chrome add-ons http://www.mychromeaddons.com/

But, will Chrome support XP64 yet?? They didn't a month ago.......

Chrome add-ons http://www.mychromeaddons.com/

Firefox add-ons https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox

Chrome add-ons http://www.mychromeaddons.com/

Firefox add-ons https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox

I remember the time when the first Firefox versions were available... only a few addons could be found. Like on the Chrome addon page.

Every journey starts with the first step... I and I was happy to find this link and show it the world

BTW I use FF 60% and CHR 40%