Is Amazon under DDOS attack because of the Wikileaks Uproar? - Page 2

Steven Lake · 12-09-2010, 03:34 PM

Not to start a browser war here, but I'd rather have the security and stability of Firefox over the little bit of extra speed that Chrome gives. In time as Chrome stabilizes it'll get slower too.

Pushka · 12-09-2010, 06:47 PM

Amazon UK is selling an ebook with wikileaks cables in it:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...-1225968789244

CleverClothe · 12-09-2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Not to start a browser war here, but I'd rather have the security and stability of Firefox over the little bit of extra speed that Chrome gives. In time as Chrome stabilizes it'll get slower too.

You mean the browser that had the greatest number of vulnerabilities in 2009 (of the big 5, 4x Chrome)?

(Page 35)
http://eval.symantec.com/mktginfo/en...2010.en-us.pdf

Steven Lake · 12-09-2010, 09:05 PM

I'd probably argue this with you in greater detail, however, that would derail this thread too much. Put simply, and I'll leave it at this, Google Chrome is not as secure as you claim, and Firefox as vulnerable. First off, Google Chrome is based off of the open source project Chromium. Google did that intentionally to hide all the flies in its ointment. Go look at the vulnerability lists for Chromium. It'll knock your socks off. And the best part is, I know for a fact that they don't publicly document all their bugs. Google won't let them. Second, Google is a proprietary software company, regardless of how "open" they claim to be. As such, they only publicly documents their most critical vulnerabilities. The rest remain under lock and key.

If you don't think companies do this, all you have to do is ask Microsoft or Apple. That's status quo for them. Firefox on the other hand documents ALL their bugs and vulnerabilities which, given the unfair way their competitors document bugs (and this comes from someone who's a developer (ie, me) who sure as heck keeps his bugs under lock and key for security reasons), makes them look like the bad guy when people just throw around numbers without any facts behind them as Symantec is famous for doing, thus creating inaccurate, skewed results. Anywho, I leave you with that tiny tidbit to think about.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cablegate Wikileaks	OnwardAhead	Recipes	17	02-06-2011 02:13 PM
DDoS attack	Alexander Turcic	Announcements	8	06-16-2003 08:52 AM

12-09-2010, 03:34 PM	#16
Steven Lake Sci-Fi Author Posts: 1,158 Karma: 14743509 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Michigan Device: PC (Calibre)	Not to start a browser war here, but I'd rather have the security and stability of Firefox over the little bit of extra speed that Chrome gives. In time as Chrome stabilizes it'll get slower too.

12-09-2010, 06:47 PM	#17
Pushka Wizard Posts: 1,119 Karma: 1019140 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Australia Device: kindle, Ipad, Iphone, Nexus and PPW	Amazon UK is selling an ebook with wikileaks cables in it: http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...-1225968789244

12-09-2010, 09:05 PM	#19
Steven Lake Sci-Fi Author Posts: 1,158 Karma: 14743509 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Michigan Device: PC (Calibre)	I'd probably argue this with you in greater detail, however, that would derail this thread too much. Put simply, and I'll leave it at this, Google Chrome is not as secure as you claim, and Firefox as vulnerable. First off, Google Chrome is based off of the open source project Chromium. Google did that intentionally to hide all the flies in its ointment. Go look at the vulnerability lists for Chromium. It'll knock your socks off. And the best part is, I know for a fact that they don't publicly document all their bugs. Google won't let them. Second, Google is a proprietary software company, regardless of how "open" they claim to be. As such, they only publicly documents their most critical vulnerabilities. The rest remain under lock and key. If you don't think companies do this, all you have to do is ask Microsoft or Apple. That's status quo for them. Firefox on the other hand documents ALL their bugs and vulnerabilities which, given the unfair way their competitors document bugs (and this comes from someone who's a developer (ie, me) who sure as heck keeps his bugs under lock and key for security reasons), makes them look like the bad guy when people just throw around numbers without any facts behind them as Symantec is famous for doing, thus creating inaccurate, skewed results. Anywho, I leave you with that tiny tidbit to think about.

Advert