InformAction Forums

Agreed. It's not the CA system, it's that *Comodo itself* was breached by a hacker in a foreign country who was able to log in as a privileged Comodo exec with the authority to issue certs. That's not confidence-inspiring, especially for a company in the business of firewalls and overall security. ...

Comodo was breached by a hacker who issued fradulent SSL certs in Comodo's name. So they should clean up their own house first. They did fix this one quickly, but It makes one less willing to trust them completely, or at least, it's a credibility hit. Did everyone forget this? VeriSign and Comodo a...

Yes and No. I agree with you that in whole its not that different. However, it does have features by default that frankly baffles me that Chrome doesn't. To see what I mean, install them side by side and compare the config page. A couple that stand out the most are as follows but certainly not comp...

Just to note the Dragon browser adds very little in terms of security - purely SSL, which is of course Comodo's strongpoint as the #2 cert provider. And then it does some other things by default that are easily configurable in Chrome/ium (block 3rd party cookies.) @Tom Without that, you can't save b...

The program is a black box: nobody knows in detail how its supervisor mechanisms work or can easily do a code review. Chrome uses OP-style sandboxing at the browser level, is bug-hunted relentlessly, and was analyzed w/ source by several experts on bug-hunting and sandboxing. It's received *much* m...

Thanks for the new topic. I think the last topic had clearly answered the question asked. I'll get to this later but for now I need to read through the links provided. So far they're fun. EDIT: @NickP I get some of the issues you mentioned about Chrome but many of those issues apply directly to Fire...

Always happy for another opinion. If your friend would like to throw his opinion out there I'd absolutely love to hear it.

As always, thanks for your time.

In other words, they did it until they got caught. So does any thief. Had CNET not cited that, woud that TOS still be with us today? Any reason why it wouldn't? It was removed retroactively. I seriously doubt they'd try to slip something into the TOS, which is going to get reviewed to hell and back...

Interesting info, thanks. I suspect that they realize that if there were no ad-blocking capability at all, most users would choose another browser. They still get a good deal of marketable user data from Google searches, and my tinfoil-hat side tends to, uh, "doubt" their statements that ...

Well that is one heck of a post I'll certainly be getting to that... probably tonight, maybe tomorrow.

No I meant an in-the-wild exploit. I know there have been vulnerabilities shown and proven.

(This lengthy, but very interesting, discussion was split from NoScript > General, "Chrome, NoScript, and WebRequest API" , as the specific questions in the OP there had been answered. The responses in this post are to the divergent issues that came up in the resolving reply to the other t...

Having a discussion over on wilderssecurity forum and we were wondering if there's anything holding back a NoScript/NoScriptLike extension from working properly in Chrome considering the new WebRequest API. One user was suggesting that if it were possible you would be already on it - implementing No...