![]() Google has various teams including the famous Project Zero that try to hack various software including their own, many of the discovered Chromium security issues are in fact in house reports. – How much companies invest in security research and related R&D also influences the nominal number of security issues discovered. Chromium could be 10 times as secure as Firefox and would still have a higher nominal number of security issues just due to the time, manpower and resources that go into hacking it vs. Firefox with a market share of a mere 3% is objectively not a valuable target / much less valuable target, so expecting adversaries to put the same time and resources into hacking Firefox vs. With 80% market share, Chromium is objectively a valuable target if you can hack it, you are statistically catching 80 out of 100 people. ![]() – Popularity of each given software is a major factor in what gets hacked and what doesn’t. Their definition misses the mark for several reasons: I define more secure as: “The application has exploit mitigations that make hacking it non-trivial.” They define secure as: “My browser has nominally fewer security issues reported.” They are here to shill for their dying, Google-funded browser to readers using the fake news that Firefox is “more secure”. See mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirrorĪll data and code used by this external index.Jody, there is no need to talk to these guys. This is an external index of several public inboxes, links below jump to the message on this page. Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) If this sounds okay, I will commit a new patch.Įnd of thread, other threads: > quite large, and I don't know if some details of it are actually obsoleteĪctually, it conforms more to rfc8820. > But does the manual page really conform to the newer RFCs? The contents are (In reply to Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) from comment #3) 14:55 ` bugzilla-daemon 15:02 ` bugzilla-daemon 3 siblings, 0 replies 5+ messages in threadįrom: bugzilla-daemon 15:02 UTC ( / raw) Quite large, and I don't know if some details of it are actually obsolete and Comment #3 from Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) -īut does the manual page really conform to the newer RFCs? The contents are 14:30 ` bugzilla-daemon 14:55 ` bugzilla-daemonįrom: bugzilla-daemon 14:55 UTC ( / raw) references to rfc6874 and rfc8820 have been added. The "CONFORMING TO" section of uri(7) man page is updated with followingĢ. Suggested patch to update uri(7) man page. 15:02 ` bugzilla-daemon 3 siblings, 0 replies 5+ messages in threadįrom: bugzilla-daemon 14:30 UTC ( / raw) 12:04 New: uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 bugzilla-daemon Should check the following RFCs that replace it: Comment #1 from Alejandro Colomar (man-pages). ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies 5+ messages in threadįrom: bugzilla-daemon 12:28 UTC ( / raw) 12:04 New: uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 12:28 ` bugzilla-daemon * uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 You are watching the assignee of the bug. You may reply to this email to add a comment. Summary: uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies 5+ messages in threadįrom: bugzilla-daemon 12:04 UTC ( / raw) New: uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 All of help / color / mirror / Atom feed * New: uri.7: CONFORMING TO: Refers to obsolete IETF RFC 2396 12:04 bugzilla-daemon
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |