Google Chrome security questioned

Well,

Anyone that uses a beta browser to do Internet Banking or anything similar, shouldn't be allowed to even download Chrome....
 
It's a Beta version... what did they expect? freakin n00bs! When you go to click on the download link it says there quite clearly (Beta Version). :mad:
 
Saule said:
Gmail has been a beta since inception;)
Click to expand...

Ja, I know that... but Chrome is not even a month out in the wild. You would think they could give it some time and version updates before they start whining about security issues and missing features! :rolleyes:
 
Saule said:
Whine now = new super feature rich browser sooner:p.
Click to expand...

I thought the idea was to keep it lean and fast? Will be interesting to see how they balance the desire to bling it out with the need to keep it sleek.
 
it's like windows, never get the new OS till the service pack is out....
Let others test find all the bugs and then try it out...
 
McGuywer said:
Well,

Anyone that uses a beta browser to do Internet Banking or anything similar, shouldn't be allowed to even download Chrome....
Click to expand...

Garyvdh said:
It's a Beta version... what did they expect? freakin n00bs! When you go to click on the download link it says there quite clearly (Beta Version). :mad:
Click to expand...


would you have the same views for ff and opera betas?
 
milomak said:
would you have the same views for ff and opera betas?
Click to expand...

I have not used many of the betas for those programs... I used release candidate 2 of FF3 for a few weeks.

I do not use any program but IE for my internet banking... and even then I type all addresses in by hand.

I do not, as a rule, use ANY beta software. In fact I think other than Gmail and Chrome the only other Beta software is Grabit 1.71b on my home computer.
 
Well what exactly does other browsers do that makes them more secure? Even this article is pretty useless, it does not actually say WHAT security problems there are, not even ONE example of an insecurity [that is not exploitable in IE too] ??

They're basically saying "its beta, therefore it's insecure" ......well DOH. They are also saying "It's a release, therefore it's secure"....RIIIGHT...

If you have even a remotely useful firewall your browser is irrelevant in terms of Malicious scripts / Active X / Java apps executing ...heck my firewall maintains an active blacklist as well, and it does not care what app is trying to get there it will block it.

"The point of criticism is the beta version - why does it need to be released in a beta version?"
Click to expand...

I mean come on, Google's way of using "Beta" is no different than what Microsoft is doing. Microsoft shoots themselves in the foot by saying "it's a final release" and then they have 10 zillion "critical updates" coming through. Don't tell me that's different than beta. At least google is honest about it.

Google says : "There's always bugs, it's never 100% done"
Microsoft says : "Our browser is the most stable and most secure ever, we don't need no changes or beta version"

Who would you believe?

If Google removed the Beta, do people actually believe it's magically now more secure? Stupid stupid stupid people. It's a new browser -anyway- what did they expect?
 
Last edited:
diabolus said:
If Google removed the Beta, do people actually believe it's magically now more secure? Stupid stupid stupid people. It's a new browser -anyway- what did they expect?
Click to expand...

i wonder if the degree of liability changes when you label a program as beta?
 
milomak said:
i wonder if the degree of liability changes when you label a program as beta?
Click to expand...

The EULA of most programs excludes liability anyway... so I don't think it makes much difference.

Firefox....

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html

4. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. THE PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITH ALL FAULTS. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, MOZILLA AND MOZILLA'S DISTRIBUTORS, LICENSORS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES THAT THE PRODUCT IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGING. YOU BEAR ENTIRE RISK AS TO SELECTING THE PRODUCT FOR YOUR PURPOSES AND AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT. THIS LIMITATION WILL APPLY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY REMEDY. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY LAW, MOZILLA AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS, DIRECTORS, LICENSORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND AGENTS (COLLECTIVELY, THE "MOZILLA GROUP") WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PRODUCT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, AND COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) UPON WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS BASED. THE MOZILLA GROUP'S COLLECTIVE LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT EXCEED THE GREATER OF $500 (FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS) AND THE FEES PAID BY YOU UNDER THIS LICENSE (IF ANY). SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Click to expand...
 
Yeh, it seems to have some potential.

IMO its a failed attempt at a browser similar to Opera so far.
I still find Opera the best browser.

Also as everyone else said..its a BETA browser...not exactly the safest and shouldnt be used for any highly importent online stuff such as banking online or purchasing.etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X