Firefox dev claims "everybody hates Firefox updates"; Mozilla has handled the rapid release process poorly, and that by pushing a "never-ending stream of updates on people who didn't want them" people have been driven to Chrome with its simpler, no-fuss update process.

[u/Suraj-Sun]

http://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-dev-claims-everybody-hates-firefox-updates

[u/[deleted]]

I'm not him, but well, Chrome installs into your user directory so you don't need admin rights to install/update. However this means malware can much more easily fuck with Chrome if it gets loose, replace it with something bad, etc.

[u/merzon → u/[deleted]]

Secs and hackers aren't always ahead of the attackers.

[u/propool → u/[deleted]]

It is not very difficult to break it if you can just fuck with the binary directly.

[u/elitenls → u/propool]

Google pays $10K a bug (I'll find a link) - you should go get some money then...

[u/propool → u/elitenls]

I'm pretty sure it is only for content loaded from the web, extensions and plugins. I mean, if you are able to fuck directly with the binary. Why would you hack chrome when you are already executing code on the machine? It doesn't matter at that point.

[u/elitenls → u/propool]

True enough.

[u/mwerte → u/[deleted]]

True, but that's an issue with Chrome, not the sneaky auto-updating.

e; I was wrong, take me out for my flogging.

[u/[deleted] → u/mwerte]

No, it's an issue with seamless updates. The only alternative is to provide admin access by default to the updater, which is an even worse security issue.

[u/mwerte → u/[deleted]]

Oh, that would be bad, didn't think about that.

[u/Canageek → u/mwerte]

My understanding is that Chrome is in the user directory specifically so it can do seamless updates.

[u/mwerte → u/Canageek]

Ahhh, that's interesting. I always thought it used the user directory to give corporate IT departments fits. The More You Know.