Iron - a secure "Chromium" based browser

[J_RaD]

Comparism of Iron and Chrome at privacy:

Chrome creates a unique ID, not Iron
Chrome sends your typing to Google, not Iron
Chrome installs a updater, which loads at every Windows start-up in background, not Iron
With Chrome, a URL-Tracker calls Google five seconds after launch, not Iron

[srware.net...]

all the above reasons are why i never even installed google chrome onto my computer, im glad SRWare has made this browser!

[edited by: tedster at 5:16 am (utc) on May 31, 2009]
[edit reason] paraphrase direct quotes [/edit]

[tedster]

Thanks for the information. Iron is a new browser to me, but it certainly does look interesting. I'll be taking it out for a spin very soon.

[swa66]

I'll agree it's a possible enhancement on the privacy part (esp. if you don't trust Google -and why should you-).

But the claim on their web site "without any problems at privacy and security" is unsubstantiated for the security part.
Worse the removal of the updater actually removes the mechanism that's instrumental to keep chrome up to date for all issues, and hence updated for known security issues.

So while it'll enhance privacy, it'll decrease security in the larger sense.

A pity IMHO.

[J_RaD]

install chrome - googleupdate.exe installs
uninstall chrome - googleupdate.exe doesn't uninstall.

FF doesn't have an update program installed on your computer but does notify you of updates.

[incrediBILL]

Online privacy, short of using random anonymous proxy IPs, is an illusion.

I'd opt for Chrome over Iron just to get that extra level of protection from Google which I think outweighs the false sense of privacy.

The big problem will be when a security exploit is found and automatically updated in Chrome and all the Iron browsers won't know about and get hacked.

See just how much privacy you have when your PC is hacked, not much ;)

[edited by: incrediBILL at 7:18 pm (utc) on May 31, 2009]

[J_RaD]

Online privacy, short of using random anonymous proxy IPs,is an illusion

and for that we have xerobank
[xerobank.com...]

I don't trust google at all, I opt for Iron.

The big problem will be when a security exploit is found and automatically updated in Chrome and all the Iron browsers won't know about and get hacked.

Iron isn't CHROME with stuff taken out, its new based on "Chromium" so I hack exploiting chrome does not 100% mean it will work on iron. google chrome also uses an outdated version of the WebKit rendering engine where as Iron does not. I'd trust anything a privacy security company releases before i trust anything google does.

[edited by: J_RaD at 1:13 am (utc) on June 1, 2009]

[incrediBILL]

I'd trust anything a privacy security company releases before i trust anything google does.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump for the security company because Google has way more resources to throw on QA than anyone else.

[J_RaD]

google also has an agenda.

[swa66]

I can't get it why people would prefer their browser not to update for known problems.
Esp. as Google's track record with updating chrome has so far not once resulted in reported problems. (Microsoft does have a worse reputation from past incidents, but even there they got it under control in the last years).

[J_RaD]

Actually I choose not to run "google chrome" at all.

I use iron as a test to see what a chrome-like browser is all about.

I thought this would be a good way for other users to see the same(without giving more data to google then they should have) as i would never recommend to anyone running Gchrome