Chromium sandboxing means nothing when it leaks so much data.
The attacker can't gain access to the host with javascript.
A browser that support javascript but doesn't have sandboxing might not leak these data but when their are bug in their js implementation, the attacker can gain more access to the host.
Also, security means nothing if privacy and anonymity are worse.
Security here is protection from exploits, bugs,...
Chromium is inadequate and bad.
For a anonymous browser, but not for a secure browser. The paper is purely about privacy and anonymity. No security (sandboxing, mitigations) here.
Then why does the Tor Project choose Firefox over Chromium as its browser base? Chromium is incredibly insecure and full of holes. Post this wishy washy bullshit on reddit, not on Lemmy.
Because Tor browser's goal is maximum anonymity and onion service. Firefox might be lag behind in security, but its code and features met the privacy requirements. Tor browser try to achieve some security by using noscript and block some web feature.
wiped clean?
It is windows users that pretend to be linux user.
They are root.
By calling them stupid you are actively participating in the fight yourself
Sorry :)
There are very valid reasons both for and against WMs
Whole point of Linux is allowing user choice, why get on people’s cases about what they can and can’t use
In my mind I call them "stupid" because I personally thinks desktop environments are "stupid". Sometimes this flew on the keyboard. Sorry for that.
A better word to describe those de/wm is "crap". Just my personal thought.
These people know zilch about security
Agreed, now your mission is OpenBSD
Let's watch if your shit got cared, you can only attacks small projects with peoples who don't want to write portable code (amd64 and aarch64 only) for "security"
I've updated:
new:
UNIX’s removable filesystem is a BENEFIT, not a BUG. DOS and then Windows’ A: B: C: D: are BUG.
Why not take advantage of it. Microsoft always wanted a removable filesystem like UNIX. But they simply can’t get it.
(Those can't admit this advantage often say "Linux and Windows are almost identical"...)
In my opinion newbies should learn what is called sane defaults. It's a pity that almost every installer in the word except OpenBSD's disklabel(8) cannot properly do automatic partitioning.
And I don’t think having separate fixed size partitions like you suggested is a good idea for anyone on a desktop.
UNIX's removable filesystem is a BENEFIT, not a BUG. DOS and then Windows' A: B: C: D: are BUGS.
Why not take advantage of it. Microsoft always wanted a removable filesystem like UNIX. But they simply can't get it.
I would link another article that discuss about using a huge root partition for all: https://www.bsdhowto.ch/hugeroot.html
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=154054091026039&w=3
Avoid corrupting newbies' partition is a way to keep them with Linux.
The main problem is, do you audit the source code YOURSELVES?
Or it is just "open source" and no one have eyes on. But get blindly recommended.
What I do here is analyzing the content of TheAnonymouseJoker's posts. When I saw he say 98% Chinese people approve their government, it popped up in my brain today that TheAnonymouseJoker is separating disgusting "journalists" from a secure operating system. Then those "journalists" will get their device hacked by the Chinese government when they came to China. Is that right?