Posted on

Browser Wars and Privacy

A new round of the perennial browser wars has begun. Google Chrome is the current hands-down victor, but don’t be surprised if that changes. The new battleground is privacy. Google will have to fight hard to retain its majority market share. But will our privacy increase? I doubt it. The reason is a long story.

Current Standings

The main browser contenders are Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Apple Safari. In May 2019, the worldwide standings on all platforms were Chrome 63%, Safari 16% and Firefox 5%. To a certain extent, those numbers represent the distribution of smartphones. Google Android is the most prevalent and the default browser on Android is Chrome. Safari is the default on Apple iPhones. Firefox trails in part because it is not the default anywhere and users have to take the time and trouble to install it. On desktops and laptops in the US, Chrome still runs laps on Firefox and Safari at 64%. Microsoft Internet Explorer and Edge combined, the defaults on Windows computers, come in around 20%, Firefox and Safari trail at around 8%.

Depending on how much consumers value their privacy, these standings may change in months to come.

Last week, the Washington Post lambasted Google Chrome on privacy. Mozilla Firefox has been touting its security and privacy features regularly for the past few months and they have steadily improved their performance to keep up with Chrome.

History

The war used to be the world vs. Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE). The old battle was fought over performance, features, and standards compatibility. Microsoft in the late 90s and early 2000s was feeling safe in its control of the personal computer market; they took an indifferent stance toward emerging browser standards and chose to go their own way with IE, forcing web site developers to write different codes for IE, while following widely accepted standards for the rest. Most consumers were unaware, but it drove engineers crazy.

Eventually, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari moved ahead of IE. Microsoft, in those days, was complacent on web performance, behind the curve on web security, and fighting anti-monopoly suits. Google, Mozilla, and Apple were striving hard to improve performance, security, and adding features while conforming to standards. As a longtime competitor and partner, I can say that Microsoft engineers are second to none, but they floundered in the browser wars and eventually lost to the contenders. Chrome came off as the big winner by concentrating on performance.

Chrome is still the browser performance champion, but their lead is so small, it’s hard for most users to distinguish between the performance of any of the browsers today. I suspect Microsoft struggles because old IE special features are still required by some important customers, which puts constraints on IE that the other browsers don’t face.

The Privacy Battle

In this battle, Firefox appears to have the high ground. Most of Google’s revenue comes from selling ads that are targeted by the information it collects on the habits of the users of its free services like Google search, Gmail, and Chrome. When Chrome ups its privacy game, Google’s potential corporate revenue goes down. This places Google on a razor edge: abuse privacy and the public will quit using its services; increase privacy and ad-targeting gets fuzzy, which will cause revenues to drop.

Mozilla, as a non-profit, has no direct stake in targeting ads and therefore appears to be free to pursue privacy for its users, but it’s complicated.

Even Non-Profits Need Revenue

Mozilla’s 2017 audit states that a large share of its revenue comes from search engines, which pay Mozilla a small amount for each search directed to the search engine. Mozilla has had contracts with Google, Bing, and Yahoo at various times to default searches to these engines. Their current contract default search engine is Google. The auditors note that cancellation of these default search contracts is a substantial risk to Mozilla. Google pays Mozilla with money made from targeted advertising. Therefore, if browsing gets too private, Mozilla still stands to lose revenue. Not as directly as Google, but they are still at risk.

Google, as a public corporation, must keep their revenues up to satisfy their stockholders. Mozilla is a non-profit, but their engineers and other employees do not work for free. To continue to thrive, Mozilla must compete with public corporations for these employees with adequate facilities and wages.

Caution

What does this mean for the public? The high-tech network world is subtly connected and intertwined. TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Most free services today are either loss-leaders for paid services, or they are bankrolled by selling data on the habits of the service users. Even when it appears that they are not. Until that basic fact changes, your privacy is on the market.

No matter which browser you choose, it is up to you to select privacy options that correspond to the level of privacy you want.

Posted on

Anti-Malware for Apple and Windows

Most Windows users know that anti-malware is necessary, but Apple support implies you don’t need anti-virus or anti-malware installed on your Apple. Well. Mac users do have fewer problems with malware.

A typical Mac-user may go for years without a problem, but that doesn’t mean that Macs are never troubled with malware. From January 1 to January 18, 2019, less than 3 weeks, the Homeland Security central computer vulnerability database recorded 27 new Apple vulnerabilities discovered by security researchers. 7 of these were scored Critical. These are flaws that could be easily exploited to cause serious damage. Macs are not inherently safe.

Macs are less vulnerable

Macs are less vulnerable than Windows for several reasons. First, there are far fewer Apple computers in use than Windows. Hackers follow the money and the money is in hacking Windows. But this is changing. Apple has become more popular, especially among more affluent users, and hackers have noticed.

Second, Apple users tend to stick with installing software from the Apple Store, which Apple polices carefully for security issues. This is safer than the common Windows user practice of downloading software directly from vendors or other web sites.

Finally, Mac OS X, the latest Mac operating system, is based on Unix. Unix (and its most common incarnation, Linux) was designed from the beginning for a multi-user, networked environment where security has always been critical. Windows was originally designed for single user personal computers without network connections. For those early computers, security meant a lock on the front door. Folks worried that a thief would carry off a memory card or the entire machine. Remotely hacking the system was not a thing. That changed when everyone connected to the internet.

Microsoft began to design for security from the ground up about a decade ago. Since then, Microsoft security has made great strides. Windows 10 is much more secure than XP or Vista. Nevertheless, Microsoft is still overcoming years of placing ease of use and rich functionality ahead of security.

The gap is closing

Are Macs still more secure than Windows? I prefer to say that the gap is closing. Also, Mac users may unwittingly transmit email and files that contain Windows malware to Windows computers. Your Mac may be safe, but you could damage your Windows friends. And Windows can transmit Mac malware to Macs. Although Windows and Mac anti-malware products are not interchangeable, most scan for both Windows and Mac issues.

Should Mac users get anti-malware software? If you are a cautious “belt and suspenders” type, you should. If you are a happy-go-lucky risk taker, maybe you can go without and never have a problem, but make no mistake, the risk is there.

Which anti-malware to choose?

For Windows, the simplest and quite adequate solution is to use Windows Defender, which comes installed and activated with Windows 10. Some people prefer third party anti-malware. There are some excellent products. New vulnerabilities appear daily. All the anti-malware developers, including Microsoft, compete vigorously in swatting down the latest malware. It’s a horse race in which the winner changes daily.

Some products to consider for Macs: AVG, Avast, BitDefender, Sophos, MalwareBytes. Other products are good, no products are perfect, but I know and like these. They all have both Mac and Windows versions.

Automatic updates

Be sure to enable automatic updates so your anti-malware is always prepared to thwart the latest attacks. Hacking is an evolving contest with the good guys. You have to keep up. The same applies to operating systems like Windows and Mac OS X and other applications. If you want to be safe, keep them updated.

Most anti-malware products have a free version. In most cases, the free version is as effective as the premium version you pay for, but less convenient. With the free versions, you usually have to start scans yourself instead of letting the system schedule scans for you. The most convenient anti-malware is always on and checking. You won’t even know the best of the products are there, but you pay for the convenience. If you know how, you can write a DIY script yourself to run a free version automatically.

Final caution

Don’t install two anti-malware products at the same time. They can clash and cause trouble. One exception: MalwareBytes is engineered to be compatible with other products. MalwareBytes has an exceptional reputation for cleaning up infected computers after a hack. I’ve heard that techs at Apple Stores use MalwareBytes to clean infected machines.

I run both MalwareBytes and Windows Defender, wear both a belt and suspenders, and always set my emergency brake when I park.