On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:38 -0500 "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a box that I want to keep as secure as I can but I also need to > be able to use a graphical browser from it (I know that this is a > trade-off). > > There is no graphical browser in base. I don't need or want this > browser to do javascript or flash (I have a different box for > entertainment). Of the browsers in packages, which browser would > people think is likely the most secure? > > Here are my assumptions on the issue: > > Firefox development is focused on new features to keep up with the > latest web sites and technology. I don't know if they have time for > super security in the midst of that. > > Konqueror seems to have fewer security updates but still seems to > handle any sites I need (from my other box). I don't know if the > fewer number of security updates is because it is better written or > it doesn't get looked at as much. This is my normal browser, except > for one site that doesn't work (due to invalid html on the site). > > elinks or links are lightweight and work fine (no tabs though). Get > few updates. Don't know the security quality. > > dillo. Also works fine, but I haven't seen an update in quite a > while. Don't know if it continues to get security audits up-stream. > > Any suggestions? > > Doug. For your information dillo2 is in development-phase. As far as I know there isn't any open security problems with dillo and that mostly comes from simplicity. If there is security holes dillo's development sure will patch all of those right away. They are pretty active nowadays. Dillo-project has been mentioned ( as in adverticed ) as fast and secure www-browser. I'm using it daily i.e. in my email-client. I'll bet dillo is a very good choise for you. -- Henri Salo <fgeek at hack.fi> +358407705733 GPG ID: 2EA46E4F fp: 14D0 7803 BFF6 EFA0 9998 8C4B 5DFE A106 2EA4 6E4F [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
