Introducing WhiteHat Aviator – A Safer Web Browser (opens in new tab)

(blog.whitehatsec.com)

60 pointsraybeorn12y ago40 comments

40 comments

This is a browser built on Chromium. Where is its source code? Is this a closed-source wrapper around Chromium?

Later: Answer: Yes. https://twitter.com/jeremiahg/status/392335814048247808

I am doing a double-take as well.

It seems like closed-source is antithesis to "designed for the every day person who really values their online security and privacy."

true_religion12y ago

I think the key word there is 'every day person', which for most non-technical people means that they trust someone has looked after the problem, and may actually feel safer by paying someone to do so.

3 more replies

nextstep12y ago

How? Seems to me like an "every day person" wouldn't dive into the source code of their browser.

1 more reply

themechanic12y ago

My thoughts exactly. Why haven't they made the source public.

beaker5212y ago

If I got an email from george@avoid416scam.com claiming to protect my bank account from 416 scams for free if I give him access to my bank account, I'd be suspicious.

Instead I got a website from whitehatsec.com claiming to provide me a more secure web browser for free, claiming it's perfectly safe to put in my bank account info into it.

Won't touch it with a barge pole. My spidey sense is tingling for one reason or another.

eCa12y ago

But with Chuck Norris [1] on the board, how bad can it be?

[1] https://www.whitehatsec.com/abt/board.html

dubcanada12y ago

Well it is Whitehat Security, so the website is not really a negative I would say.

But I agree ;)

fnbr12y ago

I find it incredible that someone would publish a web browser claiming to be safer:

a) without publishing the source code, and

b) acting surprised when people don't trust it.

Seriously, what was @jeremiahg thinking?

shuzchen12y ago

"And yet not a single browser vendor offers ad blocking, instead relying on optional third-party plugins, because this breaks their business model and how they make money.".

I'm actually happy when browsers keep their core features as lean as possible and instead do the work that enable plugin creators to create functionality. More true for ad-blocking, where you want the plugin to be updated more often than the browser itself (e.g., for newer lists, new techniques for detecting ads).

throwaway910112y ago

Adblock plugins slurp down new lists without updating the plugin code itself. Newer techniques, sure, but I don't think ABP's release cycle is substantially faster than Firefox's.

Ralith12y ago

It could still make sense to ship an ad blocking plugin with the browser distribution.

everettForth12y ago

How does this make any sense?

" As the adage goes, “If you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.” Browsers are no different,

...

WhiteHat Security has no interest or stake in the online advertising industry, so we can offer a browser free of ulterior motives. What you see is what you get. We aren’t interested in tracking you or your browsing history, or in letting anyone else have that information either."

Mikeb8512y ago

And with Chromium or Firefox we can see the source code and know for sure....

saejox12y ago

Totally downloading because a wordpress page with binary download link is the safest/private thing i can think of.

rada12y ago

Registered through GoDaddy, no less:

http://whois.net/whois/whitehatsec.com

TruthSHIFT12y ago

“If you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.”

I was hoping that this was something I could pay for. It's still a free web browser.

CrankyPants12y ago

Noticed the same thing.

I hope they're more careful with their software design and monetization plan than they were with that announcement. And at some point they should probably address that it's still an advertisement–for their services.

glomph12y ago

Something actually interesting in the space of a safer web browser: http://goto.ucsd.edu/quark/

officialjunk12y ago

Do you use this?

glomph12y ago

No. It is interesting as a concept though.

pyalot212y ago

Proprietary "safer" web browser. Yeah right.

webwanderings12y ago

Never heard of this company before, not sure what to think of their blog post announcing the availability of this browser. If I'm not mistaken, one can pretty much configure any browser to do what they have identified done in their browser, unless there's more.

davidgerard12y ago

Best comment:

"Closed Source: Check Potential GPL license violation: Check Random “whitehate” company using wordpress to host website: Check. Maybe it’s just me, but unless I see the source, I wouldn’t touch this with even a virtual machine."

cmiles7412y ago

I would imagine the target market consists solely of those who have already contracted with this company.

clienthunter12y ago

Am I only the only one who worries what the repercussions of an ad-blocking-by-default browser getting market share might be?

"Facebook, sign up now for only $4 a month..."

"You have 12 tweets left. Why not top up now?"

grncdr12y ago

I personally would love to see both of those changes, as they'd force people to place some value on such distractions.

- a confessed twitter addict

clienthunter12y ago

Give me your twitter password and I'll lock you out, then write you an app that only lets you tweet after solving a soduku.

lloyddobbler12y ago

"We strip out referring URLs across domains to protect your privacy"

Which makes it even more interesting that they're using Google Analytics to track visitors and sources on their site.

webjunkie12y ago

Oh yeah, really long text and then an inviting "click here" at the end. That is neither the best usability nor SEO-friendly in any way.

0x012y ago

I wonder how diligently updates will be handled. Do the authors have access to all the restricted/confidential security chromium bug reports, and will they be able to push out updated binaries the same second chrome does? Otherwise this could quickly end up leaving users visibly exposed to otherwise-well-known future vulns.

jeremiahg12y ago

What’s the Difference between Aviator and Chromium / Google Chrome? https://blog.whitehatsec.com/whats-the-difference-between-av...

tosbourn12y ago

I have been using this for a short while and wrote them thoughts down:

http://tosbourn.com/2013/10/development/review-whitehat-avia...

drill_sarge12y ago

Just Install Firefox (or Chromium, not Chrome) and install some extension and you have the same from a much more trustworthy source.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

40 comments

tptacek12y ago

This is a browser built on Chromium. Where is its source code? Is this a closed-source wrapper around Chromium?

Later: Answer: Yes. https://twitter.com/jeremiahg/status/392335814048247808

reginaldjcooper12y ago

I am doing a double-take as well.

It seems like closed-source is antithesis to "designed for the every day person who really values their online security and privacy."

true_religion12y ago

3 more replies

nextstep12y ago

How? Seems to me like an "every day person" wouldn't dive into the source code of their browser.

1 more reply

themechanic12y ago

My thoughts exactly. Why haven't they made the source public.

beaker5212y ago

If I got an email from george@avoid416scam.com claiming to protect my bank account from 416 scams for free if I give him access to my bank account, I'd be suspicious.

Instead I got a website from whitehatsec.com claiming to provide me a more secure web browser for free, claiming it's perfectly safe to put in my bank account info into it.

Won't touch it with a barge pole. My spidey sense is tingling for one reason or another.

eCa12y ago

But with Chuck Norris [1] on the board, how bad can it be?

[1] https://www.whitehatsec.com/abt/board.html

dubcanada12y ago

Well it is Whitehat Security, so the website is not really a negative I would say.

But I agree ;)

fnbr12y ago

I find it incredible that someone would publish a web browser claiming to be safer:

a) without publishing the source code, and

b) acting surprised when people don't trust it.

Seriously, what was @jeremiahg thinking?

shuzchen12y ago

"And yet not a single browser vendor offers ad blocking, instead relying on optional third-party plugins, because this breaks their business model and how they make money.".

throwaway910112y ago

Adblock plugins slurp down new lists without updating the plugin code itself. Newer techniques, sure, but I don't think ABP's release cycle is substantially faster than Firefox's.

Ralith12y ago

It could still make sense to ship an ad blocking plugin with the browser distribution.

everettForth12y ago

How does this make any sense?

" As the adage goes, “If you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.” Browsers are no different,

...

Mikeb8512y ago

And with Chromium or Firefox we can see the source code and know for sure....

saejox12y ago

Totally downloading because a wordpress page with binary download link is the safest/private thing i can think of.

rada12y ago

Registered through GoDaddy, no less:

http://whois.net/whois/whitehatsec.com

TruthSHIFT12y ago

“If you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.”

I was hoping that this was something I could pay for. It's still a free web browser.

CrankyPants12y ago

Noticed the same thing.

glomph12y ago

Something actually interesting in the space of a safer web browser: http://goto.ucsd.edu/quark/

officialjunk12y ago

Do you use this?

glomph12y ago

No. It is interesting as a concept though.

pyalot212y ago

Proprietary "safer" web browser. Yeah right.

webwanderings12y ago

davidgerard12y ago

Best comment:

cmiles7412y ago

I would imagine the target market consists solely of those who have already contracted with this company.

clienthunter12y ago

Am I only the only one who worries what the repercussions of an ad-blocking-by-default browser getting market share might be?

"Facebook, sign up now for only $4 a month..."

"You have 12 tweets left. Why not top up now?"

grncdr12y ago

I personally would love to see both of those changes, as they'd force people to place some value on such distractions.

- a confessed twitter addict

clienthunter12y ago

Give me your twitter password and I'll lock you out, then write you an app that only lets you tweet after solving a soduku.

lloyddobbler12y ago

"We strip out referring URLs across domains to protect your privacy"

Which makes it even more interesting that they're using Google Analytics to track visitors and sources on their site.

webjunkie12y ago

Oh yeah, really long text and then an inviting "click here" at the end. That is neither the best usability nor SEO-friendly in any way.

0x012y ago

jeremiahg12y ago

What’s the Difference between Aviator and Chromium / Google Chrome? https://blog.whitehatsec.com/whats-the-difference-between-av...

tosbourn12y ago

I have been using this for a short while and wrote them thoughts down:

http://tosbourn.com/2013/10/development/review-whitehat-avia...

drill_sarge12y ago

Just Install Firefox (or Chromium, not Chrome) and install some extension and you have the same from a much more trustworthy source.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse