Firefox and Chrome both have an anti-malware tool that warns users when they visit a web site that is known to install viruses, spyware and other malicious code. This tool also protects against known "phishing" sites. In addition, each Google tab is a separate process that uses (and frees up) its own memory. These processes are stripped of all rights to write files to the user's hard drive or read files from "sensitive areas like documents or desktop". This security feature does not, however, cover plugins. Since plugins may need a higer level of security access to run, some amount of protection is ensured by having them run in a separate process. An early criticism of Google Chrome is the lack of a "Master Password" feature that Firefox supports. In the absence of such a feature, anyone who uses the browser will have access to the stored passwords. Both Firefox and Google Chrome allow users to view the stored passwords in plain text. However, Firefox's Master Password feature prevents unauthorized users to use this feature.

hi Giridhar, I know all this, but what has this to do with my question? I only know that, during the hack, Firefox didn't show hacked pop-up & redirection, Chrome did. Same website. This means there must be a difference in the way they handle 3rd party content? Pop-up blocking? I don't know.

yup it doesn't mean chrome cannot handle popups...

but as of now i don,t know about gigya documentation.

but the Mozilla defaultly set blocking popups and tracking third party (when we install it)

but as of chrome we have to do some manual settings to got stop popups and third party access

and one more thing Mozilla is Open source where as chrome is not open source , So then we have to add plugins for Mozilla by us to play video or audio etc..... but where as in chrome it is having more built in plugins.. which may process more third party sites behind.....

and Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies