I am researching the claim that Chromium is more secure than Firefox
Edit: Here is the verdict: lemmy.ml/post/21887275
I am currently doing a deep dive into whether or not Chromium is more secure than Firefox, and I will make a very long and comprehensive Lemmy post outlining my findings with specific sources. I expected this to take a few days, maybe a week, but after finding out many of the claims for both sides give no real sources, I expect this to take a month or longer. I will be reaching out to multiple first-party sources (Mozilla, GrapheneOS, etc.) to get their detailed statements on the matter. I want to provide something that actually covers the full picture of the issue with up to date sources, to hopefully put this to rest for anyone who doesn't want to do the research.
I'm making this post in case anyone wants to provide any extra resources they have about the issue. Do not fight about this issue in the comments, save that until after I am able to release my work. I'm tired of the constant back and forth about this with little to no direct sources. This means that my other project, Open Source Everything, will be put on pause. The FAQ section of that very project is what sparked this, because I realized the issue was far more complex than I outlined in there. (Don't trust the information in the FAQ just yet: it is still in the works.)
As always, don't just give blind support to this just because I am making promises, but if you feel your support is needed then by all means go for it.
If any of you want me to turn this post into an update log, let me know and I will.
DISCLAIMER: These update logs are NOT meant to be taken as a source. I am generalizing a lot of things here for simplicity and brevity, so do not try to pick it apart. Anything I say here is likely a summary of something that will be talked about in fine detail in the article, and so it may contain mistakes.
Update 1
I need to stop posting before bed, since I end up not being able to respond to drama quickly and it grows out of proportion. Anyways, I want to answer a few questions that keep popping up (maybe I'm obsessed with writing FAQs, I don't know) and then talk about my research process.
Google Chrome is NOT the same as Chromium
This is something I already have a draft to write about in my article, because a lot of people mess up the distinction. Google Chrome is Google's proprietary "en-Googled" browser. That browser obviously has numerous privacy issues. What I am referring to in the article is what Google Chrome was built off of: Chromium. Chromium is open source (or source available, or something like that. Please stop trying to remind me of the difference, "open source" gets the point across). Many browsers such as Brave were built on top of Chromium. Many users in the privacy community use Chromium-based browsers. Chromium is mainly maintained by Google, but I will not be focusing on that since I am taking a look at the actual software and not any future problems that may arise.
I'm summarizing things here, but I will go in depth in a section of my article about this, since a lot of people are still stuck on the mindset that Google is always evil. It is true that Google is bad with privacy, but they are good when it comes to security. They have to be, given that Chromium-based browsers and Android are the most used in their respective fields. Any privacy issues can be nullified with some projects like ungoogled-chromium or GrapheneOS which remove any privacy invasive Google components. Anything Google tries to sneak in doesn't get past those projects, like a safety net, because they take very close inspection of the code.
Security vs. Privacy
Security and privacy are two distinct topics with some overlap. As I mentioned above, any privacy issues can be dealt with by using some variants of the software. Because of this, my article will focus primarily on how secure these browsers are. I do understand that security and privacy can go hand in hand: Without security there is little privacy, and without privacy there is little security. However, that is all out of the scope of what I am researching here. The reason a lot of projects such as GrapheneOS recommend against Firefox browsers (especially on Android) is because they claim Firefox has weak site isolation. That is the main point of research for my article. If I can prove that those claims are true, I can demonstrate why it is such an issue. If I can prove that those claims are false, I can try to see if Firefox is more private than Chromium, and is therefor a better option. There will be other related ideas that will crop up that will be covered in the article, that I will research about. The broad hypothesis is "Chromium is more secure than Firefox" and it is my job to find out why people say that and investigate it.
Also, many users talked about ad blocking and the recent removal of Manifest V2, which killed a lot of Chromium ad blockers. This is not the focus of the article, but let me remind you that using a browser such as Brave lets you block ads entirely. Brave is the only other browser recommended by the GrapheneOS project for its security, besides Vanadium. Yes, Brave has some bloat that can infringe on privacy, but those can be disabled. Don't forget that Brave is open source, so you are free to make a fork of it and remove whatever you'd like. The point is this: Both Chromium and Firefox both still have ad blocking, so this is a non-issue.
Who am I?
lemmy.ml/post/21367269/1428365…
first off, I have serious doubts that any one dude - or even a group of those for that matter - can ascertain the security of such a complex system; a browser is essentially an operating system, with all the layers and complexities that entails.even if you're somewhat successful in such an endeavor, I don't really care if it potentially is. chromium comes from those shitmakers and I'm not willingly using anything they had their nasty fingers in. they threw one shovel of shit too many on the heap and they are now forever on my ignore list. if that means that I don't get to access certain domains, sites, and/or apps - so be it, I'll make do without.
lemmy.ml/post/21367269/1428393…
Are you a single person or a group of people? Do you have any credentials that you'd like to share that might give some context to your research?Where is the quote in your bio from?
I could leave some cryptic retrospective answer here, and I would love to, but as fun as that would be it may cause more harm than good. I am an independent, singular person. If I were in your shoes, I too would doubt that any one person could research the intricacies of the matter. However, I don't need to look over every piece of code to make a conclusion. The main focus of the article, as I said, is site isolation. This is what most people reference when they talk about Chromium being "more secure" than Firefox. I already addressed the other argument about Chromium being "evil," as there are other projects that aim to remove some of the damage that has been done. Readers of my article will need to let down their precedent of Chromium being as bad as Google, and realize that Google is bad for privacy but good for security.
If by "credentials" you mean actual identification, no. Even if I told you exactly who I was, you still would have no idea who I am. However, I can give you some of my background: I am advanced in the privacy field, proof of this can be seen with my other project. I used to work as a penetration tester for a low ranking government branch, focusing on network and website security. I am fluent in Python and C++, so I can understand a lot of the code that has been written. I hope that gives you context into who I am and what I do. I guess I could also mention I like to keep high standards, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I want the article to be nothing short of extremely thorough and comprehensive.
The quote in my bio “Unjust laws only burden the just, as the lawless will not heed them.” is my own (hence why I put "- 8232" there). I have other quotes, but that one is my favorite.
How is the research going?
I didn't quite know where to start, but eventually I settled for this: I have three notes. One is for questions I have (e.g. "What is site isolation?") that I put answers under as I find them. This means I will never be trying to fill in the gaps without sources in the article. I'll have a well informed knowledge of everything. The next note is for all the sources about the issue, categorized into "Primary," "Secondary," and "Unverified" (when there is no source listed for the claim). The last notebook is people. This one contains people and groups who know about the issue that I may get statements or help from for the article. That is all I have right now, because I needed some sleep. I plan to add a "To-Do" note, some various drafts, and a list of documents about the issue. I'll keep this updated.
Google Chrome - The Fast & Secure Web Browser Built to be Yours
Chrome is the official web browser from Google, built to be fast, secure, and customizable. Download now and make it yours.Google Chrome
A verdict about whether or not Chromium is more secure than Firefox
Two weeks ago, I made this post. The goal was simple: I wanted to dig into the details of Chromium and Firefox to see if the claims that Chromium is more secure than Firefox are true or not. You'll notice I also started turning that post into an update log, but only one update got released. There is a reason for that. Life suddenly got extremely busy for me, I could barely make time to continue researching. However, during that time, I spent a lot of time thinking about the issue. I tried breaking down the problem in a million different ways to find a way to simplify it and start from the ground up.I came to a conclusion today, a realization. I have no way to put this gently: I cannot conclusively determine which one is more secure. This will upset many of you, and it upsets me too considering I maintain my own list of software that relies on only providing the most secure and private versions of some software. I need to explain why there cannot be a solid conclusion.
I managed to collect many sources to be used for the research. A lot of the information is parroting this article which, despite having many sources, fails to provide sources for some of the most crucial claims made there ("Fission in its current state is not as mature as Chromium's site isolation" has no source, for example). My favorite source is this Stanford paper which I think does a great job at tackling the problem. The problem I noticed is that a lot of privacy advice is given from an echo chamber.
Think about what privacy advice you like to give, and think about where you heard that. A YouTube video? Reddit? Lemmy? Naomi Brockwell gives a lot of advice that stems directly from Michael Bazzell's Extreme Privacy book, as I found out after reading it. Her videos about convincing people to use Signal are paraphrased passages from the book itself, which has a whole section about it. People touting Chromium as more secure than Firefox, or that the Play Store is a more secure option than F-Droid or Aurora Store, often get their information from GrapheneOS. I've never seen anyone research those in depth.
The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of privacy advice is circular reporting. I'm certain that if Michael Bazzell and GrapheneOS were to provide sources as to where they got their information (they rarely do, I checked) it would come to light that it boils down to a few real sources. GrapheneOS, no doubt, likely has inspected at least some part of the Firefox codebase, but Firefox is rapidly changing, so any sources that used to be true may not be true today.
FUTO Keyboard and GrayJay get recommended often because of Louis Rossmann, but HeliBoard and FreeTube (or NewPipe) were options long before those pieces of software. The reason the former became so recommended over the latter is simply because people used a popular figure, Louis Rossmann, as a primary source. It then became an echo chamber of recommendations and best practices.
That doesn't mean the claims of Chromium being more secure are false, but as a researcher it is very hard to credit something that doesn't provide any primary sources. In the eyes of a researcher, GrapheneOS's word holds just as much weight as a random internet user, without any proof. I see it play out like this: A source like GrapheneOS or Extreme Privacy makes a claim, secondary sources such as GrapheneOS users or Naomi Brockwell present this information without providing the sources, the general privacy community sees both, and begin giving the same recommendations on Reddit or Lemmy (sometimes with sources), and eventually the privacy community as a whole starts presenting that information, without any primary sources. Even if GrapheneOS, Extreme Privacy, or Louis Rossmann provided no research or direct comparisons, their word is taken without question and becomes the overarching recommendations in the privacy community. They each gained credibility in their own ways, but there should always be scrutiny when making a claim, no matter how credible.
The main reason why I cannot give a concrete conclusion is this: the focus on the article was to compare Chromium's Site Isolation to Firefox's implementation, however there are too many variables at play. Chromium may be more secure on one Linux distro than another. Debian is an example. Firefox supposedly has worse site isolation on Linux, but then how does Tails deal with that? It's based on Debian, so does that make it insecure for both browsers? Tor is based on Firefox ESR, which is an extended support release with less security, but Tor is also deemed a better option than Chromium browsers for anonymity. Isolating iframes doesn't really affect daily use, so is it really necessary to shame Firefox for that? Some variants of Firefox harden the browser for security, but some variants of Chromium (such as Brave Browser) try to enhance privacy. No matter what limits I set, how many operating systems or browser variants I set, there is no way to quantify which one is more secure.
"Is Chromium more secure? Yes, under XYZ conditions, with ABC variants, on IJK operating systems. Chromium variants XYZ are good for privacy, but ABC Firefox variants are better at privacy..." The article would be a mess. The idea for the article came because I was truly sick of the lack of true in-depth sources about the matter, and so I wanted to create that. I now realize it was a goal that is far too ambitious for me, or even a small group of people. Tor and Brave give different approaches to fingerprinting protection (blending in vs. randomizing), and there's no way to directly compare the two. The same goes for the security of each. There is no "Tails" for Chromium, but there is no "Vanadium" for Firefox. There's no one to one comparison for the code, because some of it is outside of the browser itself.
I regret making that initial post, because it set unrealistic expectations. It focused on a problem that can't tell the whole picture, and then promised to tell that whole picture. At a point, it comes down to threat model. Do you really need to squeeze out that extra privacy or security? Is someone going to go through that much effort? You know how to spot dark patterns, you know not to use privacy invasive platforms. Take a reality check. Both Chromium and Firefox are better than any proprietary alternatives, that's a fact. Don't bother trying to find the "perfect" Linux distro or browser for privacy and security, because you already don't use Windows. Privacy is a spectrum, and as long as you at least take some steps towards that, you've already done plenty.
Be careful next time you hear a software recommendation or a best practice. Be careful next time you recommend software or a best practice. Always think about where you heard that, and do your own research. There are some problems that are impossible or infeasible to solve, so just pick what you feel is best. I really am sorry that I wasn't able to provide what I promised, so instead I will leave a few of the sources I found helpful, just in case another ambitious person or group decides to research the matter. Not all of these sources are good, but it's a place to start:
GrapheneOS responded to my requests for a comment after this post was made, here: lemmy.ml/post/22142738
cvedetails.com/version-list/0/…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_iso…
madaidans-insecurities.github.…
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3…
seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chr…
grapheneos.org/usage#web-brows…
reddit.com/r/browsers/comments…
wilderssecurity.com/threads/se…
forums.freebsd.org/threads/why…
GrapheneOS usage guide
Usage instructions for GrapheneOS, a security and privacy focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.GrapheneOS
like this
Kairos
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •ecirmada
in reply to Kairos • • •Yeah, but what does that mean? Is that what secure looks like? Is chrome targeted more; does Firefox have less vulnerabilities?
I’d be interested in the definition of secure just as much as the outcome
Autonomous User
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •The 8232 Project
in reply to Autonomous User • • •Google Chrome is not the same as Chromium, and protection from Google is not what this topic is covering. It is covering protection from malicious websites, and mainly claims about site isolation.
Also, no. A commit log or version control system does not show information about security issues that have not been fixed yet.
like this
disguised_doge, KaRunChiy e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
Autonomous User
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •I feel like this community might get more out of something like Cromite vs Mull comparison. Does anyone on Lemmy, especially the privacy community, actually use Google Chrome?
Awesome that you're doing this though regardless. I've saved this post and look forward to reading your work
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾ • • •Again, Google Chrome is not the same as Chromium. Brave is based on Chromium, which many users in the privacy community use.
Thank you! I hope it will not disappoint
The browser that puts you first | Brave
Brave SoftwareUndertaker
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •TXL
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •SergeantSushi
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Bug bounty payouts correlate with how secure software is (more securely written software = larger bounties).
Your answer would be:
OS: Desktop < iOS < Android
Mobile: all other browsers <<< Chrome & Safari
Desktop: all other browsers <<< Edge & Safari & Firefox < Chrome
ZERODIUM - How to Sell Your Zero-Day (0day) Exploit to ZERODIUM
www.zerodium.comGodort
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Ultimately, in terms of security, you're likely to find that both are similarly good.
What makes Firefox desirable over Chrome is that it's not beng developed by massive corporation that gets the majority of its profits selling user data and delivering targeted adverts.
The other thing that may act as a deciding factor is the "MacOS doesn't have viruses" effect. Wherein that because firefox has such a small userbase in comparison to chromium, it's far more profitable to find exploits in chromium.
like this
KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness, giantpaper, mvilain, RandomStickman e qupada like this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to Godort • • •This is a separate issue of being able to trust developers, which is not being covered here. Projects like ungoogled-chromium exist, after all. I will be inspecting the software as a whole, and not any future interference that may happen.
GitHub - ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium: Google Chromium, sans integration with Google
GitHublike this
NoneOfUrBusiness, mvilain e DaGeek247 like this.
bisby
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •It isn't just about ungoogling things though. Having a monoculture in the browser space means that if Google makes a push to favor ads, say by removing certain extension support from their browser engine that everyone uses, then the entire internet suffers. It is effectively a monopoly.
Mozilla tries really hard sometimes to be unappealing, but there is value in not just letting Google have full control over the internet.
brrt
in reply to bisby • • •Autonomous User
in reply to brrt • • •brrt
in reply to Autonomous User • • •BluescreenOfDeath
in reply to brrt • • •I don't think anyone is advocating for turning a blind eye to Mozilla. I think the argument being made is that a monoculture for browsers is a concern that can outweigh some blunders Mozilla makes.
I'm old enough to remember what a shit show ActiveX was for web security.
CarbonScored [any]
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •So you're taking the best aspects of any fork you can find? Trust in the developers is an essential part of the question.
If a piece of software passes every audit in the whole world, but is developed and maintained by the NSA, you'd be stupid to leave your data with it.
IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
in reply to Godort • • •like this
xep, timeloopedpowergamer, NoneOfUrBusiness e sunzu2 like this.
galileopie
in reply to Godort • • •like this
RandomStickman likes this.
Autonomous User
in reply to galileopie • • •ForgotAboutDre
in reply to Godort • • •floofloof
in reply to ForgotAboutDre • • •I hadn't heard about that. Can you link me to some info about it?
Wildly_Utilize
in reply to ForgotAboutDre • • •ForgotAboutDre
in reply to Wildly_Utilize • • •No it doesn’t, or at least it didn’t for years if that has changed recently.
No one that knew about this was talking about it or doing anything about it.
The reality of the situation is only three organisations are capable of producing fully fledged browsers. Google, Apple and Firefox. Every variant, spin and de-whatever is nothing compared to developing a browser. All the chrome derivatives had this in them, arbitrarily execution of code from google. Code that wasn’t included in the binary when you downloaded or updated it. The sort of thing a virus would do. The sort of tool you would use to compromise the security of a system.
If you want a de-googled chrome the only option is safari, it’s chrome before google got its hands on it. If you want properly open and accessible browsers you need to use something else entirely like Firefox.
De-googled chrome is a myth.
0x0
in reply to Godort • • •No but it's largely funded by one, now has "ad technology" and i wouldn't be surprised if it gets bought by Google sooner or later.
A fork in the horizon...
MimicJar
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to MimicJar • • •Fantastic questions! Thank you for asking.
The answer to this is a bit complicated: I had a list of sources, but many of them were not primary sources, and so I am currently in the process of recollecting sources and better categorizing them. I'm currently collecting as many different types of sources as I can, and I will find out what is actually useful later.
CVE databases will be some of the primary sources I will use in the article, and I may even try to get in touch with the individuals who documented some of the CVEs. I can't make any promises about that, though.
I am not familiar with these yet, so I will look into them.
For the sake of clarity in this post I used "Chromium" and "Firefox" to simplify what I am doing for users who aren't as aware of the fine details. I will be comparing a wide variety of projects, such as Chromium, Vanadium, Brave, ungoogled-chromium, whatever hardened Chromium Secureblue uses, etc. to a variety of Gecko-based projects such as Firefox, the Tor Browser, Mullvad Browser, and other varieties I may be unfamiliar with. These will be compared on their various platforms, such as Windows, macOS, various Linux distros (where available), iOS, Android, and special cases such as Qubes, Tails, and Firejail. Essentially, I want to compare what the most and least secure varieties of each browser pose, and make observations from there.
As far as I currently know (and please note I am still in the early research stages), Google Safe Browsing is a feature that primarily affects privacy and is more of a failsafe. For one, it warns you about malicious websites. This is a failsafe for users who are not aware of which websites are malicious. This isn't directly a security protection, but rather a security "suggestion" for non-advanced users. It also sends data to Google to report websites, which mainly affects privacy. I'm pulling most of this from my head, and so I may be off base with this. Either way, it will not be the main focus of this, as it doesn't matter if Google Safe Browsing is safe or not if it can simply be disabled. I plan to mainly focus on sandboxing issues with Firefox and any related topics that sprout up from that.
MimicJar
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Re Google Safe Browsing
I would argue it's a security feature with potential privacy concerns, however I would agree it is more of a failsafe or suggestion.
However it being disabled by default or not included at compile time versus enabled by default may also be relevant when it comes to security. As a hypothetical a high severity bug with Google Safe Browsing could arguably make a browser less secure. However even as a failsafe/suggestion, the small security benefit may make the overall browser more secure, e.g. filtering known bad websites that attack known vulnerabilities.
I'm also just using Safe Browsing as an example here, it may or may not be worth focusing on since a browser is basically an operating system.
You mentioned sandboxing, which I think is perhaps a more reasonable scope.
John Richard
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to John Richard • • •I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I found it humorous.
In my drafts of the article I have made sure to include sections specifically pointing out that this is not a be-all-end-all, and it doesn't tell you what to do or what you can and can't use. In the end, people are free to use whatever they want. I am simply here to document and clarify some perceived issues.
like this
RandomStickman e Chozo like this.
preasket
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness, sunzu2 e xep like this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to preasket • • •Browsers - DivestOS Mobile
divestos.orglike this
sunzu2 e xep like this.
preasket
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •sunzu2
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Combating web tracking: analyzing web tracking technologies for user privacy. - Blåhaj Lemmy
lemmy.blahaj.zoneThe 8232 Project
in reply to sunzu2 • • •sunzu2
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •TranquilTurbulence
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •When you start studying a topic like this, you need to define some terms clearly. For example, if hackers grab your passwords, is that a breach in privacy, security or both? If Google is stalking you and knows your every move, desire and plan, what does that violate?
Once you have clear definitions for these things, it would be more helpful to see how different browsers compare on this scale.
like this
qupada likes this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to TranquilTurbulence • • •anar
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •toni_bmw
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Electric_Druid
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •IninewCrow
in reply to Electric_Druid • • •DaTingGoBrrr
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •mvirts
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Excellent!
I was grepping chromium's code looking for anything like Firefox 's webcompat plugin a few days ago. Lmk if you need any support finding evidence in source code.
The 8232 Project
in reply to mvirts • • •Thank you! I may ask for your help eventually
Maestro
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Secure from what exactly? You need to have a threat model here. For most personal use cases I'd argue that protection from adtech tracking is more important than e.g. sandboxing. Most people run into adtech continuously, but few people browse shady exploit-ridden sites.
In that case, Firefox us the clear winner. It supports manifest v2 for better adblocking, and it is the only mobile browser with extension support allowing you to use adblocking on mobile as well.
doctortran
in reply to Maestro • • •Which is funny, because developers use "secure" like this all the time as a way of scaring users into compliance for any changes they implement. If they voiced aloud what the actual threat was, they'd have to admit that often its the user's freedom they're afraid of. The user may do something stupid, therefore their ability to do it is dangerous for everyone.
They'd remove the front door on your home and call it more secure, all because some people don't lock it.
reksas
in reply to doctortran • • •The 8232 Project
in reply to Maestro • • •Syakaizin
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Firefox and Chromium | Madaidan's Insecurities
madaidans-insecurities.github.ioEcco the dolphin
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Are you a single person or a group of people? Do you have any credentials that you'd like to share that might give some context to your research?
Where is the quote in your bio from?
like this
hornface likes this.
The 8232 Project
in reply to Ecco the dolphin • • •Ecco the dolphin
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Thank you. That answers my question. I figured you wanted to remain anonymous, but I liked your answer and I'll be interested in what you find.
I was trying to word my initial post in a way to prevent you from becoming defensive, perhaps I failed. Though, I do feel quoting yourself is a bit... gauche, no? Especially since you are remaining anonymous.
Septimaeus
Unknown parent • • •CarbonScored [any]
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Let me save you a lot of time and effort:
Your findings will either be an incredibly lengthy wording of that, or they will simply be wrong. It's not a complex question.
Kacarott
in reply to CarbonScored [any] • • •like this
hornface likes this.
helpImTrappedOnline
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •ozoned
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •geoma
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •to use a browser which is one of the tentacles of one of the biggest conpanies in the world, which monopolizes the internet and relies on selling private people's data?
JackbyDev
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •DragonTail
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •The Bard in Green
in reply to DragonTail • • •The 8232 Project
Unknown parent • • •masterofn001
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •OOTB Firefox is a security and privacy concern.
But it allows for nearly unlimited tweaking, modding, blob removal, etc. Which many serious threat model browsers are based on. Eg Tor.
If the Tor browser is less secure than chromium, there are potentially devastating consequences for some very at risk people.
Will you be analyzing forks such as tor and mull?
The 8232 Project
in reply to masterofn001 • • •Yes.
biscuitswalrus
in reply to The 8232 Project • • •Don't waste time on pandering to proof of ability when actions speak louder than words. The release of your research is personally something I'm looking forward to regardless of your history or experience. I will interpret your research and evaluation with my own bias and sceptical stance. I'd rather question you afterwards if your article left questions unanswered or unclear.
Jumping the gun now and questioning you before we start just wastes both our time.
Good luck with your research!