3 ms·

Isn't privacy a moot point when firefox's security history has been much worse than chrome? https://it.slashdot.org/submission/5553519/pwn2own-2016-wont-attack

• Karunamon 10y ago
  This probably got downvoted for snark, but it's true. The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults). The worst Firefox might do is get your machine pwned.
  • kuschku 10y ago
    > The worst Chrome might do is help Google target ads better (if you don't change the defaults). Chrome is the one running any x86 binary the website presents it with, only trying to run a static verification that it won't do anything evil. Chrome is far more at risk of pwning you (and NaCl sandbox breakouts have been quite common).
    • Karunamon 10y ago
      You mean "the website" which is accessed over HTTPS and more likely than not has its key pinned internally? Point is, Chrome falls every year at Pwn2Own just like every other browser, but only Firefox has been excluded because it's too easy.
      • kuschku 10y ago
        > You mean "the website" which is accessed over HTTPS and more likely than not has its key pinned internally? Any website can run NaCl code, you realize that? Even TIDAL uses it on its site for native playback. Even pages only accessed over HTTP.
• RubyPinch 10y ago
  something seems off about that Looking through the previous year's results, it doesn't seem like firefox has done especially poorly? And as noted in https://redd.it/45epd7 https://redd.it/45epd7, firefox multiprocess is sandboxed, and it does have security features that other browsers don't have so... IMO it doesn't seem like the reason given is quite genuine?