3 ms·
I'm referring less to active maintenance and more to the tech involved. Pre-57 Firefox, which is what Pale Moon and Waterfox Classic fork, had several design ch
by Miraste 6y ago
I'm referring less to active maintenance and more to the tech involved. Pre-57 Firefox, which is what Pale Moon and Waterfox Classic fork, had several design choices which all major browsers, including Firefox, moved away from and are, IMO, inherently insecure (also slow). It used to be a playground for security researchers. I count building shinier versions of 2000's browser tech as outdated.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoI consider the point of view that only using bleeding edge browsers is valid as outdated. I also think that saying "several design choices" but not actually listing them is disingenuous.
- Miraste 6y agoHa, ultimately it is just semantics. That said, I personally wouldn't trust these browsers for online banking or similar uses. The main choices I'm talking about are no multiprocess sandboxing and keeping XUL addons, although the speed and rendering improvements in Quantum are significant too.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoI don't need to use online banking, I need to view pages with text and images, occasionally JavaScript, and not get owned by some random 0-day or exploit. For this purpose, it can be argued that the lesser-known and slower-developed browsers are in many ways more secure than the whales: They are developed more slowly, with much less code being introduced day-to-day. They are also less targeted, since hardly anyone uses them. For sandboxing, there are many other solutions, which I think are also more secure if they are externalized. As far as XUL, yes, it is certainly more secure to disallow add-ons which can do anything useful, like modify the UI.