5 ms·
It might be the case that Firefox is less vulnerable in general because it is not as targeted even though technically it might have more undiscovered exploits.
by jack_pp 5y ago
It might be the case that Firefox is less vulnerable in general because it is not as targeted even though technically it might have more undiscovered exploits.
- bee_rider 5y agoThat's just security by obscurity.
- eropple 5y ago"Security by obscurity" is a phrase frequently repeated but generally misunderstood. There is value in not having the lock everybody's trying to pick with very advanced attacks so long as it is generally proof against being kicked down by simpler ones. So, sure, it may be security-by-obscurity--but it can also be significant and helpful depending on one's threat model. "Security by obscurity" is not a disqualifying objection under most models.
- unethical_ban 5y agoNot only is that not always a bad thing, but your statement implies that (a) it is the fault of FF that it is "obscure" for the purposes of security, and (b) that they aren't secure in the traditional sense, and only rely on the obscurity portion.
- bee_rider 5y agoI think the comment I responded implies that, more than mine. I'm writing this in Firefox, and I suspect that it is probably actually more secure in some nebulous sense just because they don't have any need to comply with shady characters like Google. But the particular advantage highlighted doesn't seem so great.
- dotancohen 5y agoSecurity by obscurity keeps my SSH logs clean. Not many bots come knocking on port 22122 (not the real port).