3 ms·
Not 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) th
by unethical_ban 5y ago
Not 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.