3 ms·

Isn't that always true for any Firefox version?, at least with the correct 'about:config' tweaks. It could be more secure and private than others. Maybe the def

by NmAmDa 5y ago

Isn't that always true for any Firefox version?, at least with the correct 'about:config' tweaks. It could be more secure and private than others. Maybe the defaults are not that great but still better than others default.

sidkshatriya 5y ago
> Isn't that always true for any Firefox version? No, it has not been that way. For a long time Google Chrome was the only browser that had sandboxing by using separate processes for each tab (essentially). See: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_04.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_04.html For a long time, Firefox did not isolate different different websites in different processes. Today, Firefox has something similar to process sandboxing afaik but it took them some time to do it because their browser has a very old codebase and it took time for them to disentangle everything to provide this feature. See: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-site-isolation-security-architecture/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-si... Over the years, Chrome's sandbox has not stood still. It has become more and more sophisticated with various other features added (e.g. sandboxing in Linux using seccomp BPF -- e.g. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0e94f26e8/docs/linux_sandboxing.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0e94f26e8/d... ). BTW web searching reveals that firefox is using seccomp too now. However, I don't know the details. So it would be interesting for someone to have a comparison between the two today. However, with RLBox, Firefox has added a very powerful sandboxing technology that goes beyond process isolation. Its quite impressive and I do think that Firefox can now have grounds to argue that it's more secure than Chrome.

3 ms·

Isn't that always true for any Firefox version?, at least with the correct 'about:config' tweaks. It could be more secure and private than others. Maybe the def

by NmAmDa 5y ago

sidkshatriya 5y ago
> Isn't that always true for any Firefox version? No, it has not been that way. For a long time Google Chrome was the only browser that had sandboxing by using separate processes for each tab (essentially). See: https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_04.html https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_04.html For a long time, Firefox did not isolate different different websites in different processes. Today, Firefox has something similar to process sandboxing afaik but it took them some time to do it because their browser has a very old codebase and it took time for them to disentangle everything to provide this feature. See: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-site-isolation-security-architecture/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-si... Over the years, Chrome's sandbox has not stood still. It has become more and more sophisticated with various other features added (e.g. sandboxing in Linux using seccomp BPF -- e.g. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0e94f26e8/docs/linux_sandboxing.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/0e94f26e8/d... ). BTW web searching reveals that firefox is using seccomp too now. However, I don't know the details. So it would be interesting for someone to have a comparison between the two today. However, with RLBox, Firefox has added a very powerful sandboxing technology that goes beyond process isolation. Its quite impressive and I do think that Firefox can now have grounds to argue that it's more secure than Chrome.