3 ms·
its just a different attack surface for safari they would need to blackbox attack the browser which is much harder than what they did her
by vorticalbox 7mo ago
its just a different attack surface for safari they would need to blackbox attack the browser which is much harder than what they did her
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 7mo agoWhat? The js engine in Safari is open source, they can put Claude to work on it any time they want.
- hu3 7mo agoThere's much more to a browser than JS engine. They picked to most open-source one.
- SahAssar 7mo agoWebKit is not open source? Sure there are closed source parts of Safari, but I'd guess at least 90% of safari attack surface is in WebKit and it's parts.
- Normal_gaussian 7mo agoIn many cases, the difference between a bug and an attack vector lies in the closed source areas. This is going to be the case automating attack detection against most programs where a portion is obscured.
- dwaite 7mo agoHowever, Firefox also needs to use the closed source OS when running on Windows or macOS. There are also WebKit-based Linux browsers, which obviously do not use closed-source OS interfaces. My pessimistic guess on reasoning is that they suspected Firefox to have more tech debt.
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 7mo ago>In many cases, the difference between a bug and an attack vector lies in the closed source areas. You say many cases, let's see some examples in Safari.
- runjake 7mo agoHere's a rough break down, formatted best I can for HN: Safari (closed source) ├─ UI / tabs / preferences ├─ macOS / iOS integration └─ WebKit framework (open source) ~60% ├─ WebCore (HTML/CSS/DOM) ├─ JavaScriptCore (JS engine) └─ Web Inspector
- g947o 7mo agoApple is not the kind of company that typically does these things, even if the entire Safari is open source.