News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I know you mean the best, but an iPhone isn't any better privacy-wise than an Android is. Regardless of their public stance, these giant monoliths have proven time and time again there's no respect for an individual's privacy. If they get caught lying/breaking the law, the fine is merely the cost of doing business.
It would be better to focus on universal ways someone could keep themselves safe. Drop WhatsApp/SMS for Signal, drop Chromium based browsers, use uBlock, a VPN, etc. Arguing over phones is just infighting and not worth the energy.
I disagree on dropping Chromium-based browsers. drop Chrome/Edge/etc. certainly, but Firefox is kept alive by a skeleton crew at this point, and almost certainly has more vulnerabilities than Chromium browsers. the sandboxing and process isolation, the defense in depth, it just isn't there.
I use Vanadium, which has all telemetry disabled, JIT off by default, and blocks ads.
Unless you have real world data that confirms it, this is just fear mongering.
Firefox CVEs
Chrome CVEs
93 code execution vulns in Chrome since 2015, 135 in FF. 975 memory corruption + 267 overflow for Chrome in that same time, while 142 + 536 respectively for FF, so in raw terms Chrome is higher, but A) most of the Chrome vulns are classified as DoS rather than RCE, which indicates their mitigations seem to work, and B) Chrome has way more market share, hence way more people finding vulns. Ladybird has like, 2 CVEs, but that doesn't mean it's way more secure than FF/Chrome, it means nobody's using it.
Opzero.Ru (the quickest exploit market I could find) will pay $200k for Firefox RCE but $500K for Chrome RCE. Lower prices either mean less demand (low browser market share) or high supply (more vulns already in their inventory.)
So no, I am not fear mongering. You may disagree with my conclusions but I'm trying to be objective.
For starters, if I had not called you out, you wouldn't have provided sources. So my point still stands, your previous message, unsourced, was fear mongering.
Onto your data. Funny that you wrote the total from 2015, not mentioning that 127 of those code execution vulns are from 2015 and 2016... So 8 code exec since 2017, versus 85 for Chrome. I don't think we can attribute that only to market share.
Either you don't know how to read a table, or you purposefully ignored that part, perhaps hoping no-one would click on your links?
or maybe the amount of research I could be fucked to do on my phone on a Saturday to reply to some snide lemming topped out at not adding up subranges by hand.
I'm also skeptical of the RCE tallies, the more I look at them, given two JS sandbox escapes for FF were reported just days ago: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2025-73/
I don't understand why so many people on this site take every opportunity to attack each other, rather than extending the principle of charity.
Well, the thing is, you just admitted that your initial comment about Firefox being more vulnerable was based on nothing, since you did your research only after. Then you so quickly went over the data you looked for that you only saw that total that seemed to confirm your unfounded bias, where the tables have that very readable color code to them, making 2015 and 2016 really jump to the eye.
Of course, now that the data you found goes against your bias, you just look to discredit it, instead of thinking "you know, maybe this isn't as clear-cut as I thought it was".
So no, no charity there. I'll keel it for those who act in good faith, thank you.
you know what, that's fair. I admit I've heard so frequently (e.g. from the GOS community) that FF is less secure due to low maintenance, so I read the CVE statistics with that bias. I apologize.
in your view, how ought we to assess the attack surface of things like browsers? I'd love to move back to FF if it's roughly as secure.