• priapus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m not sure why you linked to this irrelevant 3 week old issue while referring to something that was fixed a year ago. Referring to it as a backdoor also implies that it was malicious, when it was simply incompetence. Have there been any security issues since? (Not trying to imply that not having any would make it safe, just wondering).

    Zen is an amateur hobbyist project, expecting it to be something else is silly. It isn’t backed by a company, so you take on these risks when you use the project. The same thing goes for all community run browser forks, and unfortunately, using upstream browsers will 100% be more secure. If you don’t want to take those risks, just use Firefox (preferably hardened).

    Security costs money, open source browser forks generally don’t have much of that.

    Edit: I’m not trying to shit on this browser, or even say that nobody should use it. Be aware of your attack surface and know what risks you’re taking on when using any piece of software. I’m probably still going to play around with Zen, but I probably won’t be doing my banking on it.

    • Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I’d like to take this opportunity to say Mullvad browser is maintained by Mullvad and Tor Project which in my eyes sets it way apart from these hobby forks (including librewolf)

      • priapus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        I agree, Mullvad is the only fork that I have confidence in the security of (ignoring Tor ofc since it’s not really for general use).

        • pastermil
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’ll bite: what’s wrong with LibreWolf?

          • priapus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            It just lacks manpower unfortunately. Going with a browser that has the funding for a security team is the safer option.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Librewolf is firefox with different settings how does it not already benefit from Firefox’s security team

              • priapus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                It does, but less than Firefox does. Their lack of manpower means delayed updates to fix zero days compared to Firefox. It also means less eyes on any patches introduced, so I’d be more concerned about malicious code being introduced.

                • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Their lack of manpower means delayed updates to fix zero days compared to Firefox

                  From their site:

                  LibreWolf is always built from the latest Firefox stable source, for up-to-date security and features along with stability.

                  As soon as firefox pushes a release, for instance to fix a security vulnerability, librewolf can immediately rebuild It is literally just firefox with different setting. Delay between firefox release and librewolf release should be negligible. You can verify this by noting that 136.0 was offered on the same day.

                  https://codeberg.org/librewolf/source/commit/2b90daeb5aa5a80443f4f7655393f610fb16418a

                  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/136.0/releasenotes/

                  The difference in time between firefox and librewolf security updates is less than the variance between users updating their machines.

                  • priapus
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    I’m not saying Librewolf is insecure, I’m just saying its a bit less secure. They generally do a good job keeping up to date, but there can be delays if an update conflicts with their changes.

                    Librewolf is not just a Firefox config. You can look at the repo and see a number of patches. Without a paid security team to review these patches with every update, it is less secure.

                    I’m not saying not to use Librewolf, the likelihood of a zero day specifically targeting it and effecting a significant number of users is very unlikely, simply based off of the size of its userbase compared to more mainstream browsers.

            • pastermil
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Thanks! Makes me wonder if there’s a chance all this separate effort can come into one.

    • priapus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Also want to add that this was caused by a configuration issue. If you want security, don’t use Firefox (or its forks) default configs, look into Betterfox. Apparently Zen also uses this as the base for its default preferences, which is a good decision.