We're reduced to reasoning like this because we've in browser security apathy.
If only there was a browser that wasn't implemented by juggling chainsaws like this... It's ridiculous that we have been unable to just fire all the these apps for sane reimplementation. Feeding hostile internet content to millions of lines of unsafe code day in, day out on billions of user devices would sound like a ridiculous idea if it were invented today.
It is unfortunately nigh impossible to reimplement the web with its gigantic scope.
A realistic scenario could be something along the lines of: get content onboard by securing some buy-in from some heavyweights, for a reduced feature set. Maybe convince a incumbent browser vendor or two to also provide a safer kernel for that content profile. Then targeting that feature set with the new implementation, and supporting a compatibility mode fallback to a legacy rendering engine for other web content. (VM-based or remote cloud based sandboxed rendering for the fallback?)
But the above would of course have a much better chance of taking off if there was a promising start of an implementation first, so it's not necessarily a reason to wait for the big boys before working on it.
(I wonder if Servo could be a starting point?)
Firefox is Tor Browser which is the most attractive target by far for 0 days. 0 days are often not targeted to a single individual anymore but are commonly used "in the wild" against mass targets, e.g. everyone who browses a political dissident website.
>It's basically universally agreed among security people that Firefox is less secure than Chrome.
A reference would be nice here...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1565196
Another example, third party Chromium builds like Vanadium or Mulch also go further and enable CFI on Android (still default disabled upstream last I checked).
That said, both browsers have huge attack surfaces. The best you can do for any of them is to disable WebGL, WebRTC, WebUSB etc. completely and only enable the ones you need. This does much more for your security when browsing the web than the differences between browsers.
The plugins for Firefox to expose this functionality have at least traditionally been a little bit more user friendly.
Opt-in javascript functionality would be the next step.
https://gitlab.com/divested/brace/-/blob/master/brace/etc/ch...
https://gitlab.com/divested/brace/-/tree/master/brace/usr/li...
Quote from one of the tweets confirming it: "They killed entire threat management team. Mozilla is now without detection and incident response."
I’ve known about the security team, and I remember hearing that even prior to that, a CTF event had banned Firefox exploits as too easy.
I am doing it next time I open my work laptop. I mean what is the single most important class of features in a browser? Security. I feel dumb for waiting so long.
This makes me sad. I was emotionally invested invested in Mozilla and that caused an error in judgment.
I use Firefox, but only because of "browser diversification" and privacy. Other options are worse not because Firefox is a superior product. It's sad really.
But I feel like I would be doing a disservice to myself, and my employers, by continuing to use a less secure browser, just because I’m religious about Mozilla.
[0] https://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-w...
https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing
It's basically universally agreed among security people that Firefox is less secure than Chrome. It's up to you to decide is it's likely Mozilla's caught up in the (year?) since this was written,. Or if they'll ever be able to catch up, with their current funding, compensation packages, the size of their workforce (750 employees?), their hiring attractiveness to top security researchers, and their management priorities.