sent from a disposable whonix qube

  • keiko@fedia.ioOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    @[email protected] Bugs exists. But JavaScript running in the browser have, theoretically, little access to anything. […]

    The risk of allowing JavaScript on a website is more tied to the site data, or tracking. […]

    It doesn’t mean every site needs JavaScript, but having this enabled by default is not that big of a security risk for the system. […]

    This reminds me of an interesting phenomenon: Some security-oriented people praise the security of the surveillance-advertising corporation’s browser engine (chromium), while proclaiming that gecko-based browsers (firefox) are unusable due to inferior security. Yet the main security threat I see is that fucking surveillance-advertising corporation which spreads unvetted and often malicious ads around the web without a care in the world.

    • keiko@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Person A: “chromium-based browsers have superior security” Person B: “i use firefox-based browsers exclusively” Person A: “outrageous. it’s got inferior security” Person B: “i don’t allow scripts” Person A: “javascripts aren’t a major security concern” Person B: “firefox with scripts denied is more secure than chromium with scripts allowed” Person A: “javascripts are required for the modern web” Person B: “untrue, as evidenced by the fact that i access the modern web with scripts denied”

      checkmate ♟️