10
STOP. UPDATING.
(mstdn.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)
Firefox
7361 readers
1 users here now
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No? Firefox is way behind and even if it wasn’t, the browser is an enormous attack surface so they have to keep improving security.
@muusemuuse nonsense. complete and utter bollocks.
Please explain.
@muusemuuse The security excuse for constant updates is a lie. There are not constant security patches that need to be fixed. The "risk" is extremely low, and is not reduced much by your browser checking a security certificate to see if the fraudulent website has paid google this month or not. THey update to put privacy and security violations on my machine - because that's all AI is, a security NIGHTMARE. .
@muusemuuse Furthermore, I go to the same three websites every fucking day, not wandering the far depths of the darknet in search of snuff films and infected jpgs. There is NO RISK that requires daily or even weekly updates to a piece of software that is essentially an image viewer. And if there is, they DID IT WRONG. Browsers were done being developed ten years ago, and there are no "new features" worth a damn.
As an amateur web dev I can say stuff like jpegXL which allows for smaller and higher quality images is cool, and regardless browsers let websites run arbitrary javascript code, so it's naturally insecure.
@Blisterexe Admittedly, most don't run java anymore, or do they? And see that's really the point for me: these security limitations are inherent to the build, and if you'd wanted security, you would have done it differently, not be relying on conning users into updating "for their own good" by dangling new features. It's an inherently stupid, cheap, and insecure way to design a system to operate.
Javascript isn't java, to be clear, and I think I need to clarify how websites work because it's not obvious and I think
Basically early websites were just html, basically just a way of having documents and links to other documents. Very quickly they added css for styling and, later, javascript so that people could add more advanced functions in websites. Assuming you're using the mastodon web client, you wouldn't have been able to write your comment without javascript.
So the site sends html, css and javascript files to your computer, and your browser draws the page on your screen by following the instructions, then executes the javascript. This is a horrible way of doing things, because (1) web standards aren't standard, browsers can support any feature they want in any way they want, so websites can work fine on one browser and not on another, and google can add any feature to chrome that websites will support that mozilla is forced to also implement, otherwise those websites will be broken. And (2) running random code with no user input is a horribly insecure way of doing things.
Nobody can change this, because it's a every website is made for it and every browser is made for it. There are alternatives but you can't access anything meaningful from it.
This means that Mozilla has to constantly update the browser to fix vulnerabilities, because the way the web works in inherently insecure and nobody can do anything about it, and the standards it supports constantly change for reason out of their control. Every browser auto-updates for the same reason. Mozilla changes the UI and implement AI at the same time because they're scared normies will drop the browser and use something else (read: chrome) if they don't.
If you don't want a browser that skips all that and doesn't support running random code then you can use something like netsurf, but it won't run every website. Otherwise you can use a browser like librewolf that doesn't add antifeatures.
Not saying you should use firefox, just that I hope you can see why they do what they do.
@muusemuuse Furthermore, if security is pushed all the way down to the user level, and we expect users to do the work to keep the internet secure, then the internet IS BROKEN AND BADLY DESIGNED. Security is the province of OS's, ISPs, and networks, not individual instance users. If the last line of defense is ME< THEY DID IT WRONG.
Yes, the internet is broken and badly designed. Because no one designed it, not in its current form. It's a patchwork of barely-compatible technologies being held together by a collective delusion.
On one hand, though, this is your most reasonable argument of all of them: security shouldn't fall on you as the last line of defense. Ironically, though, it most undermines your overall point, because the reason browsers continue updating is specifically to remove more security responsibilities from you. Since the attack surfaces continue changing, the security assertions have to continue changing too.
Sure, those three sites you go to every day are safe and trustworthy right now, and the network you access them from is uncompromised right now, but Microsoft had a supply chain attack just a couple of months ago. It's very possible that those trustworthy sites might be compromised tomorrow, and if you're still running an old browser with a known exploit, they could successfully target you.
But hey, you say, I'm pretty savvy. I'm not going to click anything stupid, or allow anything to download that I don't expect. Well, first of all, they updated the browser to ask you before downloading anything (they just did it a long time ago). But more importantly, what about a kid who is browsing the Web for the first time today? If they see a link offering them free Robux or whatever, they're not going to recognize it as sketchy. So they need those improved malware protections.
Remember, half of the people in the world are dumber than average.
You are demonstrably wrong with literally every damn post here so I’m just going to assume you are mentally ill and move on.
@muusemuuse go fuck yourself you clueless fuck
@muusemuuse @wyatt_h_knott
Counterpoint: No, YOU are wrong. This rant hits a lot of key points, and hits them well.
Related:
Number of times in my 60++ years I've had sensitive personal data compromised because I had a sucky password or didn't use MFA: ZERO.
ZERO.
Number of times due to some giant corpo server being hacked or them JUST SELLING OR GIVING AWAY MY DATA: DOZENS. That I know of.
Stop blaming the fucking victims.
I didn’t make that argument. Your passwords and MFA concerns are irrelevant to this.
Oh, well if you say so then.
@ilinamorato yep, I did, and your sarcasm falls not upon me. go away.
That was an opportunity to explain a comment that clearly no one understands.