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.
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.
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.