Uh, genuinely no clue what you’re talking about.
I just know that I can configure Waterfox to be both private/secure, and functional, fairly easily, and with most other browsers, that’s quite difficult, largely due to them being fundamentally controlled by giant corporations who have being a datamonger as a very significant element of their overall business model, who very much want you to watch the ads.
And… because its based on / is a fork of Firefox… it was not vulnerable to or affected by this sleeper malware.
Even if that’s not directly a result of some kind of software design/engineering paradigm type difference, and is just a kind of security through obscurity/non-popularity… thats still a very valid approach to using a computer system privately and securely.
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Why can’t Firefox be effected by this?
Does chrome not ask about plugins requesting new permissions or something?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Because ShadyPanda published a malicious extension for Edge and Chrome.
Not for Firefox based browsers.
… You… can’t install an Edge or Chrome extension in a Firefox based browser.
You have to make a different version, designed for Firefox, sorta like a port of a video game; a DreamCast won’t play a PlayStation disc, an N64 won’t run a GameBoy cartridge.
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 day ago
It’s not that it can’t be done then, most likely no one has checked.
Buying out solo deved apps to host malware has been a thing for ages.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Yep, you could theoretically do a similar sleeper malware as extension for Firefox based browsers.
But that is not what this article is about.
No where in this article is anything about a Firefox based browser mentioned.
So, again, go back your original comment on my comment.
You tried to put a bunch of words in my mouth, now you’re trying to argue hypotheticals based on conjecture.
Are you trying to make some kind of point?
Or just waste the time of anyone bothering to read this?