The “latest security patches” that apply to Firefox will inevitably also apply to “TorBrowser, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, Waterfox Classic” that use Firefox as a platform. All browsers are security nightmares, the most likely to be attacked are the most used ones, so we’d better use ungoogled and unmozilla’d ones that at least we know won’t contain Google and Mozilla’s own malware components. So when these Mozilla/Google bastards tell us that we have to accept their software as is including all their own corporate malware features because according to them “forks are not secure because fewer eyes are looking for security bugs”, in spite of them getting security patches from upstream, do not trust them. They have no real incentive to be more cautious with security before updates, all the competitors have the same problem, and in fact the more bugged, the more dependent we are on their updates and the more work it is to maintain an ethical fork. I believe that Chrome has the same problem.Īdd to that that those companies do probably disclose those bugs to the NSA for exploitation against us before fixing them.

Meaning there are many more that are inside right now and that *they* haven’t found yet, but *others* have. This one is not the exception, they find some or high level ones at almost every release. It existed in the browser until it was fixed. They never say for how long the security hole existed. Critical level means that “Vulnerability can be used to run attacker code and install software, requiring no user interaction beyond normal browsing.”:

Firefox 45.0 bugs