Do alternate browsers/shells present a security risk?

Question

So, there are lots and lots of less popular browsers out there that use a well known rendering engine. For example, IE7Pro or Epiphany.

I've wondered about the safety of these browsers; sure, they have the same rendering core, but lots of differences otherwise.

Could there be unaddressed vulnerabilities lurking in these browsers because they're not as popular and don't get as much review?

Answer 1

The alternative browsers are generally about as secure as the 'non-alternative browsers'; the better known alternatives are often more secure. There could be unaddressed vulnerabilities in any of the browsers.

In the case of IE7, IE7 is more secure than IE6 (but probably not as secure as IE8).

But this depends on your definitions of 'alternative' and 'non-alternative', and maybe on your platform, too. For greater security, run Windows as anyone other than Administrator, and run Unix-like systems as anyone other than root. This dramatically improves security.

Answer 2

Browsers in general and the people operating them are the weakest parts of a typical systems security. You can resolve essentially all of the issues related to browsers by simply:

1. not allowing your browser to run any client side code
2. use a browser that doesn't have the ability to run code, like Lynx or Amaya

That said, yes - more popular browsers with active development teams tend to get their vulnerabilities addressed more quickly.

As software gets more sophisticated, people have realized it is far easier to trick people into giving you the information you want instead of trying to brute force your way past a systems defenses. Hence the explosion of phishing scams recently.

Answer 3

IE7Pro is not a browser but an add-on for Internet Explorer increasing the security of Microsoft's web browser (versions 6, 7 and 8) with enhanced blocking functionality, rather than posing a safety risk.