[ShowalkKama]

it's open source, you can simply look at the code (or, better, at the differences with firefox)

[jlmb]

This approach also assumes that you then compile the browser from source yourself (and also do that for each future update).

[kypro]

Yeah, and we know it's relatively common for open source projects to end up with malicious code in them unless the project has maintainers that can be trusted.

I have LibreWolf installed and I use it from time to time (although I prefer Brave), but I don't have that much trust in project as is. I think if it had sponsorship and could afford to pay a few reputable pro-privacy developers to maintain the project then there's less risk, but as it stands is anyone honestly looking through all the source code to validate their pro-privacy claims? And even if they did, could you trust them or their releases?

[Astronaut3315]

Just like that North Korean symbol downloader on GitHub, which had a malware downloader hidden in plain sight for nearly a year with no one noticing?

[inversetelecine]

On the other hand, on might ask: How long would it have gone unnoticed if the source wasn't open?

[archargelod]

There are far more eyes on firefox and it's hardened forks, then on a random/obscure piece of software (sorry, I have no idea what exact malware you're referencing).

[adrianN]

If I have to read and understand all the diffs myself I might as well maintain my own fork.

[itvision]

> it's open source, you can simply look at the code (or, better, at the differences with firefox)

Are you really serious? Firefox source is 21 million lines of code.

[ranguna]

The diff between Firefox and librewolf is not that big though.