Greasemonkey hole proves Firefox is insecure? Not so much.

This meme has been bouncing over the net for the last few days. From Jon Udell's provocatively titled post Greasemonkey in Crisis:

"As the dust began to settle, a debate began, refracted through the lens of ideology. This time there was no Microsoft (Profile, Products, Articles) to blame. The open source underdogs had done this to themselves. And while some would argue it wasn't Firefox's fault -- since Greasemonkey is a user-installed extension -- Firefox took its share of the blame, just as Internet Explorer does when its add-ins cause trouble."

I'd just like to clarify that I don't think this proves anything about Firefox's security. Firefox - just like other browsers - has a extension system that allows users to install and run separately-developed programs within the security context of the browser, after an explicit confirmation and approval process.

The fact that such an extension has a flaw should not reflect on Firefox. The flawed code was developed separately from Firefox. It's completely different than if, for example, the browser itself had a problem which could allow an extension to be installed silently, without any user approval.

Continuing from the article:

Some say that open source software is inherently secure because the “open source process” makes it so. Wrong. Open source software, and the collaborative culture that surrounds it, have surely enhanced Firefox’s security. But also necessary is a disciplined approach to reducing the attack surface area.

I'd like to point out that Greasemonkey was the first Firefox extension I had ever written. It got very popular very quickly. The fact that it had a hole only proves that someone new to a platform can create software with holes. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Greasemonkey 0.4.x, on the other hand, has had the benefit of much more experience on the part of it's developers. Since it is open, it has also been able to benefit from the review and advice of a community of even more senior developers. If bugs are discovered in it, they will be discussed, fixed, and scrutinizeded openly. And Greasemonkey will again be able to benefit from the advice and review of this broad community.

I think that's the main point that Open Source advocates try to make.