Mozilla just revealed how many times Firefox was chosen

For years, choosing a browser has been one of those decisions that seemed to be in our hands, but in practice were quite conditioned by the device we took out of the box. On the iPhone there was Safari. On many Android phones, Chrome. And although we have always been able to install alternatives, the truth is that changing a hidden setting is not the same as receiving a clear question at the right time. That is precisely the crack that Digital Markets Act (DMA) has tried to open in Europe: to turn a theoretical choice into a visible decision. The data that puts figures. Mozilla assures thatsince the DMA obligations began to apply in March 2024, Firefox has accumulated more than six million selections through browser selection screens. According to the organization that develops the browser, that equates to one election every 10 seconds. The movement does not stop at downloading or installing: it also states that retention is five times higher when users reach Firefox that way. The difference. The jump, however, has not been the same on all devices. Mozilla cites academic analysis which compares daily active users of Firefox in the EU with 43 non-EU countries and places the impact on iOS well above that of Android: 113% more than would be expected without the DMA compared to 12%. One thing to keep in mind: on iPhone and iPad the screen appears when you open Safari for the first time, while on Android it appears when you start a new device or after resetting it from the factory. Mozilla adds that, on Android, Firefox started from a higher usage base and that the deployment has been more uneven. A real victory? In its post, Mozilla insists that the DMA is bearing fruit in some areas, but “not everywhere, not perfectly, and not without effective enforcement.” That nuance matters because choice displays alone don’t eliminate years of vertical integration, default settings, and usage habits. TechCrunch pointed out in 2024 such as Aloha, Brave, Opera and Vivaldi, also recorded significant increases in the first days and weeks after the application of the European standard. The mobile moves, the desktop not so much. For Mozilla, the advance in mobile phones leaves one question pending: what happens with computers. The organization maintains that the desktop remains “largely intact” and estimates that some 310 million desktops and laptops in the EU do not have an equivalent selection screen. Their criticism is especially directed at Windows, where, according to Mozilla, users are exposed to deceptive design tactics and are not given an active choice. Beyond the numbers. What Mozilla announced leaves us with invaluable information: when the choice appears before the user, inertia stops being so automatic. It doesn’t mean that everyone will abandon Chrome or Safari, nor that selection screens alone will solve digital competency problems. But it does point to something measurable: if the alternative is clearly shown, there are users who choose it. Images | Xataka with Nano Banana In Xataka | Europe changes the standards for mobile batteries in 2027. The striking thing is that no manufacturer has complained

Firefox found and fixed more security flaws in one month than in the previous 15 months

A year ago, Mozilla fixed 31 security flaws in its Firefox browser. In April 2026 has corrected 423. The growth is spectacular and has a single person responsible: Claude Mythos Preview, the AI ​​model that Anthropic decided not to release publicly for considering him too capable. The recent analysis by Mozilla experts has confirmed more than ever that Mythos it wasn’t just hype. AI sees everything. The integration of Mythos into the process analysis of Firefox vulnerabilities has caused a kind of technical “cleaning” explosion. It’s not that Firefox’s code is worse now, but that the eyes that analyze it are much sharper and seem to see everything. Mozilla’s graph is compelling: with the help of Claude Mythos, the Firefox team found more security flaws in April than in the past 15 months combined. Smell. The model is not only faster when it comes to detecting these failures, but it has a certain “smell” that surpasses anything seen so far in commercial tools. The AI ​​tool was able to identify 271 of the 423 bugs fixed, and that figure pales in comparison to other traditional methods such as fuzzing or manual inspection. Mythos has shown that he can evaluate his own work and filter out the noise, reasoning recursively and ruling out hallucinations. Archaeological errors. Among the most surprising discoveries they have discovered in this process is a bug in the XSLT engine (bug 2025977) that had been present in the browser for a whopping 20 years. Mythos also unearthed a problem from 15 years ago with the element “ ” of HTML that could only be exploited by a complex combination of edge cases to trigger. AI not only finds “typical” bugs, but it does just that: combine all kinds of actions to find bugs that would be almost impossible to detect in traditional ways. Human patches. Mozilla has, however, been clear about something important: they still do not use AI to write the final code that ends up being deployed in the version of the browser that users use. They do ask Mythos to suggest how to patch the problem, but the engineers have found that those proposals They are often conceptual models that are not ready for production environments. In each of the 423 patches made, there was at least one human engineer who wrote the patch and another who reviewed it. AI is the elite detector, but it is still no substitute for a senior developer in this case. A hopeful future (for Amodei). At a recent event, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei he was optimistic and highlighted that these new tools ultimately benefit cybersecurity defenders. “If we handle this right, we could be in a better position than we were, because we’ve fixed all these mistakes. There’s only a finite number of mistakes to find, so I think there’s a better world in sight.” In Mozilla they are not so clear. Brian Grinstead, a distinguished engineer at Mozilla, has a more pragmatic and cautious view. He agrees in that having these options available is slightly more advantageous for defenders. However, it warns that it is very likely that attackers are already using similar techniques with their own models. The race won’t be so much who finds the bug, but rather who gets it done first. AI as part of the process. Mozilla’s immediate plan is not only to analyze already published code, but to integrate this analysis into the software development process in real time. Or what is the same: every time a new line of code is “bitten”, analyze how that can introduce vulnerabilities. Firefox 150 is proposed as the most secure version of the browser to date, and all thanks to that work between human engineers and Anthropic’s computing power. The end of bounty hunters? The rise of Mythos as a great vulnerability detector can endanger one of the most traditionally specialized professions in the world: the bug bounty hunters. The famous ‘bug bounty‘ that encouraged human experts to detect new bugs and rewarded them with succulent financial prizes could no longer make sense when faced with the use of tools like Claude Mythos. In Xataka | For decades, Linux has earned a reputation as a “shielded” operating system. Until now

Claude just demonstrated it with Firefox

For years, finding serious vulnerabilities in complex software has been a task reserved for specialized researchers who spend weeks or months examining millions of lines of code. That scenario is beginning to change. Artificial intelligence models are no longer limited to generating code or helping to debug it, they are also beginning to detect security flaws on their own. A recent example has been shown by Anthropic with Claude Opus 4.6its most advanced model, when put to the test with Firefox. The experiment is especially striking because Firefox, managed by Mozilla and used by hundreds of millions of people, is one of the most audited open source projects in the web ecosystem. Analyze the Firefox browser code. During two weeks of testing, the system identified 22 different vulnerabilities, according to information published by both organizations. Mozilla assessed 14 of them as high severity flaws, meaning they could have served as a basis for attacks if someone had developed the appropriate exploit code. According to those responsible for the project, most of these problems have already been solved in Firefox 148, the version published in February, while the rest will be corrected in future versions. Inside the experiment. Claude’s work was not a simple automatic search for errors. According to Anthropic, the team first used the model to try to reproduce historical vulnerabilities recorded in Firefox, a way to test if it was able to recognize real failure patterns. Then they moved on to the most interesting part of the experiment: asking it to analyze the current version of the browser to locate problems that had not yet been reported. The process started in the JavaScript engine and then expanded to other areas of the code. In total, the analysis covered thousands of files from the project, including several thousand C++ files, generating a long list of findings that were subsequently reviewed by the researchers. A striking fact. Claude found more high-severity bugs in two weeks than the browser usually receives in about two months through its usual investigation channels. During the process, the Anthropic team submitted 112 unique reports to the project’s bug tracking system, although not all were confirmed vulnerabilities. Part of Mozilla’s job was precisely to review, debug and classify those findings before determining which ones had real security implications. The experience ended up becoming a direct collaboration between both organizations to review the results and prioritize corrections. The other half of the problem. The Anthropic team also wanted to see how far the model could go beyond detecting errors and turning those failures into real attacks. To do this, they asked him to develop exploits capable of taking advantage of the discovered vulnerabilities. The experiment included hundreds of runs with different approaches and cost approximately $4,000 in API credits. Still, the result showed a clear difference between the two capabilities: Claude only managed to generate two working exploits in a simplified test environment, without some of the defenses present in a real browser. Beyond the specific case of Firefox, the experiment reflects a change that is beginning to worry and interest the security community at the same time. AI-based tools are rapidly improving at detecting vulnerabilities in complex software, which could help developers fix bugs more quickly. Images | Anthropic | Rubaitul Azad In Xataka | iPhones were supposed to be the most secure cell phones in the world. It was supposed

Mozilla wanted to turn Firefox into an AI-powered browser. The community has forced a change that was not in their plans

For years, Mozilla and its Firefox browser have represented a rarity: a product shaped by demanding users, jealous of their control and unwilling to accept imposed changes. That’s why, when the word “AI” began to appear in his official speechdid not sound like a simple technical update, but rather a possible identity change. It was not a discussion about specific functions, but about limits. How far can Firefox stretch while still being recognizable to those who choose it precisely because it doesn’t look like the others. Before the controversy broke out, Mozilla had already begun to draw out its AI roadmap with a deliberately cautious tone. In his communications he talked about choice, transparency and preventing artificial intelligence from becoming a permanent layer of the browser. The AI, according to that initial approachhad to coexist with the classic Firefox experience without replacing it, offering specific and deactivatable tools, and maintaining the promise that the user decides if, when and under what conditions they use them. AIWindow. The most visible piece of that roadmap is a new window designed specifically for interacting with an AI assistant while browsing. Mozilla describes it as a separate, completely voluntary space that allows you to ask for contextual help without altering the rest of the browser experience. It does not replace the classic or private window, but is added as an additional option that the user decides whether to activate or not. The company insists that it can be deactivated at any time and that its development is being done openly, with a waiting list to test it and send comments. Why Mozilla thinks it’s important. The organization argues that AI is becoming a new way of accessing the web and that ignoring this change would leave the browser in a passive position. Their thesis is that, as more interactions go through assistants, it becomes essential to preserve principles such as transparency, accountability and decision-making capacity. Firefox, as a standalone browser, thus presents itself as an intermediary that uses AI to guide the user to the open web, rather than retaining them in a closed conversational environment. That balance began to break down in December, when the message about AI was publicly reinforced from Mozilla’s leadership. The reaction was not accidental if you understand who Firefox is addressing. A good part of its users do not come to the browser out of inertia, but after having searched deliberately, moving away from options such as Chrome, Edge or Safari. This more technical and critical profile tends to monitor any change that it perceives as a transfer of control. In this context, AI is not evaluated only by what it does, but by the precedent it sets and the risk of normalizing decisions made without the user’s explicit consent. The “AI kill switch” and the calendar. Faced with escalating criticism, Mozilla moved from generalities to explicit commitments. In a response to an open letter posted on RedditCEO Anthony Enzor-DeMeo wrote: “Rest assured, Firefox will always remain a browser built around user control,” adding: “You’ll have a clear way to disable AI features. A true kill switch (kill switch) will arrive in Q1 2026.” With that promise, Mozilla made a verifiable commitment: an option to completely disable all artificial intelligence functions by a specific deadline, the first quarter of 2026, as a way to reinforce trust. When the deabte is still open. The announcement of the “kill switch” did not close the debate, but rather moved it to a more basic question: when does AI come into play. For many users, the fact that there is a switch to turn it off implies that the AI ​​would be present from the beginning and that it is the user who must deactivate it. The alternative they demand is the opposite, that the AI ​​is completely turned off when installing Firefox and is only activated after an explicit decision. On Mastodon, the Firefox for Web Developers account admitted that there are “gray areas” about what optional means in the interface, such as whether a new button counts as such, but he insisted that the “kill switch” will disable the AI ​​completely. With the discussion already on the table, Mozilla has been forced to do something that was not in the initial script: specify, clarify and publicly commit more than expected. The discourse around AI in Firefox has moved from general principles to uncomfortable details, and that’s where the trust of its community is at stake. The promises are made, the deadlines marked and the words written. Now the difference will not be made by the communications, but by how those guarantees are translated into the final product and if Firefox manages to integrate AI without diluting what made it different. Images | Firefox | Denny Muller In Xataka | AI has allowed developers to program faster than ever. That’s turning out to be a problem.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.