What I was thinking was, "Chromium team is definitely not going to collaborate with us because they have Gemini, while Safari belongs to a company that operates in a notoriously secretive way when it comes to product development."
What I was thinking was, "Chromium team is definitely not going to collaborate with us because they have Gemini, while Safari belongs to a company that operates in a notoriously secretive way when it comes to product development."
They picked to most open-source one.
Sure there are closed source parts of Safari, but I'd guess at least 90% of safari attack surface is in WebKit and it's parts.
This is going to be the case automating attack detection against most programs where a portion is obscured.
There are also WebKit-based Linux browsers, which obviously do not use closed-source OS interfaces.
My pessimistic guess on reasoning is that they suspected Firefox to have more tech debt.
You say many cases, let's see some examples in Safari.
Safari (closed source)
├─ UI / tabs / preferences
├─ macOS / iOS integration
└─ WebKit framework (open source) ~60%
├─ WebCore (HTML/CSS/DOM)
├─ JavaScriptCore (JS engine)
└─ Web Inspector