Are there independent security audits or CVE comparisons for IronFox, Hardened Firefox, and Brave?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Independent, public security audits for Brave exist in CVE databases and vulnerability trackers; Brave appears in CVE aggregators [1]. Firefox and hardened Firefox forks (LibreWolf/Arkenfox) have active security responses and published hardening work from Mozilla including Pwn2Own patches and CSP hardening [2] [3]. For IronFox, available sources are project pages and community discussion but they do not show independent audit reports or CVE mappings specific to the fork [4] [5].
1. Brave: CVE visibility and community tracking
Brave’s security posture is visible in public CVE aggregators and vulnerability listing sites, which collect and present CVEs and version histories for the Brave Browser [1]. That presence means researchers and defenders can compare Brave’s reported CVEs to other browsers using the same public feeds; however, aggregator pages are synthesized from CVE/CPE inputs and may have inconsistencies or gaps noted by the aggregator itself [1].
2. Firefox and hardened-Firefox work: vendor-driven fixes and hardening
Mozilla publishes active security response materials and has repeatedly disclosed and patched high-impact bugs after contests like Pwn2Own; Mozilla’s own security blog documents incident response and rapid patching following Pwn2Own 2025 [2]. Separately, Mozilla and the community have published concrete hardening measures — for example, adopting strict Content Security Policies for the frontend and rolling out features like CRLite and HTTPS upgrades — indicating an auditable trail of hardening efforts [3]. Those are vendor-level reports and engineering threads rather than third‑party formal audits, but they are explicit, technical, and public [2] [3].
3. Hardened-Firefox forks (LibreWolf/Arkenfox/etc.): community hardening guides, not formal CVE reconciliations
There is extensive community work on “hardening Firefox” — user.js projects and published guides (e.g., Brainfucksec’s hardening guide) — and community forums track sites that break under hardened settings [6] [7]. Those resources document configuration and mitigation approaches but are not the same as independent, professional security audits nor do they provide consolidated CVE-to-fork mapping in the sources provided [6] [7].
4. IronFox: nascent fork, project repo and community commentary, no published third‑party audit found
IronFox is a recent fork of Mull/Firefox with a public GitLab repository and discussion threads announcing goals of hardening and fingerprint resistance [4] [5]. Community posts describe it as “hardened” and compare it to other hardened builds, but the available reporting does not show independent security audits, formal CVE comparisons for IronFox, or a published CVE mapping specific to the fork [5] [4]. Available sources do not mention an independent audit report for IronFox [4] [5].
5. What “CVE comparison” means in practice — limitations and workarounds
Comparing CVEs across browsers typically relies on public CVE feeds and aggregator sites that list product entries (as with Brave on a CVE aggregation site) or vendor advisories (as with Mozilla’s security blog and advisories) [1] [2]. For vendor projects (Mozilla) you have active advisories and incident summaries; for Chromium‑based forks you can often rely on aggregated CVE listings [1]. For small forks like IronFox, the only practical path is to map upstream Firefox/Mozilla CVEs to the fork manually (if the fork tracks Mozilla patches) because community sources do not present a ready-made CVE comparison [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a published, fork‑specific CVE reconciliation for IronFox.
6. How to proceed if you need an independent audit or CVE map
- For Brave: consult CVE aggregators and Brave’s release notes and cross-check the aggregator entries [1].
- For Firefox/hardened Firefox: use Mozilla advisories and security blog posts (Pwn2Own responses, hardening changelogs) plus community hardening guides to understand mitigations [2] [3] [6].
- For IronFox: contact the maintainers via the GitLab repo or project site to ask for audit history or a CVE reconciliation; the public repo and community threads are the only sources cited in available reporting [4] [5].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas
Vendor disclosures (Mozilla) are thorough and technical but reflect Mozilla’s institutional interest in showing rapid response and hardening progress [2] [3]. Aggregator sites that list Brave’s CVEs provide visibility but warn that their synthesis may be inconsistent [1]. Community praise for IronFox’s hardening comes from privacy forums and alternative listing sites but those are promotional or anecdotal and do not substitute for independent audits [5] [8]. Readers should treat vendor and community claims differently: vendor advisories document fixes and CVEs; community threads report features and user experience without formal verification [2] [5].
8. Bottom line
If you need a documented, independently audited CVE comparison, available sources show that Brave’s CVEs are trackable via public aggregators [1] and Mozilla provides detailed security advisories and incident responses you can cite for Firefox and its hardening efforts [2] [3]. For IronFox, current reporting only shows the project repo and community discussion; available sources do not mention any independent security audits or a fork‑specific CVE comparison [4] [5].