Security researchers are warning that design flaws in the Comet web browser could let attackers quietly take over user sessions, inject malicious content, and potentially pivot into broader account hijacks. Their findings highlight how even niche or privacy‑branded browsers can introduce fresh attack surfaces when they bolt custom features onto the modern web stack without matching the hardening of mainstream engines.
I see the Comet case as a textbook example of how convenience features, from integrated wallets to aggressive performance tweaks, can undermine core security guarantees if they are not engineered and audited with the same rigor as the underlying Chromium or WebKit code. The researchers are not just flagging bugs, they are mapping out a set of architectural choices that make it easier for an attacker to blur the line between trusted browser chrome and untrusted web content.
How researchers dissected Comet’s security model
The team that pulled Comet apart started from a simple premise: if a browser ships nonstandard features on top of a familiar engine, those additions deserve the same scrutiny as a new web platform. They focused on how Comet handles privileged UI elements, custom protocol handlers, and any code that bridges web content with native components, because those are the places where a browser can accidentally grant a hostile site more power than it should have. By tracing those pathways, they were able to map where Comet’s trust boundaries were thinner than in stock Chromium and where an attacker could realistically try to cross them.
In their technical write‑up, the researchers describe walking through Comet’s process model, extension hooks, and inter‑frame communication to see whether untrusted pages could influence browser‑level decisions. They highlight specific flows where Comet’s custom logic touches sensitive actions such as session restoration, tab management, and wallet access, and they show that some of these flows lack the origin checks and permission prompts that hardened browsers now treat as table stakes. That methodical approach, starting from the browser’s own architecture and then layering in targeted tests, is what allowed them to move from theoretical concerns to concrete exploit paths backed by technical evidence.
The core flaws that open the door to hijacks
At the heart of the findings is a set of flaws that make it too easy for web content to influence what users see and what the browser does on their behalf. The researchers show that Comet’s handling of certain in‑browser dialogs and overlays lets a malicious site mimic trusted prompts, which can trick users into granting access or entering credentials in what looks like a safe context. They also point to weaknesses in how Comet isolates tabs and restores sessions, creating opportunities for an attacker to inject themselves into a browsing session that a user assumes is still under their control.
One of the more serious issues involves Comet’s custom protocol and deep‑link handling, which the researchers say can be abused to trigger privileged actions from a crafted URL. In practice, that means a link delivered through email, messaging apps, or a compromised site could cause Comet to open internal views or execute flows that were never meant to be reachable from arbitrary web pages. Combined with the UI spoofing weaknesses, this gives attackers a plausible path to session hijacking and account takeover, a risk the team underscores with proof‑of‑concept chains documented in their vulnerability analysis.
From proof‑of‑concept to real‑world exploitation paths
The researchers are careful to distinguish between lab‑grade exploits and what a criminal group could realistically deploy at scale, but the gap is not as wide as Comet users might hope. By chaining the UI spoofing, protocol abuse, and session handling flaws, they outline scenarios where a user who simply clicks a link or visits a compromised site could end up with a hijacked session, altered content in trusted tabs, or silently exfiltrated authentication tokens. The attack does not require exotic zero‑days in the underlying engine, it leans on Comet’s own custom logic, which is exactly what makes it attractive to threat actors who prefer reliable, repeatable techniques.
In their scenario modeling, the team walks through how a phishing campaign could lure targets to a page that triggers Comet’s vulnerable flows, then uses the resulting access to pivot into cloud accounts, developer dashboards, or financial services that the browser keeps logged in. They note that the same design issues could be weaponized in more targeted operations, for example by embedding malicious links in collaboration tools used by software teams that have standardized on Comet. Those chains are not hypothetical; the researchers back them with working demonstrations and trace logs that show how each step unfolds inside the browser, details they publish in a set of exploit chain examples.
Why Comet’s design choices matter more than its market share
It might be tempting to dismiss Comet as a niche player whose security posture is a footnote compared with Chrome, Safari, or Firefox, but the research argues the opposite. Comet markets itself to power users and privacy‑conscious audiences, the very groups that often hold elevated access to corporate systems, developer infrastructure, or cryptocurrency wallets. When a browser like that introduces custom features without matching the maturity of mainstream security models, it creates a high‑value, low‑noise target that sophisticated attackers are happy to exploit.
The team also points out that Comet’s architecture choices echo patterns seen in other alternative browsers and embedded web shells, from bundled password managers to integrated messaging panes. Those patterns, such as mixing privileged UI with web content in the same process or relaxing origin checks for convenience, tend to reappear across products that share code or design philosophies. By documenting how those decisions play out in Comet, the researchers are effectively issuing a warning to the broader ecosystem, a point they reinforce by comparing Comet’s behavior with similar flaws they have cataloged in other alternative browsers.
Potential impact on users, developers, and enterprises
For everyday users, the most immediate risk is that Comet’s flaws make common online activities less safe than they appear. A person who relies on the browser’s visual cues to distinguish trusted prompts from web content may be more likely to approve a malicious request or enter credentials into a spoofed dialog. Because some of the vulnerabilities touch session restoration and tab isolation, there is also a risk that sensitive information from one site could be exposed or manipulated while the user is focused on another, a violation of the mental model that underpins how people navigate the web.
The stakes are even higher for developers and enterprises that have adopted Comet as a default browser in specific workflows. The researchers note that hijacked sessions in developer consoles, CI/CD dashboards, or cloud management portals can quickly translate into source code theft, infrastructure tampering, or data exfiltration. They also flag the risk to organizations that rely on browser‑based access to internal tools, where a compromised Comet session could give an attacker a foothold behind perimeter defenses. Those concerns are not abstract; the team ties them to concrete examples of how similar browser‑centric attacks have been used to breach corporate environments in past incidents documented in their enterprise risk analysis.
How Comet’s maintainers have responded so far
The researchers say they followed a coordinated disclosure process, notifying Comet’s maintainers and providing technical details before publishing their findings. According to their timeline, the project acknowledged the reports and began working on patches for the most critical issues, including the protocol handling and UI spoofing flaws that underpin the hijack scenarios. Some fixes have already been released in recent Comet updates, while others are still in progress or awaiting broader architectural changes that will take longer to implement.
At the same time, the team notes that not every concern has been fully addressed, particularly where the root cause lies in Comet’s overall design rather than a discrete bug. They highlight open questions about how the browser will harden its process isolation, tighten origin checks, and separate privileged UI from web content in future versions. Users are urged to update to the latest release and to review Comet’s security advisories, but the researchers also encourage the project to publish a more detailed roadmap that explains how it plans to close the remaining gaps, a recommendation they spell out in their disclosure timeline.
What users and organizations should do now
In the short term, I see two practical steps for anyone running Comet in sensitive contexts. First, apply every available update and treat Comet’s release notes as required reading, not optional background. The most dangerous chains the researchers describe depend on specific behaviors that patches can disrupt, even if deeper architectural work is still underway. Second, tighten the browser’s role in your environment: avoid using it as the default for high‑value accounts or administrative consoles until the project can demonstrate that its isolation and UI integrity match the hardened profiles of mainstream browsers.
For organizations, the research is a prompt to revisit how browser choice fits into threat modeling and policy. Security teams should inventory where Comet is installed, assess whether its use is justified by unique features, and consider segmenting or restricting it in managed environments. They can also use the Comet findings as a checklist for evaluating other alternative browsers, asking pointed questions about process isolation, custom protocol handling, and the separation of browser chrome from web content. The researchers provide a set of practical recommendations along these lines in their mitigation guidance, which can serve as a template for both individual users and enterprise defenders looking to reduce their exposure.
More from MorningOverview