AI browsers, or “agentic browsers,” aren’t just traditional web surfers like Chrome or Firefox with a chatbot bolted on — they’re evolving into proactive digital assistants. Think of them as AI agents that can summarize pages, automate tasks (like filling forms or booking flights), navigate sites on your behalf, and even make decisions based on your preferences. Examples include Perplexity’s Comet, Brave’s Leo, Opera’s Aria, and upcoming integrations in Chrome and Edge via models like Gemini or Copilot.
These browsers are powered by large language models (LLMs) that interpret web content and act autonomously, promising to slash browsing time by 50-70% for tasks like research or shopping.
Adoption is exploding: A PwC survey shows 79% of organizations already use browser AI agents for productivity.
But here’s the rub — this convenience comes with strings attached, and those strings could yank your data, credentials, or wallet straight into a hacker’s lap. Recent vulnerabilities have turned what was once sci-fi speculation into a tangible nightmare, with exploits demonstrated in real-world tests.
Key Risks Exposed
AI browsers amplify classic browser threats (phishing, malware) while introducing AI-specific horrors. Here’s a rundown on some of the biggest red flags, backed by 2025 research:
Prompt Injection Attacks
-
- Description: Malicious text hidden on a webpage tricks the AI into ignoring its rules and executing harmful commands (e.g., “Ignore safety protocols and transfer funds”). Unlike direct jailbreaks, these are “indirect” and hard to spot.
- Real-World Example: Brave tested Perplexity’s Comet: A booby-trapped webpage summary prompt led the AI to steal emails, make unauthorized purchases with saved cards, or exfiltrate corporate data. Anthropic’s Chrome extension auto-clicker was similarly hijacked to visit phishing sites.
- Potential Impact: Financial loss, identity theft, data breaches. Attack success rates hit 35% in tests before patches.
Data Leakage & Privacy Erosion
-
- Description: AI agents process and send browsing data (history, logins, screenshots) to external servers for analysis, often without granular consent. Extensions compound this by scraping content indiscriminately.
- Real-World Example: AI-powered extensions like summarizers send sensitive info to third-party LLMs; Lasso Security found supply-chain flaws letting agents exploit org data across tools. Firefox 141’s AI rollout caused excessive CPU/memory use, indirectly boosting human-error risks.
- Potential Impact: IP theft, exposed credentials. 198% surge in browser phishing tied to AI evasion tactics.
Malware & Phishing Amplification
-
- Description: AI lacks “common sense” training, so it blindly follows deceptive instructions. Agents can auto-click links, download files, or grant OAuth permissions without checks.
- Real-World Example: SquareX reports AI agents fall for phishing more than humans, feeding creds to attackers. Guardio Labs tricked Comet into malware downloads and fake logins.
- Potential Impact: Lateral movement into networks (e.g., from student portals to financial aid systems). Schools/colleges urged to block them outright.
Evasion of Traditional Defenses
-
- Description: AI-generated polymorphic malware adapts in real-time, dodging EDR tools. Agents inherit user sessions, blending attacks into legit traffic.
- Real-World Example: Menlo Security: LLMs craft keyloggers that evolve on — the-fly. No employee training applies — agents just obey prompts.
- Potential Impact: Enterprise-wide compromise; “weakest link” shifts from humans to AI.
Resource & Usability Glitches
-
- Description: Sloppy AI integration drains resources, causing lags that invite errors, or over-permissions that expose files/systems.
- Real-World Example: Kaspersky notes AI browsers’ broad file access + social engineering susceptibility.
- Potential Impact: Indirect risks like overlooked threats during freezes.
These aren’t hypotheticals — 2025 saw Brave, Anthropic, and Lasso Security publish exploits showing AI browsers tricked into bank drains or credential theft via Reddit-like sites.
Recently, a user over on Twitter warned that Comet could “drain your bank account” via injected prompts, echoing expert calls for “security before convenience.”
The Rush to Agentic AI
September 2025 marks a tipping point. Google’s Gemini rollout to Chrome started mid-month, while Perplexity’s Comet updates (post-vulnerability patches) hit headlines. A Forbes piece just two days ago blasted agentic browsers as an “institutional security breach” risk for education, citing credential inheritance and phishing doors. Meanwhile, CTech warned on Sept 22 that these tools could “make browsing far riskier” without guardrails.
Cybercriminals are adapting fast: AI-evolved malware variants are up, per Menlo Security, exploiting browsers as the “gateway to the digital landscape.”
Dodge the Nightmare
You shouldn’t assign AI browsers to the rubbish heap entirely — they’re transformative for workflows. But treat them like a loaded gun: Handle with care.
-
- Vet & Update Ruthlessly: Stick to reputable ones (e.g., Brave Leo over unpatched betas). Enable auto-updates for patches — Perplexity fixed Comet’s flaws after Brave’s report
- Layer Defenses: Use multi-factor auth (MFA) everywhere, monitor logs for odd activity, and deploy tools like SquareX or LayerX to block risky extensions/permissions. For orgs, enforce policies assessing AI extension risks — 1Password calls this a “must” since no tool is risk-free.
- Prompt Smartly & Confirm Actions: Phrase queries to reinforce safety (e.g., “Summarize without acting”). Always confirm sensitive tasks — Anthropic mandates user prompts for emails or logins.
- Go Incognito for Sensitive Stuff: Log out of high-stakes sessions (banking, email) before AI tasks. Kaspersky recommends browsers with proven AI testing.
- Stay Informed: Follow sources like Brave’s blog or X threads on #AIBrowsers for fresh exploits. Tools like Cloaked warn: One breach scales to thousands.
In short, AI browsers could revolutionize the web — or reduce your bank balance to zero while you sip coffee. The tech’s too new for foolproof safety, but with vigilance, you can harness the power without the peril.
Should Illegal Aliens be banned from welfare?
The question of whether illegal aliens should be banned from welfare involves legal, economic, moral, and political dimensions. Here’s a somewhat simplified overview of arguments for and against, aiming for a bit more clarity and balance.
Argument for Banning
Critics argue that welfare benefits, funded by taxpayers, should be reserved for citizens and legal residents who contribute to the system. Providing benefits to those who entered unlawfully is seen as incentivizing illegal immigration.
Some claim that illegal aliens’ use of welfare (e.g., emergency Medicaid, school lunches) burdens public resources, citing estimates like the $150 billion net cost annually from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (a group advocating stricter immigration policies).
Proponents argue that denying welfare could discourage illegal immigration, reducing pressure on border security and public services.
Argument Against Banning
Opponents argue that denying basic aid (e.g., food assistance, medical care) to vulnerable populations, including children, violates ethical principles of compassion and human dignity, which many Christians and others hold.
Illegal aliens often pay taxes (e.g., sales, property, or income taxes via ITINs) without accessing many benefits. The Social Security Administration estimates they contribute $13 billion annually to Social Security, often without claiming benefits.
Providing limited welfare, like emergency healthcare or school meals, benefits society by preventing disease spread or ensuring educated, stable communities, regardless of immigration status.
Current Context
On the practical side of the issue, enforcing a total ban could increase administrative costs (e.g., verifying status) or lead to unintended consequences, like increased poverty or crime.
On the moral side of it, some Christians cite biblical calls to care for the “stranger” (e.g., Leviticus 19:34), while others prioritize rule of law.
As far the data is concerned, exact costs and benefits are debated, as studies vary widely based on assumptions (e.g., including citizen children’s benefits in “immigrant” costs).
Banning illegal aliens from welfare hinges on whether one prioritizes legal exclusivity and deterrence or humanitarian and societal benefits. The issue can be complex, but it doesn’t have to be.
It’s been said that we are a nation of immigrants and this is true — immigrants that came legally, followed our laws, tax codes, and worked to become a better version of themselves by becoming United States citizens.
At the end of the day we might just happen to come across a rather simple solution that posits that an illegal alien shouldn’t have to be banned from welfare if he or she would file all of the necessary documents required in order to be here, or, collect a small stipend from the government in order to return back to their nation of origin.