another way to use chrome in a sandbox
https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desk...
Container Tabs
191–200 of 222 posts
Re: Container Tabs
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is integrating a cookie feature from Tor called first-party isolation or double-key cookies. It will separate third-party cookies for each first-party site, so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on a.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on a.org. Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources, but first-party isolation should allow each site to work withou…
best thing that happened to mozilla was losing the money from google. yahoo pays them almost the same and does not meddle on anti tracking features. note how every single privacy feature came after google-money. during google-money what did we got? third party cookies accepted as default. good riddance, google.
I think the more likely explanation is that Google withdrew* once it became clear that Chrome was far more popular. This same event led Mozilla to do some soul-searching (aka user surveys, etc.) as to why they were losing users, and what their USP was compared to Google - privacy is one of them.
* Note that "withdrew" might also mean "offered less money than before because Firefox had less users than before, and Yahoo! offering more.
Re: Container Tabs
#193I am a Mozilla supporter and FF is my "daily driver" browser. Very interested in this feature. Chrome has had it for a years, and it's a killer feature for many developers. It's very very useful to have multiple browser windows open, each logged into the same site as a different user. A lot of people do this by opening multiple browsers (FF, Chrome, Edge, Safari, etc) but that has its limits and it just adds another…
In case your comment reminds others: https://donate.mozilla.org/
:)
Re: Container Tabs
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
NoScript is a pain to use and configure. And you need to finely tune it. With this profile method, you can have a "all-in" profile, and a "safe" one. This makes things much easier to manager.
1. install it. and close the annoying tab. 2. visit a site, click the noscript icon 3. allow the domains you trust. no step 4. how is this hard? you only have to click the icon again if some site is not working.
> you only have to click the icon again if some site is not working.
And then you start realizing that blocking all scripts is a pain. You want just this script to work, but not this one. So you start filtering and it takes so much time.
Then often, a site is not working exactly right, and you don't know no-script screw you. Sometime you realize it after 10 minutes looking for something no-script removed. Waste of time. Then you for some time you want it one for a site, then off for the same site. And on. And off. And you have 30 tabs, then you have to jungle with the state of it.
Re: Container Tabs
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you provide some examples? That's a serious allegation. I remember, as a volunteer, debating some privacy issue with a Google dev in Bugzilla. They made some crack about looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the discussion was out in the open. I don't recall evidence that Google was influencing Firefox improperly, but OTOH absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
I doubt people on the trenches were blatantly in on it. But I gave my views on the outcome. Investigate that and see the pattern.
Well, that's a cute line of defense, but pretty obvious if hand-waving if you ask me. "You're too low on the ladder to know what I'm talking about."
You're the one who accuses Mozilla and Google, of different things, sure, but fairly important things anyway.
The burden of proof lies with you. Not us. It is not up to us to "find the pattern."
Not that I disagree with you on the fact that Mozilla seems much better off, post-Google.
Re: Container Tabs
#196This is a neat idea but it doesn't implement the main reason I use separate profiles in Chromium - different security contexts based on how much you trust a site. Example: my main general browsing profile has flash, PDFs and all plugins disabled, absolutely all handlers switched off, all hardware access off, WebGL switched off, no account logins and uBlock Origin set to aggressively block most third-party requests. M…
"I'd like to see these security levels built into browsers where the contexts are built around permissions and site trust rather than access to the user store (which is also important)" I want to take it all the way to eleven and 'jail' a gui process (in this case, the web browser - any web browser). It gets its own filesystem root and its own IP BUT I don't have to pay the penalties of firing up a full blown virtual…
depending on your OS of choice, desktop containers using something like docker (e.g. https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desk...) can achieve it and are a reasonably straightforward (for a certain value of straightforard) option (linux only unfortunately...)
Re: Container Tabs
#197I'm long searching for a solution to do this is a much broader way.. On the OS level. Private Work A Work B Work C Ideally it would seem like a different user. (Filesystem, cmd-tab). But easily accessible like the three finger swipe. Fast user switching doesn't cut it. I even tried logging in on my local machine using VNC or remove desktop.. Is having 4 VMs the only way?
Yet another potential solution, if you're on Linux. This is more on the accessible side of things, it doesn't do separation as much as you would like it: KDE Plasma has what they call "Activities". In its basic idea, it's kind of like fancy desktop workspaces. So, it does separate your windows into workspace-like groups, but you can also set what files and widgets are displayed on the desktop on a per-Activity basis.…
This sounds most like what I'd like.
Spaces on mac doesn't cut it because the application instances are shared, which causes it to switch spaces when tabbing into something.
Re: Container Tabs
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is integrating a cookie feature from Tor called first-party isolation or double-key cookies. It will separate third-party cookies for each first-party site, so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on a.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on a.org. Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources, but first-party isolation should allow each site to work withou…
I'm glad Firefox is doing this, but ... > Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources Can anyone name sites that require them? As someone who defaults to deny all cookies and manually enables every one my browser accepts, I don't think I've found a site that requires 3rd-party cookies. Few sites require cookies unless you login or have shopping cart. Of course, that's anecdotal…
The Shopify plugins from Bold use them.
Re: Container Tabs
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is integrating a cookie feature from Tor called first-party isolation or double-key cookies. It will separate third-party cookies for each first-party site, so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on a.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on a.org. Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources, but first-party isolation should allow each site to work withou…
I'm glad Firefox is doing this, but ... > Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources Can anyone name sites that require them? As someone who defaults to deny all cookies and manually enables every one my browser accepts, I don't think I've found a site that requires 3rd-party cookies. Few sites require cookies unless you login or have shopping cart. Of course, that's anecdotal…
StackOverflow, sadly. Their Javascript requires some off site cookies to allow for their cross domain user account stuff. Not enabling third party cookies on the StackExchange sites leads to broken pages.
Re: Container Tabs
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is integrating a cookie feature from Tor called first-party isolation or double-key cookies. It will separate third-party cookies for each first-party site, so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on a.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on a.org. Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources, but first-party isolation should allow each site to work withou…
I'm glad Firefox is doing this, but ... > Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources Can anyone name sites that require them? As someone who defaults to deny all cookies and manually enables every one my browser accepts, I don't think I've found a site that requires 3rd-party cookies. Few sites require cookies unless you login or have shopping cart. Of course, that's anecdotal…
Google.
The entire notification center, cross-site hangouts chat, etc all requires third-party cookies.