Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox Profilemaker

ffprofile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#41

Post by xte »

papayawhip wrote: post #6

I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There’s a reason you “void the warranty” when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

As a FF user (and a browser's user in general) I found actual browsers absurd monsters that service like ffprofile only try to mitigate. Few example: any complex enough software offer config files/dir. normally human readable and manageable. I can easily install plugins in Emacs via a simple config edit, same for (n)vim, same for zsh or fish, I can change my OS (NixOS) with a simple human-readable config file. Same for GuixSD, same for services etc in nearly all unices.

On FF however I found no damn simple way to do basic things like:

- install extensions via CLI/wrappers (for instance homeManager), there are some hack but they are not reliable and Mozilla seems to try avoiding supporting such a thing;

- configure preferences, like about:config, outside firefox;

- customize ff themes in a simple manner.

Modern browsers seems to mimic the most closed commercial OSes I know of instead of mimic classic FOSS model and that's a big problem.

Today I can easily automate my entire desktop, but browsers and they demand more and more settings and third parties tools/extensions to be "at least less unsafe" for us users (from firejail/capsicum to cookies deleters, adblockers etc.

That's a horrific mess.

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#42

Post by xte »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #11
papayawhip wrote: post #6

I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There’s a reason you “void the warranty” when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

Maybe Mozilla should remove about:config, so users can't hurt themselves on it. I'm sure the telemetry shows its rarely used, and when it is, it often breaks the browser in ways that are unfixable for the average user. Malware is also able to modify these advanced settings to hijack the browser in nasty ways, and slow down Firefox, and make people switch to Chrome faster. If they don't remove it Firefox is going to c…

IMO, without sarcasm, people, not browsers makers, should ditch modern "web" to came back to local application with networking enabled.

We need to regain control of our systems and data before being all slave (without even the need of a strong power) of few corporations...

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#43

Post by shawnz »

Spooky23 wrote: post #40
papayawhip wrote: post #6

I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There’s a reason you “void the warranty” when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

Does Mozilla have a sanctioned way to pre-configure a browser with standard configurations? This used to be impossible, and essentially made my employer banish Firefox in most cases.

You could use group policy.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-usi...

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#44

Post by garrettr_ »

currysausage wrote: post #33
amaccuish wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I discovered that when viewing the TV guide on plex. Everything was an hour out (UK). I think with resist fingerprinting the timezone is set to UTC0. In the end I had to turn that setting off.

Ironically, checking for UTC+0 JavaScript time from an obviously-not-UTC+0 IP geolocation might give additional hints for fingerprinting, as does everything else that looks non-default, like odd language preferences or even a DNT header.

Good point. I'm pretty sure this component of resistFingerprinting is derived from Project Fusion, which uplifts privacy/anonymity-related changes from Tor Browser into Firefox. In the Tor Browser threat model, the idea is that you can't avoid looking like a Tor user, so the goal is to make all Tor users indistinguishable from each other. Flipping this pref as a regular Firefox user is incompatible with its primary intent/threat model, so it fails to deliver and may even make you _more_ identifiable in some circumstances.

This is a great example of why I'm generally skeptical of these scattershot approaches to making users more secure by changing default settings in mainstream browsers. Security and privacy features always entail tradeoffs and should be designed and implemented holistically for best results.

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#45

Post by huhtenberg »

0xffff2 wrote: post #21
throwaway2048 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Mozilla should remove about:config, so users can't hurt themselves on it. I'm sure the telemetry shows its rarely used, and when it is, it often breaks the browser in ways that are unfixable for the average user. Malware is also able to modify these advanced settings to hijack the browser in nasty ways, and slow down Firefox, and make people switch to Chrome faster. If they don't remove it Firefox is going to c…

>(This is in fact sarcasm before you get too eager with that down arrow) I see this defense quite a lot on the internet, and I think it's misplaced. Even without your comment, I would have downvoted you, not because I though you were in earnest, but because your sarcastic comment doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Technically, your comment doesn't add much to the conversation either.

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#46

Post by adminu »

xte wrote: post #41
papayawhip wrote: post #6

I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There’s a reason you “void the warranty” when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

As a FF user (and a browser's user in general) I found actual browsers absurd monsters that service like ffprofile only try to mitigate. Few example: any complex enough software offer config files/dir. normally human readable and manageable. I can easily install plugins in Emacs via a simple config edit, same for (n)vim, same for zsh or fish, I can change my OS (NixOS) with a simple human-readable config file. Same f…

That is not entirely true, there is a prefs.js in my Profile folder that contains the changes done to my about:config page, if I interpret it correctly.

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#47

Post by xte »

adminu wrote: post #46
xte wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a FF user (and a browser's user in general) I found actual browsers absurd monsters that service like ffprofile only try to mitigate. Few example: any complex enough software offer config files/dir. normally human readable and manageable. I can easily install plugins in Emacs via a simple config edit, same for (n)vim, same for zsh or fish, I can change my OS (NixOS) with a simple human-readable config file. Same f…

That is not entirely true, there is a prefs.js in my Profile folder that contains the changes done to my about:config page, if I interpret it correctly.

True but certainly not friendly to edit with a big

// DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.

and an optional user.js separate preference I do not know how reliable...

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#48

Post by mrmr1993 »

xte wrote: post #41
papayawhip wrote: post #6

I feel the strong need to point out some of these settings will break Firefox in subtle and hard to understand ways. There’s a reason you “void the warranty” when tweaking the about:config preferences. No rule against it, but just watch out. (Mozilla employee)

As a FF user (and a browser's user in general) I found actual browsers absurd monsters that service like ffprofile only try to mitigate. Few example: any complex enough software offer config files/dir. normally human readable and manageable. I can easily install plugins in Emacs via a simple config edit, same for (n)vim, same for zsh or fish, I can change my OS (NixOS) with a simple human-readable config file. Same f…

This seems to be by design: when these things are available, spyware -- especially on Windows -- will be quick to make malicious changes in all these if they can.

It's a pain, but I can see the compromise. If it makes the average Firefox user more vulnerable, there's definitely a case to protect them, even at the expense of its more capable users.

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#49

Post by jiveturkey »

xte wrote: post #42
throwaway2048 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Mozilla should remove about:config, so users can't hurt themselves on it. I'm sure the telemetry shows its rarely used, and when it is, it often breaks the browser in ways that are unfixable for the average user. Malware is also able to modify these advanced settings to hijack the browser in nasty ways, and slow down Firefox, and make people switch to Chrome faster. If they don't remove it Firefox is going to c…

IMO, without sarcasm, people, not browsers makers, should ditch modern "web" to came back to local application with networking enabled. We need to regain control of our systems and data before being all slave (without even the need of a strong power) of few corporations...

and yet here you are

Re: Firefox Profilemaker

#50

Post by hcs »

Tomte wrote: post #26
ppseafield wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can configure container tabs to always open desired URLs in specified containers. You just click the containers button and check "Always open in ". After that when you click a link to that site from a different container, it will prompt you and ask if you want to use the other container or continue with the one you were just using. It will remember your choice.

But it will not leave the container when clicking a link to "outside". One moment of inattention, and you're surfing the whole web for hours in your Facebook container.

I think the Facebook Container add-on does support this, though just for Facebook. There's an issue to add something similar to Multi-Account Containers, not sure what the status is on that:

https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues/8...

Post reply on HN