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

Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 786 posts

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#141

Post by Average_ »

ogre_codes wrote: post #88
warent wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a network ad-block dns (pihole) and consistently 25-33% of all my network traffic is blocked as ads. It's much more than I ever imagined. Now I'm used to a different internet, when I'm using internet off the network it's like WTF is this?

I just have a decent set of ad blockers and the experience is similar. Unfortunately, it often results in weird experiences or I get sites which don't work at all if you have ad blocking.

Well that's interesting. For me 99.5% of websites work perfectly using ublock origin. The only .5% remaining are websites that actively refuse to serve any kind of adblock users, not because it breaks functionality on their site. I don't think I can recall having visited a single website that would have features break unintentionally because of ublock in the past few years.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#142

Post by legym »

Jonnax wrote: post #18

"In the case of Firefox’s image cache, a tracker can create a supercookie by “encoding” an identifier for the user in a cached image on one website, and then “retrieving” that identifier on a different website by embedding the same image." Clever. And so frustrating that optimisations need to be turned off due to bad actors.

In Javascript how are they able to retrieve something from the cache? Local, session, and cookies are domain locked.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#143

Post by cj »

pradn wrote: post #101
warent wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a network ad-block dns (pihole) and consistently 25-33% of all my network traffic is blocked as ads. It's much more than I ever imagined. Now I'm used to a different internet, when I'm using internet off the network it's like WTF is this?

Question about pihole: is it possible to turn off blocking for a website? Do you have to log into the pihole web interface to do that? I often go to websites where some crucial functionality is blocked by my adblocker (ublock origin), where I have to turn it off for that site.

My solution to this is using Cloudflare Warp (Cloudflare's consumer-facing VPN).

When I need to access ads.google.com or analytics.google.com for my company, I turn on Cloudflare, and pihole is bypassed.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#144

Post by ARandomerDude »

secondcoming wrote: post #117
guilhermetk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can do that via whitelist/blacklist: https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/misc/whitelist-blacklist/

allowlist/denylist

Man I can't wait until I get special treatment because I drive a vehicle of color.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#146

Post by kriops »

ff4lyfer99 wrote: post #103
f430 wrote: post #77

is it just me or more people switching to Firefox these days?

I switched in late 2017 when they released quantum or neutrino or whatever they called it, a huge performance release. As a backend dev and security focused eng I have little reason to test drive changes in all browsers. FF has been smooth and stable for me across desktop OSs. Having no reason to alternate between that and Chrome, I’ve been confused by people saying it’s slow. It’s been, to my memory, a flawless expe…

Just interact with the Facebook chat in Chrome and FF, and you'll see that FF is significantly slower.

That being said I use 90% FF, 9% safari and 0.999...% Chrome, because FF handling of tabs/containers/add-ons offers superior UX despite the performance annoyances. IMO, obviously.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#148

Post by zamadatix »

abcd_f wrote: post #68

Per-site caching negates the principal selling point of centrally-hosted JS and resources, including fonts. The convenience remains, but all speed-related perks (due to the resources being reused from earlier visits to unrelated sites) are no more... which is actually great, because it reduces the value that unscrupulous free CDN providers can derive from their "properties". It also means that I can remove fonts.goog…

I wouldn't say all speed related perks, CDNs for resources like that are still probably wider (and therefore closer) and faster than whatever is hosting your stuff for most sites. Overall it is a pretty big cut out of the performance selling point though.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#149

Post by yummypaint »

Jestar342 wrote: post #86
kristofferR wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A much more significant performance issue with web tracking is usually the absurd amount of JS loaded. It's almost impressive how they manage to load so much crap. Just visit a site like mediaite.com, the list of trackers is damn long.

For more than a decade I've been campaigning (to any of my employers that utilise adverts on their platform) to drop adverts with the primary factor being that of performance for page load. The last time I looked, adverts were adding an additional ~35% load time to the page. Anywhere from 5% to _60%_ (!!) of vistors were navigating away before page load completed (Varied depending on company/product of course) and a…

I often wonder incredulously whether developers responsible for particular sites really comprehend how bad performance has gotten. Browsing threads like this on HN makes it clear that they are probably well aware, but have no choice in the matter. In a way that's even more depressing because only a tiny minority of people are happy with the arrangement.

Re: Firefox 85 cracks down on supercookies

#150

Post by numpad0 »

ghostDancer wrote: post #66
minikites wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good when a company does it because they create value in the economy. It's only bad when a person does it because no value is created.

You forgot the /s. This is HN here you find people that can take that seriously and agree.

IMO the /s requirement applies anywhere. Sarcasm is dead, literal expressions are literally interpreted literally since 2018 and on.
Post reply on HN