> PRIVACY SETTING
> network.http.sendRefererHeader = 0
WARNING: twitter.com does not work with this setting
default value is 2
Tested on FF 62, Win 10 Pro
Firefox about:config privacy settings
101–110 of 154 posts
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I noticed in your presentation (can't find it now) you could test out pathfinder with --features=pathfinder on Firefox Nightly. Any way to tell if this really enables pathfinder? I ask because I can't tell a difference on Windows or Mac (which may mean it's working as intended). https://github.com/pcwalton/pathfinder
That's the Cargo feature used to build Pathfinder, not a nightly flag.
Gotcha, thx
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah right, because me being forbidden to right click on the site is really in my best interest. I might, you know, inspect DOM and block annoying permanent menus or ads that ublock origin doesn't filter out. And being able to do copy&paste of the content should send me straight to prison.
Well, that is a good example actually. Of course you don't want to lose the ability to right-click, but there are also various web apps that override the right-click menu for legitimate reasons. Two examples that come to mind are Jupyter Lab and Outlook 365, both of which use a custom context menu. Disabling the context menu setting presumably breaks this functionality.
It isn't actually disabled in that instance; just right-click twice and the Firefox context-menu will disappear and present the web page's menu.
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and that's why I don't like encouraging messing with about:config. The few settings that can have any positive impact invariably come with drawbacks, which is why they're off by default.
There's little drawback to turning off Pocket unless you find the new tab content(and paid advertisements) compelling.
Actually, I do.
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I supposed to intuit from that discussion that they have different incentives and/or goals, or that they haven't found time to get it done? Because even though I think it is somewhat poor wording, I think it's the latter. Also, although I also think the proposed "upload" is poor wording, as many people seeing that will be confused because buttons that say that usually then request what to upload (e.g. "hmm, maybe…
It's been a year and it's a relatively small UI change to at very least make the local save button the primary colored one. I assume they have some metric for success of the experiment tracking daily uploads to FF screenshots and they're unwilling to sacrifice that.
> It's been a year and it's a relatively small UI change to at very least make the local save button the primary colored one.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense though - the experiment was specifically launched with the goal of trying to solve the problem of sharing screenshots with others; a problem they identified as common through user research. So while I think there's a lot to say for changing the wording, the primary action will always be sharing it.
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#106Who do I tell my brand new, bright idea about IDN attack prevention? It goes like this: Display characters that are out of range of your selected language's character set in a different colour than the characters of your language. That way, when you go to раураӏ.com that last character shows up in red. Homework: select two languages (e.g. Chinese and English), and use three colours. Make the colour scheme colour-blin…
> when you go to раураӏ.com that last character shows up in red.
All of them would show up in red, all of them are cyrillic. If all but one character was cyrillic, Firefox would detect this and render the url in punycode. As implemented now, firefox renders the URL as shown because all characters are from the same script (~character set). Chrome is more suspicious and renders it in punycode (https://xn--80aa0cbo65f.com/), though it would presumably render the confusing version if my locale was Russian.
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#107Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#108This list is somewhere between worthless and dangerous. Chesterton's Fence: Presumably Mozilla has already optimized the privacy and performance of Firefox as much as they've felt comfortable doing. If they could change each of those settings as recommended without tradeoffs to help the user, they would have done so. Without listing the tradeoffs for each one, this list cannot be relied upon.
Correct, and that's why I don't like encouraging messing with about:config. The few settings that can have any positive impact invariably come with drawbacks, which is why they're off by default.
I've changed dozens of settings in about:config without issue ever since 2004 when about:config started being documented at MozillaZine:
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and that's why I don't like encouraging messing with about:config. The few settings that can have any positive impact invariably come with drawbacks, which is why they're off by default.
There's little drawback to turning off Pocket unless you find the new tab content(and paid advertisements) compelling.
I find it is an amazing service that suggest worthwhile readings, at least a few of the best articles I read in the last month came from pocket
Re: Firefox about:config privacy settings
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dangerous is assuming Mozilla optimized only for privacy and performance. Why would you assume that and discourage people trying to optimize for that? This list wouldn't exist if Mozilla offered an equivalent, optimizing for only those two metrics, and explaining the tradeoffs you're asking for. What you'll find, as has been the case for Mozilla in some recent decisions, is the tradeoff includes (but is not limited t…
Mozilla is optimizing for a weighted sum of privacy and revenues from Google (who still account for >90% of Mozillas income). Therefore manually removing all Google partner tracking features in about:config is a very sane choice.
I agree. I also try to keep it simple to avoid too much maintenance hassle. Sadly about:config is too imperative, so you need to explicitly undo changes. I wish it was like regular dotfiles.
In any case this is in my user.js:
user_pref("datareporting.policy.dataSubmissionEnabled", false);
user_pref("privacy.trackingprotection.enabled", true);
user_pref("media.autoplay.enabled", false);
Along with ublocko and httpseverywhere, that covers a lot without breaking mostly anything.
A quite famous user.js hardening project is https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js. But I've found that keeping such a complex configuration functional requires a lot of constant effort.