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

Firefox expands fingerprint protections

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 177 posts

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#151

Post by tlavoie »

modin wrote: post #147
tlavoie wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Temporary Containers" extension is great here, allowing pretty easy compromise between different buckets of sites. I'll have some personal ones that I log into, others go specifically into a snoop container, and the rest get temporary ones that evaporate when closed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

stoically, the maintainer and creator of this extension unfortunately passed in early 2023. There's a new fork available[0], linked from github[1]. I briefly discussed this extension and how to proceed after the passing of a maintainer with Mozilla staff in their Extensions and People teams at FOSDEM this year, but there was no real procedures in place at the time of our chat. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/fi…

Oh, damn, good to know thanks! Sad news indeed.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#152

Post by lone-cloud »

firefax wrote: post #146
lone-cloud wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're more trackable by using NoScipt and there's no good reason to use it if you know how to properly use uBlock: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-don... uBlock is a content blocker so it can do everything NoScript can if you learn its advanced UI usage. Using additional extensions makes you more trackable.

>You're more trackable by using NoScipt and there's no good reason to use it if you know how to properly use uBlock What data do you have to support this assertion? uBlock doesn't seem to have the ability to selectively enable only JS nessecary for functionality, and if it does, the UI makes it much more difficult to enable. I just ran a test -- merely uBlock use renders me unique, whereas one in 5742.77 had the same…

I cannot judge the validity of your test and I have done any tests myself. I encourage you to read the link from post to the top firefox hardening resource (arkenfox) that labels NoScript redundant. This is further backed up by another top privacy resource: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/browser-extensions/ This also links to the uBlock docs which outline different modes. Medium/hard modes make NoScript redundant.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#153

Post by charcircuit »

godelski wrote: post #103
someothherguyy wrote: post #85

It would be nice to see Firefox implement a few features browsers like brave have, like being able to automatically clear cookies for a site when leaving it, and to make containers available when in private browsing, ah well.

This is pretty handy and I've been using it for years[0]. I like the idea of Brave but we have a bigger fight that requires us to have no chromium. Chromium winning is Google winning, allowing them to control the Internet. I don't want that power in any single entity's hands. So I do ask that more people switch to Firefox or Safari as those are the best options to fight back and have decent market shares (even if sma…

The real power is in who owns the product. Since chromium is open source. A fork can be made at anytime. For the web there is a lot of common code that is useful to share between browsers.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#154

Post by unethical_ban »

kube-system wrote: post #82
unethical_ban wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a happy middle between "no protection" and "complete uniqueness" The web without ad blocking is revolting. Browsers building in these features makes them more popular. Aside: Fuck the Washington Post. They have a line in their privacy policy that acknowledges the existence of "Do Not Track" flags in browsers. Their acknowledgement: since there is no industry standard for responding to it, they ignore…

The actual industry standard for Do Not Track is to ignore it. It is deprecated. The browser we are talking about in this post, Firefox, removed support for Do Not Track in February of this year. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...

To my credit, WaPo should have said that instead of saying there isn't a standard. The standard is gone.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#155

Post by DavideNL »

godelski wrote: post #98
rogueparitybit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently switched from Containerise + Temporary Containers to Auto Containers. Brand new addon, but the dev is responsive and IMO it works much better for creating new containers on the fly as you browse. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/auto-containe... https://github.com/Shajirr/FF-Auto-Containers

That's really handy! I like that it handles domains automatically Edit: Seems to break ad blocking and there's some issues with login. Such as adding a container for YouTube requires also doing *.google.com since that's how the login is handled. Interesting and I'll keep playing around with it

It does not break uBlock Origin / ad blocking…

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#156

Post by DavideNL »

8bitsrule wrote: post #144
rogueparitybit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently switched from Containerise + Temporary Containers to Auto Containers. Brand new addon, but the dev is responsive and IMO it works much better for creating new containers on the fly as you browse. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/auto-containe... https://github.com/Shajirr/FF-Auto-Containers

When I added it, and went to Youtube, it instantly started generating tabs in some kind of loop ... had to shut FF down to stop it, and even then had to kill the loop manually.

That’s most probably a conflict with another extension…

https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/issues/347

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#157

Post by godelski »

kshacker wrote: post #148
dpoloncsak wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't your (proverbial) Costco membership card track every time you enter and leave the store? Doesn't seem like anyone is suing them... Also, if they were logging you specifically, you may have grounds to stand on. But if they're logging every customer that comes in/out (like websites do), I think there is a lot less grounds for a restraining order or anything Edit: Found out I'm using 'proverbial' wrong but I thi…

So I go to Costco and buy wine, and next week I get a letter from DMV reminding me of the blood alcohol requirements, I get people visit home selling wine glasses, when I go to work someone hands me the best of wines coffee table book, and so on. Ok but you say - It is not this overt online - well if we live digital life, lot of things are not overt, but we know we need to clean cookies, some of us create containers,…

Don't forget that time Target accidentally informed a teenage girl's patents she was pregnant by sending her coupons despite not buying anything explicitly maternity related. And how Target's solution was "oh, we'll just add ads for other stuff too so it feels less creepy" -____-

https://archive.is/kK1V8

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#158

Post by godelski »

charcircuit wrote: post #153
godelski wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty handy and I've been using it for years[0]. I like the idea of Brave but we have a bigger fight that requires us to have no chromium. Chromium winning is Google winning, allowing them to control the Internet. I don't want that power in any single entity's hands. So I do ask that more people switch to Firefox or Safari as those are the best options to fight back and have decent market shares (even if sma…

The real power is in who owns the product. Since chromium is open source. A fork can be made at anytime. For the web there is a lot of common code that is useful to share between browsers.

Your take is quite naïve. The problem is that Google is controlling all the protocols. We're already in a situation where chrome, and consequently chromium, is "the most up to date browser" because Google has a heavy influence in dictating what those standards are. This is, of course, why people fork chromium in the first place, because it gives them a leg up not needing to build everything from scratch and allows them to pull in security updates and new protocols as Google releases them. But that last part is the problem.

So in a way you're right. But the owner is Google as long as you are forking chromium. Because they control to protocols. Maybe they don't own the roads, but does that matter if they get to dictate how all the roads get used and how all the maps are made? You don't need to own the roads to control them

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#159

Post by godelski »

DavideNL wrote: post #155
godelski wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really handy! I like that it handles domains automatically Edit: Seems to break ad blocking and there's some issues with login. Such as adding a container for YouTube requires also doing *.google.com since that's how the login is handled. Interesting and I'll keep playing around with it

It does not break uBlock Origin / ad blocking…

Well when I reloaded my YouTube tabs in it they all had intro ads and intermediate ads. Maybe it was that one time? Because as soon as I disabled the extension I was ad free again. Maybe your experience was different, but that doesn't mean mine didn't happen.

Re: Firefox expands fingerprint protections

#160

Post by pixelmelt »

SoftTalker wrote: post #38
cowpig wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Firefox because it is better than Chrome, which is the only alternative I see. Do you use something else?

Almost all "alternative" browsers are Chromium based or Gecko/Firefox based. If there are any that are truly scratch-built other than the text-based browsers such as lynx or w3m I'd be interested to hear about them. I'd guess they are extremely limited in features.

You are looking for "ladybird"
Post reply on HN