191–200 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ciphertext leaks information via its size and its presence / absence.
yeah and so? how is this information useful? if the actual useful information is encrypted, then size is meaningless as it is just random text until decrypted. presence/absence? you have a cookie or you don't?
Is that basically the PrivacyBadger plugin integrated into Firefox? Can I uninstall it now?
Total Cookie Protection helps by keeping all third-party cookies isolated to the site they were set on. This means tracker domains will no longer get their cookie identifiers persisted across different sites.
However, tracking isn't limited to cookies. If unblocked, trackers can still use techniques like browser fingerprinting and cookie syncing. They could also just track you via your IP address, or, most likely, via some combination of different techniques.
Trackers can also collect sensitive information such as your email address, or even become vectors for delivering malware.
Outside of privacy/security concerns, unblocked trackers can slow down websites and waste your bandwidth.
To learn about how Privacy Badger works, visit https://privacybadger.org/#faq
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox has a sub 8% market share, so I doubt this will make a drastic change to how they operate.
Surprised it's even that high, I tried to switch to Firefox the other month for privacy but gave up because it crashed on me it-least once a day. Edit: thanks for the downvotes, I would have preferred if it worked but it didn't. I tried basic troubleshooting, disabling extensions etc. but didn't find it usable on macOs Monterey, think it doesn't play well with youtube.
no? then hello downvote for just making unsubstantiated claims that goes totally against the grain of typical experience.
It's nice, but is that so hard for Mozilla to tell in which version it will appear? Is it the current version or is it the next 102 version (which releases in 2 weeks, but then why they say it "rolls out"?)
I think the change might just be they will be setting that checkbox to on now? Although I don't remember seeing this option until now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that one site is seeing another site. It's that multiple sites will serve content (ads, Javascript libraries, like buttons) from a common site (eg an ad network) that uses its own domain. That domain is allowed to get the cookie for itself because it is referenced by multiple site, that's how this type of tracking works. If you go to bbc.com, it still won't be able to see cookies from cnn.com, but say if adv…
> Everyone should use FF. Wouldn't simply installing an ad/tracking blocker like uBlock Origin be just as effective, if not moreso?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox really needs to implement two features: 1. Cookie Auto-Delete (see https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/wiki/... ), where cookies and local data are automatically deleted some time after closing the tab. You can, of course, whitelist Websites to exclude them. 2. Firefox multi-container extension, to assign some websites (domains and subdomains) to a container by default so that you can visit…
(1) totally exists, that's always how I configure all my FF installs. You also can add exceptions, although I don't use this feature.
Why weren't separate cookie jars the default in the first place? I know that browsers other than Firefox have no real incentive to protect your privacy, but I'm wondering why cookies were designed to be shared among different pages in general
Does this obviate the need for [Facebook Container]( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont... )?
It would be nice to allow users to create "trusted tuples" to list small groups of domains that are allowed to share their cookies. For instance: Zendesk, Asana, Jira, etc. But have each tuple listed still be isolated from the other, only domains listed together in a single list could share a cookie container.
Could you explain how this could be beneficial to the user?