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

Container Tabs

wiki.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: Container Tabs

#201

Post by kuschku »

Touche wrote: post #171
Manishearth wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox has had multiple profiles for years too, though the UI isn't as nice as Chrome's. This is different, this is basically profiles that can sharethe same browser window.

Not as nice is a pretty big understatement. Here's the article that Mozilla links to about how to do it on OSX: http://spf13.com/post/managing-multiple-firefox-profiles-in-... /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin --profilemanager

Actually, just open about:profiles in the browser, and you can easily switch.

Re: Container Tabs

#202

Post by the_why_of_y »

raesene9 wrote: post #196
rsync wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd like to see these security levels built into browsers where the contexts are built around permissions and site trust rather than access to the user store (which is also important)" I want to take it all the way to eleven and 'jail' a gui process (in this case, the web browser - any web browser). It gets its own filesystem root and its own IP BUT I don't have to pay the penalties of firing up a full blown virtual…

depending on your OS of choice, desktop containers using something like docker (e.g. https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desk... ) can achieve it and are a reasonably straightforward (for a certain value of straightforard) option (linux only unfortunately...)

> The images work by mounting the X11 socket into the container! Yippeeeee!

Well, yippee, now the application can read all keyboard input from that X11 socket, there goes your "sandbox"...

You really need Wayland to get a practical security benefit for GUI applications from containers.

Re: Container Tabs

#203

Post by untoreh »

sleavey wrote: post #199
hackuser wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad Firefox is doing this, but ... > Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources Can anyone name sites that require them? As someone who defaults to deny all cookies and manually enables every one my browser accepts, I don't think I've found a site that requires 3rd-party cookies. Few sites require cookies unless you login or have shopping cart. Of course, that's anecdotal…

StackOverflow, sadly. Their Javascript requires some off site cookies to allow for their cross domain user account stuff. Not enabling third party cookies on the StackExchange sites leads to broken pages.

Wouldn't that be the case for any site using sso?

Re: Container Tabs

#204

Post by toyg »

hackuser wrote: post #165
cpeterso wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is integrating a cookie feature from Tor called first-party isolation or double-key cookies. It will separate third-party cookies for each first-party site, so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on a.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on a.org. Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources, but first-party isolation should allow each site to work withou…

I'm glad Firefox is doing this, but ... > Blocking third-party cookies can break some site that rely on third-party resources Can anyone name sites that require them? As someone who defaults to deny all cookies and manually enables every one my browser accepts, I don't think I've found a site that requires 3rd-party cookies. Few sites require cookies unless you login or have shopping cart. Of course, that's anecdotal…

Quidco.com and similar referral-promotion sites.

Re: Container Tabs

#205

Post by sleavey »

untoreh wrote: post #203
sleavey wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

StackOverflow, sadly. Their Javascript requires some off site cookies to allow for their cross domain user account stuff. Not enabling third party cookies on the StackExchange sites leads to broken pages.

Wouldn't that be the case for any site using sso?

Yes, though there are some ways around this. You could send the user to another domain to sign in using a unique request ID that identifies the user. After authenticating this unique ID can be communicated back to the first site to show the user has authenticated, and a cookie could keep the session information. That wouldn't give a seemless sign-in on every site, though - you'd need one cookie (and one sign-in) per domain.

The other way is to have all StackExchange sites be subdomains of stackexchange.com - which is how the designers of the web intended it to be, I think.

Re: Container Tabs

#206

Post by therealmarv »

Sylos wrote: post #147
therealmarv wrote: post #23

Tech question: Does Firefox has technical process seperation of tabs nowdays? This is one of the main features of Chrome since 1.0 and just want to know if Firefox has something similar finally.

The foundational work is there, it's currently still going through testing, although you can already manually enable it and it works rather well, but as of right now it's not planned to have complete separation for each individual tab, as that just chews up a lot of resources with relatively little gain in performance. What's planned instead, is to use a set number of processes across all tabs. So, if this would be t…

Thank you for this extensive reply! :)

Re: Container Tabs

#207

Post by 3minus1 »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #109
rlpb wrote: post #39

I would like to be able to configure my browser to open every URL in a domain-specific "container", unless I say otherwise. Say site www.a.org includes an image from www.evilcorp.org, and www.evilcorp.org sets a cookie. When I then go to www.b.org and it includes an image from www.evilcorp.org, I don't expect the cookie to be sent back. In other words, the cookie should be tied to www.a.org, even though it actually c…

You'd probably like Self-Destructing Cookies[1]. It's an addon that deletes all cookies set by a page after you close the tab by default, though you can change it per-page to delete only on closing the browser or never. It doesn't prevent the cookies from being set, but it does effectively prevent tracking if you close tabs frequently. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...

this is just like browsing in incognito mode

Re: Container Tabs

#208

Post by jedisct1 »

This is really neat.

I became a huge fan of Opera Neon's interface, though. And it would be a perfect fit for "containers". Drop icons into folders, and done. Folders represent containers.

Re: Container Tabs

#209

Post by malikNF »

lmedinas wrote: post #156
Sylos wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean officially considered beta/stable quality or just that it's there in the Beta or Stable version, so that you don't have to migrate to a less stable version of Firefox in order to use it? If it's the latter, there's two preferences that you can flip in about:config to enable it (even in Firefox Stable): privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled Mind though that since this feature is cu…

This is why I ask when it will be enabled by default on Beta or Release. Any idea when is planned ?

This is available on Firefox Nightly.

Re: Container Tabs

#210

Post by thenomad »

vosper wrote: post #104
nikcub wrote: post #94

This is a neat idea but it doesn't implement the main reason I use separate profiles in Chromium - different security contexts based on how much you trust a site. Example: my main general browsing profile has flash, PDFs and all plugins disabled, absolutely all handlers switched off, all hardware access off, WebGL switched off, no account logins and uBlock Origin set to aggressively block most third-party requests. M…

I'm genuinely not trolling here: what are you worried could happen if you didn't do all of this stuff with the extensions and settings in your various profiles? What does it mean to trust a website?

From past experience, and the reason I browse with some fairly aggressive security settings (not the OP): I'm worried I could acquire a nasty rootkit-level virus.

I'm worried about that because I used to browse with no Noscript/similar, and then I got a infected by a rootkit, which I traced back to a new site I'd visited.

Since I didn't enjoy having to nuke my entire computer environment from orbit, I now have a rather locked-down browser.

Post reply on HN