9 ms·

...Or, you can use "Firefox Multi-Account containers" by Mozilla. [0] This is what I use. I have everything that I log into google for in one container, social

...Or, you can use "Firefox Multi-Account containers" by Mozilla. [0] This is what I use. I have everything that I log into google for in one container, social media in a second, and everything else is nicely sand-boxed away from those horrors. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

amelius 8y ago
Does it support mobile yet?
tjoff 8y ago
It bothers me that they for some reason doesn't support containers in private windows. I guess a substitute could be to wipe the firefox profile on start or something but haven't attempted that route yet.
- Aissen 8y ago
  You don't need to, Firefox has had an option to clear history (and cookies, etc.) on close, since… forever.
  - tjoff 8y ago
    I guess I just haven't trusted that that feature really does what I want it to. But I should check it out, thanks!
- speedplane 8y ago
  Is anyone else bothered by Google Chrome's new attempt to suggest long and complicated passwords when you create an account anywhere? Sure this is a nice bonus for security, but it also means that you can't log into websites anymore unless you're using chrome signed into your Google account.
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    I think I understand what you're saying. It almost sounds like you're privacy conscious but not security conscious, but I don't think that was intentional. Personally, if I was dealing with someone who wasn't already using strong unique passwords for everything, and didn't want the burden of having a password manager, I would absolutely recommend relying on Chrome's built in password manager and having to be signed in to Chrome everywhere. This might actually be one of the use-cases that triggered the 'auto sign into Chrome when you sign into a Google product in a tab' feature, which didn't go down very well in some circles. I believe (re)using relatively weak passwords on multiple sites is a bigger risk to privacy than Google tracking every page I visit. I would assume they track every page I visit regardless of whether I'm signed in to Chrome or not. EDIT: Note that I'm assuming this feature in Chrome is similar to the feature in Safari, where Safari suggests strong passwords, but this doesn't prevent those passwords from being stored in your password manager of choice.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      No, I don't think you're understanding my concern, it doesn't relate to security at all, it touches on privacy, but it's more about monopoly control. If you start using Google's password manager with their auto-suggested long complex passwords, there is no way you can remember the passwords yourself. You'll need to be logged into Google Chrome to have access to the password. Therefore, you'll need to be logged into Google Chrome to log into any website. Currently, there is not way to export passwords from one browser to another, so if all your long complex random passwords are in Chrome, as a practical matter, you won't be able to use Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer, you'll be required to use Chrome. The apprehension over the feature is not about security at all (in fact, this system is likely more secure). It's about control. If you allow Google to manage all of your passwords, then you'll need Google to do anything.
      - oarsinsync 8y ago
        But does it restrict your ability to also save those passwords into an external password manager? Per my previous, Safari has a similar feature, which streamlines the process of generating secure passwords without needing to switch to the password manager to generate the password, and upon submission, it gets stored in the keychain, and also pops up the ability to store into 1Password via the usual extension. Sure, all those passwords in the keychain are locked to Safari only, so Chrome, Firefox, etc are unable to access them, but that's what external password managers are for.
- teekert 8y ago
  But what would be the need? As there are no cookies to start with in a private tab anyway, right?
  - tjoff 8y ago
    I don't quit my browser for weeks at a time (basically the only thing I restart the browser if for updates) so I'd like much more control than what private mode offers - which is just a session where everything is shared until you close it.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      I've been using the Temporary Container addon for this purpose. It allows you to specify that any link will automatically open into a new container, fully isolated from previous sites, with more rules so that sites like reddit work without logging you out all the time. Coupled with clearing history, this should be fairly close to a much more stricter private mode.
monochromatic 8y ago
Oh that does seem like a better solution.
ams6110 8y ago
What's wrong with profiles. They've had those forever and I have half a dozen. I don't see what any of this new "container" stuff really adds to that.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  Profiles provide isolation at the browser level, containers at the origin/domain level. Different profiles are essentially different browser installations that share nothing more than core browser code: extensions, settings, and even looks. It can get tedious to have to replicate one's browser customisations in every profile. Containers bring convenience. I never made a separate browser profile for Facebook, but the moment Firefox's Containerisation was available in Test Pilot, I made a container for all things Facebook.
- pluma 8y ago
  Depends on if you prefer separate windows or just separate tabs. I prefer having a single window and I've become so used to containers that using Private Browsing feels weird because I can't move those tabs into the main window.

amelius 8y ago

Does it support mobile yet?

tjoff 8y ago

It bothers me that they for some reason doesn't support containers in private windows. I guess a substitute could be to wipe the firefox profile on start or something but haven't attempted that route yet.

Aissen 8y ago
You don't need to, Firefox has had an option to clear history (and cookies, etc.) on close, since… forever.
- tjoff 8y ago
  I guess I just haven't trusted that that feature really does what I want it to. But I should check it out, thanks!
speedplane 8y ago
Is anyone else bothered by Google Chrome's new attempt to suggest long and complicated passwords when you create an account anywhere? Sure this is a nice bonus for security, but it also means that you can't log into websites anymore unless you're using chrome signed into your Google account.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  I think I understand what you're saying. It almost sounds like you're privacy conscious but not security conscious, but I don't think that was intentional. Personally, if I was dealing with someone who wasn't already using strong unique passwords for everything, and didn't want the burden of having a password manager, I would absolutely recommend relying on Chrome's built in password manager and having to be signed in to Chrome everywhere. This might actually be one of the use-cases that triggered the 'auto sign into Chrome when you sign into a Google product in a tab' feature, which didn't go down very well in some circles. I believe (re)using relatively weak passwords on multiple sites is a bigger risk to privacy than Google tracking every page I visit. I would assume they track every page I visit regardless of whether I'm signed in to Chrome or not. EDIT: Note that I'm assuming this feature in Chrome is similar to the feature in Safari, where Safari suggests strong passwords, but this doesn't prevent those passwords from being stored in your password manager of choice.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    No, I don't think you're understanding my concern, it doesn't relate to security at all, it touches on privacy, but it's more about monopoly control. If you start using Google's password manager with their auto-suggested long complex passwords, there is no way you can remember the passwords yourself. You'll need to be logged into Google Chrome to have access to the password. Therefore, you'll need to be logged into Google Chrome to log into any website. Currently, there is not way to export passwords from one browser to another, so if all your long complex random passwords are in Chrome, as a practical matter, you won't be able to use Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer, you'll be required to use Chrome. The apprehension over the feature is not about security at all (in fact, this system is likely more secure). It's about control. If you allow Google to manage all of your passwords, then you'll need Google to do anything.
    - oarsinsync 8y ago
      But does it restrict your ability to also save those passwords into an external password manager? Per my previous, Safari has a similar feature, which streamlines the process of generating secure passwords without needing to switch to the password manager to generate the password, and upon submission, it gets stored in the keychain, and also pops up the ability to store into 1Password via the usual extension. Sure, all those passwords in the keychain are locked to Safari only, so Chrome, Firefox, etc are unable to access them, but that's what external password managers are for.
teekert 8y ago
But what would be the need? As there are no cookies to start with in a private tab anyway, right?
- tjoff 8y ago
  I don't quit my browser for weeks at a time (basically the only thing I restart the browser if for updates) so I'd like much more control than what private mode offers - which is just a session where everything is shared until you close it.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I've been using the Temporary Container addon for this purpose. It allows you to specify that any link will automatically open into a new container, fully isolated from previous sites, with more rules so that sites like reddit work without logging you out all the time. Coupled with clearing history, this should be fairly close to a much more stricter private mode.

monochromatic 8y ago

Oh that does seem like a better solution.

ams6110 8y ago

What's wrong with profiles. They've had those forever and I have half a dozen. I don't see what any of this new "container" stuff really adds to that.

pritambaral 8y ago
Profiles provide isolation at the browser level, containers at the origin/domain level. Different profiles are essentially different browser installations that share nothing more than core browser code: extensions, settings, and even looks. It can get tedious to have to replicate one's browser customisations in every profile. Containers bring convenience. I never made a separate browser profile for Facebook, but the moment Firefox's Containerisation was available in Test Pilot, I made a container for all things Facebook.
pluma 8y ago
Depends on if you prefer separate windows or just separate tabs. I prefer having a single window and I've become so used to containers that using Private Browsing feels weird because I can't move those tabs into the main window.