4 ms·

Firefox with these settings from Librewolf looks very much equivalent: https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/settings/-/blob/master/distribution/policies.json

by xolve 5y ago

Firefox with these settings from Librewolf looks very much equivalent: https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/settings/-/blob/master/distribution/policies.json https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/settings/-/blob/maste...

mattowen_uk 5y ago
Where would I put this file on my Firefox install ?
- mcc1ane 5y ago
  The file's first line points to a README with details. (On my machine it's under "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\distribution".)
circularfoyers 5y ago
I would disagree. Most of the fingerprinting protection is enabled by the user.js, of which LibreWolf inherits the efforts made by arkenfox[1][2]. Many of the most significant preferences themselves made it into Firefox by the Tor uplift project[3]. [1] https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js [2] https://librewolf.net/license-disclaimers https://librewolf.net/license-disclaimers [3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "Most of the fingerprinting protection is enabled by the user.js." Right, it seems to me that in many ways it'd make sense if we had the option of restricting the JavaScript engine per se. As users, if we could determine what functions JavaScript could actually perform then many of the security risks could be avoided. For example, if say we could change or randomize data in response to certain website queries which then resulted in them receiving garbage in ways they could not detect then users would be in much more control. Exactly how JavaScript would respond could be set in the browser's settings and changed as necessary. I've long wondered why privacy browsers don't go to the heart of the problem and use modified JS engines. I'd love to know what those who're involved with browser development think about such a tactic and why it hasn't previously developed any traction.

by xolve 5y ago

mattowen_uk 5y ago

Where would I put this file on my Firefox install ?

mcc1ane 5y ago
The file's first line points to a README with details. (On my machine it's under "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\distribution".)

circularfoyers 5y ago

I would disagree. Most of the fingerprinting protection is enabled by the user.js, of which LibreWolf inherits the efforts made by arkenfox[1][2]. Many of the most significant preferences themselves made it into Firefox by the Tor uplift project[3]. [1] https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js [2] https://librewolf.net/license-disclaimers https://librewolf.net/license-disclaimers [3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift

hilbert42 5y ago
"Most of the fingerprinting protection is enabled by the user.js." Right, it seems to me that in many ways it'd make sense if we had the option of restricting the JavaScript engine per se. As users, if we could determine what functions JavaScript could actually perform then many of the security risks could be avoided. For example, if say we could change or randomize data in response to certain website queries which then resulted in them receiving garbage in ways they could not detect then users would be in much more control. Exactly how JavaScript would respond could be set in the browser's settings and changed as necessary. I've long wondered why privacy browsers don't go to the heart of the problem and use modified JS engines. I'd love to know what those who're involved with browser development think about such a tactic and why it hasn't previously developed any traction.