4 ms·

Cool idea! I don't really picture myself using this, but I think this add-on is a great example of how great a browser Firefox is. I'd be the first to critiqu

Cool idea! I don't really picture myself using this, but I think this add-on is a great example of how great a browser Firefox is. I'd be the first to critique Mozilla, and there are definitely things about Firefox I don't like (ex. Pocket, telemetry on by default), but overall I think it's an amazing product in that it allows for multiple levels of isolation (profiles, containers, private mode) and a level of control over them that Chromium either doesn't do as cleanly or doesn't do at all. As an aside, the only thing I think Chromium does better is the debugging experience; I don't truly understand why Firefox thinks it shouldn't support debugging Node.js like Chromium does.

matusfaro 3y ago
> it allows for multiple levels of isolation Yes! Chrome has a visually similar functionality to Firefox Containers hidden away behind a feature flag [1] at the moment. BUT under the hood it's simply just tab grouping with no isolation. I presume isolation is against Google's interests so we will never see this kind of feature. As for Firefox's API, the Contextual Identities API [2] that allows you to create/delete containers is amazing and easy to work with as a dev. And it works out-of-the-box, it doesn't need the companion addon Multi-Account Containers (MAC) [3] which really should've been part of Firefox in my opinion. 1. chrome://flags/#tab-groups-save 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... 3. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
- bad_user 3y ago
  Firefox's containers are useless for privacy, given other enhancements of Firefox (e.g., Total Cookie Protection). And as far as "isolation", privacy or security are concerned, Chrome's profiles are actually superior due to ability to have different extensions and history per profile. Chrome's extensions in general still have superior security (e.g., activate on click or only for certain websites), so sometimes different profiles aren't even needed. Chrome's Profiles are also remembered when you "install an app" (SSB/PWA), so you could have "apps" started in their own profiles. Firefox's containers are only useful if you want multiple logins to the same service in the same browser window. But I never found that usecase to be very compelling. Firefox's containers are an often lauded feature, and I don't understand why, given the integration issues or general awkwardness. It's probably a reminiscence of the "Facebook container" extension, which was a bandaid until better site isolation was implemented.
  - matusfaro 3y ago
    > Chrome's profiles are actually superior due to ability to have different extensions and history per profile Interesting attack vector I haven't thought about which could leak information out of a network-locked Firefox Container. It would be under an assumption you have either: 1. A malicious extension installed (you have a much worse problem in this case) 2. A side-effect of an existing extension that leaks information to the outside world. (e.g. translate a part of a page, lookup a word in a dictionary, pre-fetch some images...) > Firefox's containers are only useful if you want multiple logins I think there are valid use cases for both Containers and Profiles. You can go down the list to have more and more isolation as needed: - Grouping tabs to stay organized, no isolation - Firefox containers, same browser window, shared history & extensions - Chrome profiles, almost complete isolation within same browser (different processes) - Separate browser instances - Separate devices
    - bad_user 3y ago
      On extensions, for example, I use LanguageTool [1], which is similar to Grammarly. It could be configured with a local server, although I have a “premium” account which sends data to a 3rd party server. I trust this extension to verify my messages on HN, but I can't trust it to have access to my banking account. This is an example of a really useful extension that I'll never be able to fully trust because it has access to all websites, and it sends all that I write to another server. In fairness, Firefox's advantage has been that Mozilla has a trustworthy manual review process for the “recommended” extensions. [1] https://languagetool.org/ https://languagetool.org/
      - danShumway 3y ago
        Note that languagetool doesn't need to request <all_urls> as a required permission, it could request hosts in optional_permissions (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/permissions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...) or (likely better) it could use activeTab permissions since it really shouldn't have access to your HN page until you invoke it anyway. The MDN docs even bring this up as an example scenario: > The extension may need host permissions, but not know at install time which host permissions it needs. For example, the list of hosts may be a user setting. In this scenario, asking for a more specific range of hosts at runtime, can be an alternative to asking for "<all_urls>" at install time. What we're waiting on I think is for Mozilla to get rid of the ability for extensions to opt out of this system, because I think one thing we've learned from extension permissions is that most devs are lazy and will just request the broadest permissions allowed if they have the option to do so. One thing I'd really like to see extended is for "trusted extensions" that have gone through manual review to have a harsher standard applied to them by reviewers about what permissions they really need to request. I would love to see Mozilla pushing back a little on extensions like Languagetool and having reviewers ask "why aren't these permissions optional?" I feel like it's a little bit irresponsible for Mozilla to put its signal of approval on extensions that are over-requesting access beyond what's necessary even if those extensions aren't currently abusing that access.
- vorticalbox 3y ago
  Firefox really needs to release containers for mobile.
  - matusfaro 3y ago
    The Contextual Identity API indicates that it's supported [1] in Firefox for Android so will need see how usable it is. I was planning on testing my extension on Android soon. Looking into it more, there is an open request to complete the work in Android Firefox [2] and also to make the MAC extension for Android too [3] 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities#browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... 2. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1807456 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1807456 3. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/multi-account-containers-for-android/idi-p/5564 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/multi-account-container...

matusfaro 3y ago

> it allows for multiple levels of isolation Yes! Chrome has a visually similar functionality to Firefox Containers hidden away behind a feature flag [1] at the moment. BUT under the hood it's simply just tab grouping with no isolation. I presume isolation is against Google's interests so we will never see this kind of feature. As for Firefox's API, the Contextual Identities API [2] that allows you to create/delete containers is amazing and easy to work with as a dev. And it works out-of-the-box, it doesn't need the companion addon Multi-Account Containers (MAC) [3] which really should've been part of Firefox in my opinion. 1. chrome://flags/#tab-groups-save 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... 3. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

bad_user 3y ago
Firefox's containers are useless for privacy, given other enhancements of Firefox (e.g., Total Cookie Protection). And as far as "isolation", privacy or security are concerned, Chrome's profiles are actually superior due to ability to have different extensions and history per profile. Chrome's extensions in general still have superior security (e.g., activate on click or only for certain websites), so sometimes different profiles aren't even needed. Chrome's Profiles are also remembered when you "install an app" (SSB/PWA), so you could have "apps" started in their own profiles. Firefox's containers are only useful if you want multiple logins to the same service in the same browser window. But I never found that usecase to be very compelling. Firefox's containers are an often lauded feature, and I don't understand why, given the integration issues or general awkwardness. It's probably a reminiscence of the "Facebook container" extension, which was a bandaid until better site isolation was implemented.
- matusfaro 3y ago
  > Chrome's profiles are actually superior due to ability to have different extensions and history per profile Interesting attack vector I haven't thought about which could leak information out of a network-locked Firefox Container. It would be under an assumption you have either: 1. A malicious extension installed (you have a much worse problem in this case) 2. A side-effect of an existing extension that leaks information to the outside world. (e.g. translate a part of a page, lookup a word in a dictionary, pre-fetch some images...) > Firefox's containers are only useful if you want multiple logins I think there are valid use cases for both Containers and Profiles. You can go down the list to have more and more isolation as needed: - Grouping tabs to stay organized, no isolation - Firefox containers, same browser window, shared history & extensions - Chrome profiles, almost complete isolation within same browser (different processes) - Separate browser instances - Separate devices
  - bad_user 3y ago
    On extensions, for example, I use LanguageTool [1], which is similar to Grammarly. It could be configured with a local server, although I have a “premium” account which sends data to a 3rd party server. I trust this extension to verify my messages on HN, but I can't trust it to have access to my banking account. This is an example of a really useful extension that I'll never be able to fully trust because it has access to all websites, and it sends all that I write to another server. In fairness, Firefox's advantage has been that Mozilla has a trustworthy manual review process for the “recommended” extensions. [1] https://languagetool.org/ https://languagetool.org/
    - danShumway 3y ago
      Note that languagetool doesn't need to request <all_urls> as a required permission, it could request hosts in optional_permissions (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/permissions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...) or (likely better) it could use activeTab permissions since it really shouldn't have access to your HN page until you invoke it anyway. The MDN docs even bring this up as an example scenario: > The extension may need host permissions, but not know at install time which host permissions it needs. For example, the list of hosts may be a user setting. In this scenario, asking for a more specific range of hosts at runtime, can be an alternative to asking for "<all_urls>" at install time. What we're waiting on I think is for Mozilla to get rid of the ability for extensions to opt out of this system, because I think one thing we've learned from extension permissions is that most devs are lazy and will just request the broadest permissions allowed if they have the option to do so. One thing I'd really like to see extended is for "trusted extensions" that have gone through manual review to have a harsher standard applied to them by reviewers about what permissions they really need to request. I would love to see Mozilla pushing back a little on extensions like Languagetool and having reviewers ask "why aren't these permissions optional?" I feel like it's a little bit irresponsible for Mozilla to put its signal of approval on extensions that are over-requesting access beyond what's necessary even if those extensions aren't currently abusing that access.
vorticalbox 3y ago
Firefox really needs to release containers for mobile.
- matusfaro 3y ago
  The Contextual Identity API indicates that it's supported [1] in Firefox for Android so will need see how usable it is. I was planning on testing my extension on Android soon. Looking into it more, there is an open request to complete the work in Android Firefox [2] and also to make the MAC extension for Android too [3] 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities#browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web... 2. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1807456 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1807456 3. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/multi-account-containers-for-android/idi-p/5564 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/multi-account-container...