4 ms·

[Citation Needed] Mozilla's "Safe browsing", for instance. If you're going to go with something FF based, at least choose something with such things disabled

[Citation Needed] Mozilla's "Safe browsing", for instance. If you're going to go with something FF based, at least choose something with such things disabled by default. For instance, I run PM.

eli 12y ago
Mozilla safe browsing does NOT phone home with sites you're visiting.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Quote: > Before blocking the site, Firefox will request a double-check to ensure that the reported site has not been removed from the list since your last update. Source: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m...
  - eli 12y ago
    Pretty sure it's still actually sending a hash, not a URL
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
      The entity I'm primarily worried about tracking here is Google. And, pretty much trivially, if the URL was added to the blacklist, they have the corresponding URL to the hash. (Not to mention, even if they didn't, their core product is based around crawling webpages. I'd be highly surprised if they didn't have hashes of the URLs they visited.) And, even beside that, URLs are relatively low-entropy. Especially with the path-splitting that safe-browsing does.
      - eli 12y ago
        I think your fears are unfounded, but it's easy enough to turn off.
zobzu 12y ago
Firefox Nightly also has a tracking protection in about:config => privacy.trackingprotection.enabled its off by default seems to also block some adverts when on. (probably because those adverts are also trackers)
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  Wait. People are upset about how unintuitive Apple's preferences are, but Firefox having config hidden away in the advanced about:config is OK?
  - zobzu 12y ago
    Nope. Firefox hide away stuff in about:config for testing purposes generally and expose the setting in the user interface after its been tested enough. Sounds logical enough to me.

[Citation Needed] Mozilla's "Safe browsing", for instance. If you're going to go with something FF based, at least choose something with such things disabled by default. For instance, I run PM.

eli 12y ago

Mozilla safe browsing does NOT phone home with sites you're visiting.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Quote: > Before blocking the site, Firefox will request a double-check to ensure that the reported site has not been removed from the list since your last update. Source: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m...
- eli 12y ago
  Pretty sure it's still actually sending a hash, not a URL
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    The entity I'm primarily worried about tracking here is Google. And, pretty much trivially, if the URL was added to the blacklist, they have the corresponding URL to the hash. (Not to mention, even if they didn't, their core product is based around crawling webpages. I'd be highly surprised if they didn't have hashes of the URLs they visited.) And, even beside that, URLs are relatively low-entropy. Especially with the path-splitting that safe-browsing does.
    - eli 12y ago
      I think your fears are unfounded, but it's easy enough to turn off.

zobzu 12y ago

Firefox Nightly also has a tracking protection in about:config => privacy.trackingprotection.enabled its off by default seems to also block some adverts when on. (probably because those adverts are also trackers)

madeofpalk 12y ago
Wait. People are upset about how unintuitive Apple's preferences are, but Firefox having config hidden away in the advanced about:config is OK?
- zobzu 12y ago
  Nope. Firefox hide away stuff in about:config for testing purposes generally and expose the setting in the user interface after its been tested enough. Sounds logical enough to me.