Firefox Freedom! Four Things Chrome Doesn’t Let Users Do

using Chrome, the only thing i miss from Firefox is deleting all history on exit.

but that's not enough for me to keep using Firefox, just for that.

Firefox has no sandboxing and that's a major downside for me.

 

Don't you have click & clean or whatever is the name of that extension on chrome store?

 

It'd be better if C&C doesn't also include irrelevant features like AV scanner and whatnot.

 

i don't want to install that one.
it requires too many privileges.

plus it's bloated, like GrafZeppelin said.

 

You really don't need an extension to do what you can manually. When you're not used to it, that extra step before closing Chrome is a little annoying but at least you can do it.

 

You say dogbite is assuming something, then the next sentence you express your own assumption.

 

Not really, read here.
http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/

Bo

 

1) That post is 2009, we are 2014.

2) There is often more than one solution to a problem. That reputable parties ignore these other solutions doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

You can right click add search engines (like reddit search per the author's picture) in Chrome. Otherwise, they are added upon first use for the omnibar searches.

You can install all extensions in Dev mode. On non-dev versions, if you edit policy, all versions can handle out-of-store extensions and remain activated.

https://github.com/YePpHa/YouTubeCenter/issues/524#issuecomment-46626199

As to "useful addons", most seem to be developing for Chrome; with NaCl and the growing amount of APIs, you can now do some pretty deep stuff with Chrome and much more securely. Deep addons use Fox as a framework of sorts. Chrome was better designed for this; ChromeOS is proof of this.

& yes, while you can customize Fox pretty deeply, I have had tons of fried installs of Firefox as addons and themes update to new Mozilla internals and break the whole show. Meanwhile, I have a few Chrome installs from YEARS ago that run stable as the day I installed.

Upsides...downsides. I use both. But seriously, Moontan is bringing up my most common Chrome gripe--there are some crippled functions in Chrome. No deletion? This is basic.

Youtube is HTML5 now.

Chromium has no Flash install but can use Pepper (PPAPI) unlike FFox. The problem deepens when you consider the stock Fox NPAPI plugin only updates frequently as "weekly" via Adobe update. So often outdated (or manually maintained) deprecated Netscape gear in your browser--you're not gonna have a good time.

 

I just fixed that Chrome problem.
I uninstalled it and using IE 11. lol

I love Chrome but that one issue is enough to drive me nuts.
if Firefox had sandboxing I would use that instead.

 

Perhaps the question is: are there [still] Chrome/Chromium API limitations that hamper security/privacy extensions? I recall the inability to modify response content and embedded scripts being mentioned. I'm inclined to think that no browser is without at least a half dozen or more shortcomings in its extension APIs.

Gorhill: Did you have a chance to determine if you can block Beacons properly... a) while the page is loaded, and b) on unload and perhaps while the sole browser instance is actually closing? Are you keeping notes, anywhere, of the API and/or other improvements that would be of benefit to Chrome/Chromium extension developers and users?

 

For good reason in most cases. Firefox really lets extensions do a bit too much, even if that may appear great on the surface. Chrome loosened up on some things, which is why ad blocking works as well as it does now on there.

 

No questions there are shortcomings in chromium, like for instance the one pointed to by Giorgio Maone himself recently. But in my opinion this is often issues on the edges which should not prevent the implementation of all the main stuff for which there is a solution.

Re. "beacons", is that hyperlink auditing? I did implement something, but admittedly I am lacking test cases to validate that it works 100%. I don't have any test case for when the page unloads. I would think the requests are made just the same way than when the page is loaded.

Not really, I try usually to deal with what is available, so far it seems there was always a solution to whatever I was trying to solve -- I might be forgetting things though right now I went through that had no solution. There are things that ended up less straightforward, but I often see in retrospect why things are the way they are.

 

I described earlier what I do when I require Flash in W7, for me it works great handling Flash like that. Regardless of what you are saying about Firefox, I am as safe as anyone can be since I am always running under Sandboxie. Never seen any reason to doubt that.

Bo

 

In a way, that's one reason to like Firefox better than Chrome when you are a Sandboxie user. Less chances for a conflict. I know you don't use Sandboxie but if you like to use Firefox with sandboxing all you have to do is run it under SBIE.

Bo

 

Running Firefox in protected mode (i.e. with low integrity level) in Vista or later

 

Still can't beat native sandbox implementation. For Chromium sandbox, the child processes are Untrusted IL.

Hoping Mozilla can get it done fast enough while still maintaining extension compatibility.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox

 

Just to add more fun to this thread, here's an older article to point out an alternative viewpoint....one that highlights which areas Firefox lags behind Google Chrome

http://www.howtogeek.com/165264/heres-why-firefox-is-still-years-behind-google-chrome/

There are strengths and weaknesses in each browser. We need to be proud of the strengths but we must also admit the weaknesses. I have a love-hate relationship with both browsers. Where one excels, the other seems lacking. The agony....

 

I simply cannot fathom using "privacy" and Google in the same sentence.

 

I agree. I feel the same about using privacy and internet in same sentence.

 

I am referring to:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=360603
https://codereview.chromium.org/232053005
https://plus.google.com/102860501900098846931/posts/hxB6mWAAkwm

 

an option is just to launch Chrome in Incognito mode.
i re-installed it and created a shortcut that launches Chrome in Incognito mode.
that way, everything is deleted on exit.

anyway, to get back on topic which is Firefox: is there any ETA on the sandboxing implementation they are working on?

from here:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...er-falls-to-four-zero-day-exploits-at-pwn2own

 

This must be in a dev version of Chromium, I don't see navigator.sendBeacon here. I expect this to go through the chrome.webRequest API just like hyperlink auditing, which would mean they would be reported in the `other` column. Will see.

 

I remember once or a few times HM said that Mozilla needs to re-write the whole software and start from the scratch to implement a built-in sandboxing feature for Firefox. Based on his statement, I don't think we will get a sandbox implementation in Foxy anytime soon. IMO, as Bo said, for now it's better to sandbox Foxy with application sandboxing software like Sandboxie or policy restriction a la AppGuard or DefenseWall.

 

that might be easy to do for us Wilderites but for Joe and Jane Average it might be another thing.

myself, i'd rather have this stuff built in the browser than having to go to a 3rd party application for that.