Osprey: Browser Protection

thank you, v1.17 for firefox available. i installed in on edge (not that often used), and a test profile for firefox.
oh, wait, the "hide continue button" option is gone. also in edge.
is it because of the policy?
--> https://github.com/Foulest/Osprey/wiki/Setting-Up-System-Policies (for other readers: scroll down)

concerning this for linux is not that simple as you wrote. some packages allow access to the firefox bin folder, but snap wont let you. there exist an official SUMO article where to place the policies.json:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-using-policiesjson

 

If you want to correct documentation, feel free to open an issue with your changes

 

I have a curiosity?
Considering that there are 8 protection handlers by default and for each website it takes several ms to do the check which always follows a certain proportional line,i.e. the first handler is always the first,the second.....and so on...has any forum member actually checked whether using fewer handlers makes the browsing appear more responsive?

In the image you can see in addition to the block page in URLhaus Database that earlier I opened Wilders and there are the various ms of sending URLs to the various protection managers:

https://ibb.co/q3YwtrFc

Indeed, the extension allows for fast navigation.

 

Anyone?

I am thinking in case I have to use Osprey as well,after June in Edge,to select only Bitdefender TrafficLight,it seems to me more efficient than GData in blocking malwares.

Although in Foulest test both have 100%.

Of course, I did some tests today as well and with the 12-hour malware Bitdefender and Gdata fail to block.

Sometimes in the usual domain just renaming the exe (from fcc to fgg) is enough to evade all default lists.

 

I made a comparison with this extension:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/sicurodaaprire-sicurezza/ekfkopmgnijagfmjgcjkbffcnmggekec

and Osprey.
SAfeToOpen can also block malware/phishing.

In my opinion Osprey is more efficient.

SafeToOpen also slows down browsing a lot,with Speedometer 3.1 test it is a disaster.

The only point in SafeToOpen's favor is that it does not send URLs,or at least I cannot find evidence of this.

 

Good to know.

 

Hi,
You can also check if there is still a Symantec block here:

https://phishtank.org/phish_search.php?valid=y&active=y&Search=Search

When I became interested in the extension there was.

 

I have it installed in Vivaldi, but I am not sure what it is that you mean.

 

I don't have it installed in Edge, since I seldom use Edge.

But, I think I understand what you mean in Vivaldi, now.

P.S. I should be sleeping, but I am an insomniac. This lack of sleep will kill me, eventually, or give me heart attack.

 

I haven't been able to sort this problem with the "Protection Options". It is too big in that I can't see or adjust, i.e. no scrolling.

 

Instead of Osprey i just installed the G Data WebProtection Extension because it scored great on the tests.

 

Osprey has 2 advantages over individual reference extensions.

• It passes less info with URL submission.
• It is asynchronous,so it does not slow down the loading of the web page even though it then still sends the URL to analysis.

I have been doing anti-malwares/phishing/scam testing with Osprey for a month now.

Considering only malwares, the protection provider GData in Osprey is slightly inferior to Bitdefender in detecting malicious files.
But the Bitdefender protection provider always sends the URL faster than GData.
This latest data was measured by Lenny Fox.

P.S.

The next Osprey release will have Symantec not enabled by default for too much FP.

 

I don't even have the options in Opera that you see in Vivaldi. The extension appears somehow crippled in Opera.

 

What resolution are you using? It looks extremely low.

 

I'll take a look at Opera and Vivaldi today.

 

This is a bug with Vivaldi itself. The browser provides ZERO documentation about any API changes it's made. I submitted a bug report.

 

I just downloaded Opera and Osprey and the context menu works just fine.

 

1366 x 768 (Recommended)

 

Osprey doesn't support such low-resolution displays by default. I've added some code in 1.1.8 that should (potentially) fix your problem, but I'm not sure it would.