LibreWolf Browser

@wat0114

Was 'Use recommended performance settings' box Checked in LW?
Did you also have Webgl disabled in LW? // Default setting as it is a strong fingerprinting vector.
Did you try running LW in 'Troubleshoot Mode'?
Could depend on number of things from browser extensions/add-ons installed
to any setting changes made or some other issues. Haven't compared Floorp with LibreWolf.

 

Was 'Use recommended performance settings' box Checked in LW? - Yes
Did you also have Webgl disabled in LW? // Default setting as it is a strong fingerprinting vector. - I think so, can't really remember
Did you try running LW in 'Troubleshoot Mode'? - No
Could depend on number of things from browser extensions/add-ons installed
to any setting changes made or some other issues. Haven't compared Floorp with LibreWolf. - Only uBO installed

 

@wat0114
Since you said that you removed LW then I really can't help much.
That's good if you found another browser to your liking.

I did find this at LibreWolf FAQ page.
Should I disable accessibility services?

While we don't disable accessibility services by default, you might want to consider disabling them if you don't need them.
You can read more about it at this link

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/k...hould-i-disable-firefox-accessibility-service

What is the impact of having Firefox Accessibility Service enabled?

Firefox Accessibility Service may negatively impact Firefox browsing performance
Third party applications may be monitoring your web surfing activity
Firefox stability may be adversely affected

 

For various reasons, mainly browsing speed and customization options, Floorp became my primary browser of choice some time ago. I will try disabling Accessibility Service and see what happens. Thanks!

 

LibreWolf runs on Windows, Linux and MacOS, but don't know which OS it
works best for in performance, stability and/or has the least amount of issues.

Also LW can be run several different ways including an AppImage and Portable version.
Whether they have improved on performance/speed in later versions I'm not sure.

I noticed though for me Firefox ESR opened little faster than LibreWolf.

 

LibreWolf is potentially unsafe?

https://flathub.org/apps/io.gitlab.librewolf-community

 

Yes! If you don‘t want a browser which can download files, play audio or videos and should be able to browse the internet, you should definitely block those permissions.

 

Isn't this just typical browser behavior anyways? Also, if you consider what browser extensions and plugins can access, they are probably a far greater concern than the browser itself. A similar concern was brought up in the Floorp browser thread, and with that I also see nothing out of the ordinary to be concerned about.

 

Oops - I forgot a smiley in my reply

 

I kind of thought your post was implying what I mentioned above

 

My point is do the browser(s) need to have access to some of these area's of one's system
that may be considered unnecessary for the proper functioning of the browser?

Extensions and plugins should pose concern as to what they have access to and users
need to be aware that the more you install the greater the privacy & security risk become.
In this case more is not better and limiting your extensions & plugins would be a good idea.
Also your browser performance may suffer with to many add-ons installed.

 

No, certainly they don't need access to all those areas, but then as @summerheat implied, your browsing experience could suffer, depending on what you block.

 

Improvements to LibreWolf in LARBS

https://larbs.xyz/librewolf/

Don't see why you would need these additional add-ons.

 

Sorry, but other than uBO, no I don't, at least in my use case.

As for blocking certain directories from browser access, maybe not the best example to give, but let's say I used Apparmor to block access to the widevine plugin with a "deny" placed in front of the present path rule that has R/W access. Doing so would mean any website that utilizes it for video playback will fail in the task, such as one of my favorites, tsn[.]ca:

Apparmor "deny" rule:

Code:

deny owner /home/*/.floorp/*.default-release/gmp/Linux_x86_64-gcc3/gmp-widevinecdm/ rw,

will result in tsn[.]ca video playback attempts with:

 

Getting Apparmor popup notifications and questions, but I'll post in another thread maybe here:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/apparmor-profiles-for-firefox-and-edge-beta-browsers.443272/

 

I just realized I misread your post yesterday , so my corrected response goes from: Sorry, but other than uBO, no I don't, at least in my use case. to: Yes, i agree with you.

 

Okay thanks for the correction. I posted on Apparmor thread mentioned in post #95.

 

Too bad, wanted to check it out, but it doesn't run on Win 8.1, strangely enough it does let you install it. They should make this clear on their website.

 

first - its well known that any other version beyond v115 is not running.
second, pages shows this:

go figure