Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Hadron, Aug 27, 2016.
mantra, glad to hear it. You're welcome! Take care.
I forgot to reply, but I'm using the Firefox portable version and it still has this option. If they changed this, then Mozilla has lost it.
FYI. Nothing has been changed there.
Rasheed, I think we can agree on this. You still can set Firefox 63 to check for updates but let you choose whether to install the update or not. But unlike before, you cant set Firefox to Never check for updates unless you setup a policy to disable the function.
There is no way to have decent control over Firefox anymore.
Till Firefox ESR 60.9.0 it was possible (for the advanced user at least) to stop all outbound connections one didn't ask for by configuring the internal settings accordingly.
Since Firefox ESR 68 the browser makes a bunch of outbound connections to Mozilla servers and there is no way to stop it.
BTW, you can launch Wireshark and then this "privacy focused" browser to convince yourself.
Write firewall rules that prohibit connections you do not want.
To write firewall rules for the browser?
Thanks for your advise but this won't happen.
AFAIK there are people writing firewall rules even for the OS they are on. Funny, isn't it?
Dumping Firefox (done already) is a more appropriate approach - for me at least.
What browser are you using now? Just curious.
I didn't made any mention of it since it's not my intention to advertise any browser. Everyone must know what suits him best.
Neither is my intention to badmouth Firefox. However people should be aware of the fact that it establishes a bunch of connections to its servers even configured not to do so. However most people don't care anyway and besides it might be still better than Chrome and its forks.
It certainly is (at least in my opinion). BTW, isn't Pale Moon just a fork of Firefox? What makes this FF fork better in terms of privacy than FF itself?
An important aspect is that of not always following the "trend" that seems to be the exclusive prerogative of Chrome:
IMHO it would be inappropriate to discuss Pale Moon in a thread dedicated to Firefox.
A few features though:
- no telemetry or any other outbound connection you didn't ask for
- support for legacy extensions (no support for web extensions)
- change your default search engine on the fly
- pre-Australis (UI) look and feel
- no DRM
- no E10 (multi-process)
There are more but you can download the portable from their page for testing. If it doesn't meet your needs, simply delete the install folder.
Besides, you can get more information by reading their forum or by asking things you still don't know after thoroughly testing the browser.
I used what was originally Binisoft's, now MalwareByte's, GUI to make rules for windows own OS firewall for the firefox .exe, It makes it not overly difficult, tho I have had a bit of practice. Dumping FF instead of the bad extensions is throwing the baby out with the bathwater instead of just washing off it's dirty face.
Tried pale Moon, didn't like it. I suspect it is not multi-threading and still maintains the old vulnerable API, bit like FF's ESR stopgap meant to ease business users into the future.
Firewalls have their sense (closing listening ports by terminating services one doesn't use has priority anyway) but protection from untrustworthy software (especially a browser) is a huge stretch IMHO.
Software that doesn't behave as expected shouldn't be installed and used to begin with.
BTW, I know how to configure Windows firewall, no need for an extra GUI for that.
As for the extensions I use, you are absolutely wrong. You should better test with Wireshark before guessing.
The only two extensions (Toggle Cookies and uBlock Origin) I have tested with are not the culprit. Besides, they were set for manual update.
Thanks for the explanation, @Pharao Much appreciated.
Then why not use a firewall to write deny rules for those connections that bother you?
come on - not this BS from MoonChild. Palemoon undermines security in a massive way. it need to recode patches from firefox because the code is neither nor compatible - its a fact that the new code is NOT 100% revertable for palemoon. it dont use child processes thus the process runs with user rights, not with limited or anonymous as usual. there were removed several security features because palemoon lacks of performance because it run on ONE process. several user agents override to make palemoon usable on several pages. obsolete support of outdated and dropped dead NPAPI (plugins). XUL is no longer developped, mozila has phased it out, any new code is in html. although they have mad steps forward for goanna and UXP, its a ridicoulus comparison to the servo/rust platform (called: Quantum) ist a bad joke. to be uptodate they need to fork spidermonkey and settle on multiprocessing to get back the needed perfomance. but for this the dev staff has not enough people power. anyhow who runs window xp has less options, therefor xp it does not matter which additional softwa lack of security is used, it does not matter which of 1600 flaws will hit you.
palemoon - security? ymmd
As mentioned above this thread is about Mozilla Firefox.
As for Pale Moon, educate yourself before spreading FUD!
Feel free to open a new thread where you can spit your unqualified rants about software you neither use nor have the slightest clue about.
No need to spoil this thread therefore.
sorry, but i did not started the fire here about chrome or palemoon. and those words came from a dialog between me and other developers having an eye on palemoon and current browsers. about your list above:
thats not "new", that ever was opt-in or opt-out for firefox!
- i dont have "datareporting"
- i dont use "safebrowsing"
- it is possible to opt-out DRM in prefs, or load the EME-free version
- single process possible with a global system variable, you can as bo elam for it, he uses it.
- look and feel is customizable with style sheets
- most legacy extensions are no longer under development so they contain vulnerable code.
and moonchild left out a lot of code - you can read it in their forum - ofc some or most wont use it, favorite, but at least palemoon has less performance because all is done by a single process. to gain performance there is nothing to optimize in palemoon, sure the need to cut the code.
the next upcoming steps for firefox is to nullify any code for plugins which means there is nothing to copy after the next ESR (v7 is coming up and the last v68 esr is phased out and gets no code change. no code to reverse or alter to fix security gaps in palemoon concerning plugins. same for the XUL platform which is steady replaced. theses are facts and no fud. palemoon and basilisc have only a future when they go UXP at all without any code from mozilla.
if you feel uncomfortable then let the latest answers here moved to a single discussion.
Firefox at 15: its rise, fall, and privacy-first renaissance
November 8, 2019
while the Mozilla Corporation
see also income here
Mozilla only has its self to blame for losing the browser war, they made a huge mess of it. And Firefox Quantum is still a bit crappy, Vivaldi is way better.
What is crappy about it?
It hasn't got the same amount of customization options as Vivaldi:
- No option to close tabs via double click
- No option to bookmark only certain tabs
- No option to put the tabs-bar on bottom
- No option to activate right or left tab when closing tabs
- No option to open new tab next to active tab
Separate names with a comma.