No, I don't. You don't either. You remember the days when you thought they couldn't just hack into whatever data stream your phone was transceiving, but that day never existed. The technological framework on which cellular networks were (in their earliest commercial forms) conceived has existed since the 1950's in the real world of technology. The commercial networks were never private. Not for a single minute.
Welcome to the real world.
Just wait until you see what has existed in the real world for the last 20 years.... Declas is about so much more than Russiagate....
Not much longer....
PS: Trolls would say "TWO MORE WEEKS!!!!" The fun stuff is still at least 2 years out. Enjoy the show!!!
PPS: We can hear you breathing?!? But how?! We couldn't possibly have microphones everywhere... Unless....No.........Surely not........
Refers to the all seeing eye, all hearing ear, etc. If you study information theory and what goes with that, you'll know that this has been going on as long as there has been human intelligence, not just since the 50s. When you know, you know.
You have to wonder why an open source project required confidentiality about this. Incidentally, neither Safari nor Chrome, or any other browser as far as I know, has such a remote domain-specific kill switch for extensions, so you have to wonder why it was necessary in Firefox.
I believe that Mozilla already had the capability to remotely disable an individual extension, if it turned out to be malware. After all, every Firefox extension needs to be uploaded to Mozilla for analysis and cryptographically code signed before it can be installed in Firefox. [Edit: I've now confirmed that Mozilla has an extensions blocklist.] Given this preexisting capability, it's unclear why there should be a list of domains where all except a lucky few chosen extensions are disabled, regardless of whether the disabled extensions have shown signs of misbehavior.
The Firefox quarantined domains list is currently empty. Mozilla hasn't said which domains it intends to add, or even why a domain-specific list is required. I find this troubling. It's a feature with no apparent motivation, supposedly for "security concerns"—among other "various reasons"—but what are the specific security concerns here, that would be addressed by a remotely controlled domain list? Mozilla's opacity and vagueness feels almost deliberate, undermining our trust.
I also have never heard of it, even when I was actively researching VPNs. I would think something like NordVPN world be most famous, considering every third person on Youtube is pitching it.
Thanks for this. This is the first time I've run across Mullvad Browser. It seems to be what I am looking for in a browser.
One question though...Can you change the default search engine to Brave Search?
I'm not seeing the option to add any search engines and I've searched the worldwideweb but can't find a way. I know I can search from the Brave Search website, but I am constantly highlighting and right click to search. Thanks
This depends. Since Mullvad browser is firefox based, you can use extensions like WebGL Fingerprint Defender, Canvas Fingerprint Defender, Font Fingerprent Defender, AudioContext Fingerprint Defender
nice, i have another laptop here, apparently i can't install it in the vm software i'm using for some reason, due to hypervisor things, so i'll have to try on the hardware.
Yeah, that is the trouble with it, isn't it. The whoel alternative browser scene is basically either Chromium or Firefox knockoff.
Hence, if you know what you are doing, about:config is a nice playground. Most people will not have the time and willpower to go through a steep learning curve. So, pre-made systems are the to goto solutions.
In essence, if one were to look for solutions, Iceweasel still is capable of everything.
I have Firefox 94 and have never upgraded. I have Video Download Helper extension on it, and I use that for downloading YouTube videos and others. That's the only time I even open it. I find a video in Brave, and if I want a copy, I copy and paste the IRL into Firefox, click on the extension, and choose what type of download. There are a few videos that the extension can't see to download.
If you want to use the extensions, you might try finding an old version of Firefox, install the extensions, and never update.
This is kind of normal with tech sites like Hacker News - you find an article worth posting, you post it using the original title.
I totally get your frustration, especially here where we’re not strictly an article aggregation place. But I don’t think there was any ill intent here, I think OP was following a convention that’s used in many places.
Correct. I'm a techie, as evidenced by many of my posts (including my very first post in GAW that I posted in T_D and everyone told me to post it here, a 17 page report and my analysis of it from CISA.)
I saw this on HN and it was one of those Holy Shit moments that I felt was worth posting here. I didn't feel I could add anything more than what the author did in his explanation and warning.
Firefox had an issue back in May 2019 where all extensions were disabled due to an expired certificate. I wonder now if that was a WH op? https://archive.li/5kLuO
Now imagine you've got a TOR extension running and Mozilla decides to silently uncloak all visitors to GAW. Similar malicious shenanigans can happen with other extensions engaged in privacy actions.
No, I don't. You don't either. You remember the days when you thought they couldn't just hack into whatever data stream your phone was transceiving, but that day never existed. The technological framework on which cellular networks were (in their earliest commercial forms) conceived has existed since the 1950's in the real world of technology. The commercial networks were never private. Not for a single minute.
Welcome to the real world.
Just wait until you see what has existed in the real world for the last 20 years.... Declas is about so much more than Russiagate....
Not much longer....
PS: Trolls would say "TWO MORE WEEKS!!!!" The fun stuff is still at least 2 years out. Enjoy the show!!!
PPS: We can hear you breathing?!? But how?! We couldn't possibly have microphones everywhere... Unless....No.........Surely not........
We couldn't possibly be using the microphones that God gave you.............
HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm..............
We can hear you breathing
Refers to the all seeing eye, all hearing ear, etc. If you study information theory and what goes with that, you'll know that this has been going on as long as there has been human intelligence, not just since the 50s. When you know, you know.
"When you know, you know."
And you, sir/ma'am, don't...
HumSigInt. Human Signals. Real thing. And it's not as old as the 50's....80's? Enhhh...late 90's? Definitely...
With love,
Someone who knows.
KEK!
You said it all. So obvious to some. Not obvious to most, unfortunately
But, but we didn't consent to let them sell our info to advertisers and influencers.
Unfortunately, you absolutely did. Have you ever actually read the terms of service that everyone just scrolls past and clicks agree on?
That doesn't count as informed consent.
In a court of law it does, unfortunately.
Tesla Tech.
Digital Signals were safe for 2 yrs. 98-00
I hope you’re implying 1898-1900…lol. By 1998, not even your own thoughts were private.
We had one in our house for awhile.
So, maybe, librewolf would be a better alternative.
And, thinking about this further, quebos seems more attractive by the day as compartimentalization comes out of the box, so to speak.
Nice, excellent, thanks, installed now!
Libre wolf or mullvad browser, both do a good job.
In what respects is it better in your estimation?
Most famous VPN? Among who? Ive never heard of it.
I also have never heard of it, even when I was actively researching VPNs. I would think something like NordVPN world be most famous, considering every third person on Youtube is pitching it.
Thanks for this. This is the first time I've run across Mullvad Browser. It seems to be what I am looking for in a browser.
One question though...Can you change the default search engine to Brave Search?
I'm not seeing the option to add any search engines and I've searched the worldwideweb but can't find a way. I know I can search from the Brave Search website, but I am constantly highlighting and right click to search. Thanks
This depends. Since Mullvad browser is firefox based, you can use extensions like WebGL Fingerprint Defender, Canvas Fingerprint Defender, Font Fingerprent Defender, AudioContext Fingerprint Defender
I see what you mean. I only started using it today, so i'll take your word for it.
Is there an android version? I see a mullvad VPN for Android, thigh no browser.
Thanks for the tip, going to give Qubes OS a shot today in a VM https://www.qubes-os.org/
I've tried it some years ago. Now I have an extra laptop lying around, will soon start a new venture with Qubeos.
I like the Sanboxed setup running every app in a hypervisor.
SerenityOs does that also, in a different manner, but that one was already broken by a simple pdf exploit.
nice, i have another laptop here, apparently i can't install it in the vm software i'm using for some reason, due to hypervisor things, so i'll have to try on the hardware.
With Hardware you should be fine with 6Gigs of Ram. The more the better.
Yeah, that is the trouble with it, isn't it. The whoel alternative browser scene is basically either Chromium or Firefox knockoff.
Hence, if you know what you are doing, about:config is a nice playground. Most people will not have the time and willpower to go through a steep learning curve. So, pre-made systems are the to goto solutions.
In essence, if one were to look for solutions, Iceweasel still is capable of everything.
use BRAVE
Mozilla hates you. Has for a very long time.
They showed us this after January 6th, when they openly decided you should be excommunicated from the internet entirely:
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/
When somebody tells you who they are, believe them.
This is a podcast by Michael Bazzell, the guy who writes the "Extreme Privacy" books. Pretty big in privacy and OSINT fields
The Privacy, Security, & OSINT Show: 296-The Argument for a Stock Browser
Episode webpage: https://soundcloud.com/user-98066669/296-the-argument-for-a-stock-browser
Media file: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/1512737377-user-98066669-296-the-argument-for-a-stock-browser.mp3
If you are a fan of Firefox, there are lots of open source versions available, some are privacy focused. Worth checking out.
everytime I get a prompt to update my firefox I ignore it.
I have Firefox 94 and have never upgraded. I have Video Download Helper extension on it, and I use that for downloading YouTube videos and others. That's the only time I even open it. I find a video in Brave, and if I want a copy, I copy and paste the IRL into Firefox, click on the extension, and choose what type of download. There are a few videos that the extension can't see to download.
If you want to use the extensions, you might try finding an old version of Firefox, install the extensions, and never update.
I already have Firefox, and it doesn't cost anything to keep it on the computer, when I have over 100TB of drive space.
It might be time for someone to branch the firefox code into a new branch for anons
AnonFox
Or...
QFox
So you, u/Star_Commander wrote this extension???
Maybe consider not just copy and pasting titles.
Y'know...for honesty's sake......
His browser, his extension. Makes perfect sense to me. He never claimed he wrote the damn thing 🤦♂️
They literally copy and pasted the title from someone (the person who actually wrote the extension) else's work.
This is the definition of a low effort post, and also the definition of plagiarism.
EDIT: If I weren't directly ordered not to, I would report the post for violation of general rule #4, which it most definitely is in violation of.
It's normal to paste the headline of a link post
This is kind of normal with tech sites like Hacker News - you find an article worth posting, you post it using the original title.
I totally get your frustration, especially here where we’re not strictly an article aggregation place. But I don’t think there was any ill intent here, I think OP was following a convention that’s used in many places.
Correct. I'm a techie, as evidenced by many of my posts (including my very first post in GAW that I posted in T_D and everyone told me to post it here, a 17 page report and my analysis of it from CISA.)
I saw this on HN and it was one of those Holy Shit moments that I felt was worth posting here. I didn't feel I could add anything more than what the author did in his explanation and warning.
It's the article headline. But thanks for watching out for another anon's privacy.
Firefox had an issue back in May 2019 where all extensions were disabled due to an expired certificate. I wonder now if that was a WH op? https://archive.li/5kLuO
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, although the person who wrote the article is salty about it.
Firefox blocking untrustworthy extensions from running on sites like your bank, or gmail etc., is good for the user.
Now imagine you've got a TOR extension running and Mozilla decides to silently uncloak all visitors to GAW. Similar malicious shenanigans can happen with other extensions engaged in privacy actions.
But Mozilla literally has instructions showing you how to disable the feature, and they're not hiding that it exists
Why would you use a tor extension or regular Firefox? That's why the Tor browser exists.
Tor is downstream of Firefox, which means that "features" get incorporated into it.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Surely the Tor browser is designed to be more secure than mainstream Firefox, are you suggesting that the Tor browser is now compromised?
I'm not suggesting that it is now compromised, but that one should keep an eye on this development to make sure it doesn't get incorporated.