Librefox, mainstream Firefox with a better privacy and security

github.com/intika/Librefox/

Thoughts?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (964x512 36.39 KB, 41.11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/Djwrr
archive.fo/4TE4u
addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/browser-plugs-privacy-firewall/
web.archive.org/web/20181225151747/https://www.intika.be/
archive.fo/5bfR4
archive.fo/kPa2t
archive.fo/TSd1a
archive.fo/mXLFF
ffprofile.com/
github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

could be great base for TorBrowser

are there people stupid enough to browse web in clearnet?

STOP
ENOUGH
NO MORE BROWSER THREADS

How is this different from GNU icecat

Isn't this just icecat?

Yeah, normal people.

Learn to read you bumb faggots

wew

Attached: gno.jpg (683x448, 29.43K)

Icecat and tor are the only forks that we need.

‍>90% of our computer use is spent in a browser. It's an important subject.

If you say so, FBI

Literally fucking botnet, they didn't disable CSS2 or the countless backdoors in the source.

Give some examples, asshole.

I still want XUL, so I won't be switching. I would hope that projects like this would give mozilla a kick in the pants, to realize that people still care about privacy, but if they haven't noticed yet, I don't think anything will.
This is more interesting. I saw anons on nanochan complain about tbbs defaults (eg noscript instead of umatrix). I wonder if it will be a good idea to use this instead or if you will be fingerprinted.

Mozilla doesn't give a fuck about users
Mozilla management is being bribed by (((them))) in order to sabotage browser and make all people migrate to (((Google Chrome))).

I did you giant retard I justed typoed it too. CSS3 is the backdoor you faggot. You can disable javascript, enable adblocks, enable all the about:config privacy settings, and block images. But unless you edit it directly out of the source code CSS3 has known vulnerabilities like this archive.fo/Djwrr , and this archive.fo/4TE4u making it fucking botnet. So don't use a browser like firefox 52+, chrome, or oprea's recent versions or their forks like librebrowser that include said exploits. Try palemoon 27 which doesn't have any of that botnet.

Using a pile of shit as a foundation is still using a pile of shit as a foundation.

Why didn't they just do this with fagmoon?

How are the performances?

BOTNET CONFIRMEDD

You were quicker than me OP.
Anyway, Mozilla has been ruining Firefox for far too long ... I'll support it however I can

Discard this comment.

Good links, thanks. I'll try to compile it out of Tor Browser...

They really should have... Mozilla has ruined the browser beyond repair.

nah pass, i'll just use ungoogled chromium appimage inside firejail.

Meh.

Attached: this_image_is_not_relevant.png (680x383, 332.6K)

the browser situation is important, everything is bad.

>addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/browser-plugs-privacy-firewall/
µmatrix or µblock origin, when used correctly, does a better work.
Proprietary, botnet.
µmatrix or µblock origin, when used correctly, does a better work.
Dead project and useless.
µmatrix when configured correctly does a better work.
Dangerous, better to use the "-ProfileManager" option.
This "librefox" is just bullshit.

Thanks, also:
And no uBlock Origin or uMatrix installed by default with sane defaults.

µmatrix or µblock origin, when used correctly, does a better work.

...

This.

Doesn't ungoogled chromium has issues like not updating extensions and not properly deleting local storage?

will it support windows 7?

Gecko engine is irredeemable, stop using it.

THE DEV OF THIS PROJECT IS A SHITSKIN
web.archive.org/web/20181225151747/https://www.intika.be/

archive.fo/5bfR4

archive.fo/kPa2t

archive.fo/TSd1a

THAT SHITSKIN STARTED SHILLING THIS ON LEDDIT A FEW DAYS AGO, WHICH LED TO OP CREATING THIS VERY THREAD AND GHACKS PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE ON THIS PROJECT THE NEXT DAY

Attached: intika.logo.png (320x272, 45.15K)

I got from HN actually

Nice try, NSA.

Post an alternative if you're any better.

...

dillo

Does a good browser exist?

ungoogled-chromium

though it's still based on chromium - the real problem is the duopoly of google and mozilla

...

Does it fix all the broken XUL add-ons? Or am I still stuck using Pale Moon?

Here's that Hacker Jews thread:
archive.fo/mXLFF
Shitskin has not only made more than one account there but also French is his first language.


No XUL support sorry so continue to enjoy furrybrowser


Why you didn't call out all the recent larping shit on this entire board?

Whats the point of this when GNU Icecat exists?

pyllyukko userscript
pylly = butt
ukko = old geezer

What about editing the omni.ja archives?

I just discovered that reading feature lists can induce erections.

fuck off

If you insist on Firefox, just use ffprofile.
ffprofile.com/

But I do recommend other original browsers like netsurf and dillo.
They may not be suitable for all sites, but they work quite well for a lot.

Then you can have firefox as a fallback.

I hear nothing but buzzwords and placebo except for "telemetry and similar functions are disabled", which you can just do yourself.

Nice to see work being done.

Fuck off you despicable furry faggot.
That project is pure cancer and everybody knows it.

I don't seen a problem here.
If anything, his contributions to ungoogled-chrome show that he is serious about his commitment.
What is your point, exactly?

Not the user you are responding, but... Then what better option that let you have good addons is then? I use Palemoon because is good enough, while letting me use Ublock (Not origins, too bad) and Noscript; And by being a browser that isnt too autisic, or restrictive. Any better alternative would be apreciated, but until then, I cant see why bother to go back to Firefox vanilla.

I can't supply any alternatives, just dislike the palemoon project immensely because of the personality cult and inflated ego these folks carry around:
github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

See

Both of you can go straight to hell. The end product matters. The project does not, not unless you intend on contributing to it.

Firefox sucks because they turned their back on their core principles and turned into an also-ran Chrome clone. Palemoon, furfaggotry aside, is keeping the idea of a customizable browser for power users alive.

It really isn't hard to improve your situation, regardless of what browser you prefer. Read the guides on mitigating the issues on Pale Moon or Firefox (both can be immensely improved), otherwise look into Ungoogled-Chromium or Icecat. There are also a number of addons that people still don't know about - secret agent which spoofs just about anything that can be, decentraleyes, umatrix, to name a few. spyware.neocities.org is the place to go to learn a bit more about each browser, and digdeeper.neocities.org for other information.

Secondly, if you are using a single browser for all your needs, you don't really deserve any kind of privacy. Split up your habits, however unevenly, between different browsers and force yourself to stick to a regime. Only pure laziness defeats this system.

Waterfox is OK, better than palememe or firefox.

How is Waterfox better than Palemoon?

You do realize that Firefox is as customizable as always. The source code is open and ready for everybody to study how it works.

Attached: its open source bro just check the source.png (334x414, 13.98K)

Learn the difference between the web rendering engine and the UI. The UI is still written in XUL. The UI code is a tiny fraction of the codebase when compared to the rendering engine.

The main problem is with value selection of text boxes by CSS. Why is CSS alowed to do that?
It could be easily fixed or one could just load all images on load instead of making a request when it's changing.

Attribute selectors are cancer anyways and only used for styled checkboxes etc.
We can live without them.

fug I replied to myself

babys first attempt at defending open source

>But unless you edit it directly out of the source code CSS3 has known vulnerabilities like this archive.fo/Djwrr
Is anyone surprised that this is caused by yet another C/C++ integer overflow bug, only a month after that systemd bug?

Errors like integer overflow and divide by zero used to be trapped by hardware, so there is only a slowdown when it actually happens, which is rare. Instead, C makes you manually slow down all your code just in case, and it can't even do it by checking the CPU's overflow flag because C's "portable" to shitty hardware like RISCs that have no overflow flag because they're designed for C and UNIX and C has no way to check an overflow flag ("at least the weenix unies know how to USE recursion!").

Ada, PL/I, Burroughs Algol, BASIC, Lisp, and many other languages have integer overflow checking, array bounds checking, and the ability to handle and recover from the errors at run-time. In Ada, this bug would be caught at compile time because 16-bit and 32-bit integers are different types and they would probably use a user-defined type anyway.

>and this archive.fo/4TE4u
Can't the browser download all these "images" when the page loads like said? The only downside is that sites that use this "technique" would be slower, but they're either using this hack or really shitty web design, so they deserve to be slow.

Why am I retraining myself in Ada? Because since 1979 Ihave been trying to write reliable code in C. (Definition:reliable code never gives wrong answers without an explicitapology.) Trying and failing. I have been frustrated tothe screaming point by trying to write code that couldsurvive (some) run-time errors in other people's code linkedwith it. I'd look wistfully at BSD's three-argument signalhandlers, which at least offered the possibility of providehardware specific recovery code in #ifdefs, but grit myteeth and struggle on having to write code that would workin System V as well.There are times when I feel that clocks are running fasterbut the calendar is running backwards. My first seriousprogramming was done in Burroughs B6700 Extended Algol. Igot used to the idea that if the hardware can't give you theright answer, it complains, and your ON OVERFLOW statementhas a chance to do something else. That saved my bacon morethan once.When I met C, it was obviously pathetic compared with the_real_ languages I'd used, but heck, it ran on a 16-bitmachine, and it was better than 'as'. When the VAX cameout, I was very pleased: "the interrupt on integer overflowbit is _just_ what I want". Then I was very disappointed:"the wretched C system _has_ a signal for integer overflowbut makes sure it never happens even when it ought to".

The latest idea is to build machines (RISC machines withregister windows) which are designed specifically for Cprograms and unix (just check out the original Berkeley RISCpapers if you don't believe me: it was a specific designgoal). Now, people tell me that the advantage of a Sun overa Lisp machine is that it's a general-purpose machine ("Ofcourse it's general purpose." they say. "Why it even runsunix.").Hmm, well this example shows that at least the weenix uniesknow how to USE recursion!

based

That's not how you spell "waterfox" user.

This isn't a fork. It's just a script to patch the original Firefox.


>use (((palemoon)))
Kys


It's not as outdated and doesn't default to botnet webpages. But it's still placebo shit.

The only thing to defend is the accusation that Firefox doesn't cater to power users. This is false because the source code is available to all. All power users have complete control over what their version of Firefox will do.

I don't know how people can get riled up so much over what browser to use. One thing that is good with librefox is that you can randomize canvas fingerprints, blocks getbbox and textlength and provides font and glyph fingerprinting. Browser fingerprinting is the biggest privacy issue imho

Attached: 80074_1452456394.png (700x700, 362.43K)

i wan 2 fug sakurako

Seriously, using any library version but the ones specified is insanity, doing it silently to someone else's program borders on sabotage.
Completely unsurprising, given the kind of pettiness that is common in Linux land.

Fuck that whole site tbh.

I don't see that, both with JS on and off.

IRC*

Attached: 5d17c241e1527df8e613eab4b93873b13bd9ae320bbcd301213a6ba1a167b865.jpg (1924x2092, 2.06M)

The out-of-the-box users should get the best configuration for their privacy right away.

this tbh
SECURE BY DEFAULT

...

No need to create a new fork. There is Icecat allready.
I guess it's a new fake-privacy browser like Waterfox.


>

The issue is not even the privacy config per se, the unconfigurable stuff is much more annoying and so is the crippling of extensions.

Like pottery

^ user is buttmad he can't even into OpenBSD

It is not common for general software to be perfect to an individual's requirements at the first version. Software has to be custom designed to the user's requirements from the beginning of development. Otherwise, a new project can be made to modify the existing general software to become perfect to the user requirements. The source code means the user should change it whenever they choose. If a software is considered spyware, then it is the user's responsibility to change it so that the spyware functions are removed.

And change it I have. It would be nice if all that work helped more than one user. What the world needs is a good config tool that makes source patching modular and easy. Like greasemonkey with repos, anyone can submit their small patches and power users can choose to change a line or two if they like the code. Then all the autistic source hacking and firefox configs can add up to something.

Enjoy no canvas fingerprint protection, unique window sizes and unique user agent

That does not excuse inserting spyware into your program.

It still exist? Firefox defaults to 64bits for a long time now

You'd have to go back before Firefox 3.5 to not have css3 support


Canvas spoofing is built in and can be enabled by an about config setting disabled by default because constant calls to canvas will slow your browser and user agents are trivial to spoof, I'm spoofing mine now. Window sizes are potentially a problem but as far as I know they're only able to be grabbed through js so you're already fucked anyway. Hell, canvas is js anyway.

This

Librefox has proprietary software inside it, it's per default settings aren't secure see post

Yeah, they're called people who aren't larpers.

Of course not. However, if developers are not working directly for you, then you get whatever they choose to give to you - they have no legal obligation to do what you ask if you're not hiring them to work for you. As a power user, you can use that flawed version as a base for your ideal version of the program.

official browser of le resistance?

Attached: 1538857877950.jpg (794x960, 31.6K)

Depending on the case, they might very well have a legal obligation not to collect user data, see GDPR.
In any case, autistically discussing legality when the main concern is on the trustworthyness of the developers is a waste of time.

My case is about how today's Firefox doesn't cater to power users. I say this is false because the source code to Firefox is available. This is important because the source code is the ultimate way to change the behavior of what the software (Firefox) will do. Power users who do not like the limitations of the webextension system can choose to modify their version of Firefox to supersede webextension. Power users who believe that Firefox is spyware can choose to modify their version of Firefox to have no spyware. I repeat it once more, the source code is the ultimate way to control what the software is doing and it's all yours to control. You just have to choose to make that investment.

why should the user be expected to fix it for free?