Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox 120 Ready With Global Privacy Control, WebAssembly GC On By Default

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by jabl View Post

    I recall reading somewhere that it's recommended to turn off DNT, as it's yet another bit websites will use to fingerprint you. Thus making it easier to track you, doh!
    The best way to go about it would probably be to just leave it unchanged, on if it's on by default, off if it's off by default. That way you're seen as just a random user using the default settings of your browser, instead of belonging to that special minority of people who care enough (and are knowledgeable enough) to go into the settings and change it.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by jabl View Post
      I'm not a web developer so I might be talking out of my ass, but it seems to me while there might be good usecases for this, it also seems to be yet another tool in the box for websites to implement some kind of "Think you can cheat by doing something else while we play this obnoxious ad? Ha ha, no dice!" behavior.
      This.

      This goes beyond just being a small privacy nuisance. It's an actual nuisance.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by jabl View Post

        I'm not a web developer so I might be talking out of my ass, but it seems to me while there might be good usecases for this, it also seems to be yet another tool in the box for websites to implement some kind of "Think you can cheat by doing something else while we play this obnoxious ad? Ha ha, no dice!" behavior.
        They can already do that and have been able to for years. This is about two questions: "Has the user clicked on anything since the page loaded?" (sticky interaction) and "Are we inside a handler for a keypress/mouse-click event right now?" (transient interaction)

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by jabl View Post
          I'm not a web developer so I might be talking out of my ass, but it seems to me while there might be good usecases for this, it also seems to be yet another tool in the box for websites to implement some kind of "Think you can cheat by doing something else while we play this obnoxious ad? Ha ha, no dice!" behavior.
          exactly.

          next step are APIs that use the webcam to tell if the user is actually watching and paying attention.

          Comment


          • #25
            If we could get rid of scripts on the web that would be great. Complex CSS already got rid of a lot of JS bloat. Now we just need html variables or something that can be updated through a link or button loading a html patcher, replacing AJAX. I feel like in the recent years we got so much APIs and APP stuff just to take control from the user, spy on you and force ads. Want anything more? Run a real program and not an inefficient web app.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by avis View Post
              I don't know if it's placebo or not but to me Firefox 120 feels quite snappier than 119.

              Nothing about that in the release notes, so I might be hallucinating:

              https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by cj.wijtmans View Post
                If we could get rid of scripts on the web that would be great. Complex CSS already got rid of a lot of JS bloat. Now we just need html variables or something that can be updated through a link or button loading a html patcher, replacing AJAX. I feel like in the recent years we got so much APIs and APP stuff just to take control from the user, spy on you and force ads. Want anything more? Run a real program and not an inefficient web app.
                i 100% agree with you.
                unfortunately the trend is more and more moving things on the web and making more and more code running inside the browser (just thinking to WASM).

                beside being inefficient and ugly, it's a (undesiderable) going back to the mainframe-era paradigm.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Michael

                  my email to [email protected]:

                  Multible Phoronix.com forum users infected with Trojan because of zeroday Vulnerability in Firefox version 119 and firefox-language package.
                  Attackers did spread links in the forum to infected webservers with fraudulent intel cpu benchmarks.
                  You should warn your audience and delete the dangerous forum links. they did post the links in multible forum topics about amd threadripper 7000.​
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by qarium View Post
                    Michael

                    my email to [email protected]:

                    Multible Phoronix.com forum users infected with Trojan because of zeroday Vulnerability in Firefox version 119 and firefox-language package.
                    Attackers did spread links in the forum to infected webservers with fraudulent intel cpu benchmarks.
                    You should warn your audience and delete the dangerous forum links. they did post the links in multible forum topics about amd threadripper 7000.​
                    Anywhere we can read up on the exploit in question? I know I haven't clicked any links like that, but I'm curious whether having uMatrix apply Javascript whitelisting and running Firefox inside Flatpak would have tripped it up.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Flaburgan View Post
                      Pity it's nightly-only and doesn't show release versions.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X