this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
179 points (98.4% liked)

Firefox

17903 readers
92 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I agree it's much less egregious than the other examples in case of Librewolf, but I don't like the dependency on Mozilla addon servers by default. Mozilla has already shown themselves to be bad actors, and I'm not totally trusting of their repositories, even if ublock or whomever else has done nothing wrong. If it wants to fetch extensions by default, I would at the very least hope they incorporate some sort of checksum verification against an extension compiled/copied from ublock's source.

There's also the problem of extensions auto-updating, which is problematic for security for hopefully obvious reasons.

Librewolf is the arguably best privacy browser. You haven’t named anything better.

I named qutebrowser in my first post. Privacy and security can (and should) come from outside of the browser, through system-wide dns blocking and firewalling. Inside the browser, there's domain-specific script toggling, as well as userscripts. There's also torsocks if you trust tor. If a user decides to use 3rd party firefox extensions, that's up to them; but I don't think it should be a default.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What are you going to use outside of the add-on store? At the end of the day no ones going to move unless they do something really bad.

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

What are you going to use outside of the add-on store?

Userscripts, usually from greasyfork. Some popular extensions can be installed as userscripts (not ublock or umatrix unfortunately, though in the case of qutebrowser it's own internal tooling can be configured to fit these usecases to some degree).