You too!

However, would you be able to confidently claim that nothing found within is relevant today?

No, not what I said. As said, there was no debunk and there were pretty hefty claims with a lot of backing facts.

These are old but I read a ton of Mozilla bugs, and even reported some security relevant ones.

So I know that even security relevant things may just get ignored or postponed.

However, apart from CHEF-KOCH, I couldn’t find anything on this matter.

Yeah same here. I was contributing a bit to secureblue when it was just starting, and qoijjj found the Chromium policies on some raaandom strange website for Windows Chrome group policies? It is crazy, these things are just not documented.

This CHEF-KOCH dude, I also dont know what to think.

Not being discoverable is nice, I recently decided to use a consistent username, as I kinda stopped being a noob all the time. It improves trust somehow.

Mozilla and TBB people have threads.

• bug about flatpak firefox security concerns
• bug about the same thing, older
• TorBrowser discussion about using hardened_malloc, including infos about mozjemalloc

No way…

LOL

I just told a guy that he shouldnt use yum anymore. While he was using dnf all the time.

Does that mean yum too?

Please just duckduckgo these questions.

The article is from an old date and got no updates, security is a moving target so it is outdated.

a debunk is not existent, thats why I miss it.

I requested such an article of Mozilla devs long ago. There is a damn bugzilla thread, which helps a bit, but it needs developer documentation or something.

Torbrowser needs to be secure. If the browser source cannot be trusted, or if Mozilla can be trusted more, then it makes sense to use it.

Wireguard has performance improvements at the cost of NEEDING to store client data longer.

This.

This is a specific case.

I think “reversed” and “opposite” makes no sense here.

Librewolf copies the Torbrowser or Arkenfox patches, maybe adding their own ones, maybe not. Arkenfox is a 1:1 copy of Torbrowser to my knowledge, without using private browsing.

As you dont have Cookie Containers, the “being more private” or “anti fingerprinting” is a very vague statement. If you use your browser for a single website then yes maybe.

Strange, yes you are right

The article is very outdated and possibly not complete. ChromeOS uses Linux so you can assume it is very secure there.

I miss a debunk on the exact points by firefox devs.

But people everywhere told me madaidans article is not correct. Torbrowser also still doesnt use Chromium for various reasons. And that is the most security critical browser there is.

Classic

This. Fixed it up

Ublue’s

I hate apostrophes :/

If you do interesting stuff, use a good VPN. But those will also have to either delete their logs (Wireguard is actually worse here) or be brave.

Or Tor…

Nobody asking themselves how they got all these details of that person?

Reddit doesnt require a full name.

So this is actually fake news.

Wow.

Secureblue ships Chromium, is lead by a single person and does not care about privacy “if it leads to worse security” (i.e. preinstalling Chromium and removing Firefox, even though there is no evidence that Chromium is more secure, it may likely be less secure)

Well either uBlue’s “variant focus” got too much or you are just really lazy

Librewolf uses Torbrowser configs, Mull uses the Torbrowser repo and entire config.

Torbrowser always uses the private browsing mode, which is really restrictive. Tabgroups do not work, cookies cannot be saved etc.

This makes MullvadBrowser way worse for daily browsing.

Torbrowser cannot use normal browsing mode, because they want to avoid saving data on the disk. Everything is in RAM.