I sometimes see it suggested but never justified. That said, I’m tired of this FUD that LW can’t be trusted with updates. Projects like Brave or Vanadium have proven themselves, so we carefully recommend them. This is a valid concern, and the most we can ask for is a dev team that proves their ability to push timely updates. Being a software fork, it will be behind in updates, which is a security risk. FF requires changing preferences as well – arguably far more extensively – so this criticism doesn’t hold up if FF is to be recommended. isn’t set properly by default (Google Safebrowsing, etc).īy definition, this can be changed by the user.Also, after removing uBO, any Manifest v2 extensions must be added manually, so any risks around that apply to FF as well. Many necessary security settings for FF, such as enabling HTTPS everywhere, are harder and more hidden than that. Ignoring the fact that the arkenfox project (which I see cited here as the alternative to using LW) profusely recommends using uBO, removing it is a simple 2-click process if you don’t want it. it bundles uBlock Origin, which uses Manifest v2 and increases attack surface.So then, what exactly are the downgrades LW makes from FF? Here’s the main points I see brought up here, and my response to each: And if Firefox is secure enough to recommend, then a fork like LibreWolf must make significant enough regressions to lose that status. If LibreWolf is too insecure to recommend simply because it’s not Chromium, then so is Firefox. I’m also no expert so please correct me if I misspeak.įirstly, please stop comparing LibreWolf to Chromium based browsers. It appears a decision has been made, but as a LibreWolf enjoyer I wanted to respond to the dialogue I’m seeing here. It is definitely a trade-off either way you go, I think our preference is just for the former over the latter. IIRC Librewolf fell behind on updates for longer than that at one point. On the other hand, Librewolf guarantees that all updates will have their privacy settings configured by default by Librewolf developers, however you are not guaranteed upstream features and security updates in a timely manner… 1-3 days is not usually significant, although it can be, and it’s never guaranteed to be that short of a turnaround. You’re correct in that future privacy settings will not be configured, however you are guaranteed to receive future privacy-related features and security updates provided by Mozilla immediately as they are released. Best regards.įirefox is releasing updates, and it is possible that over time new privacy/security features will emerge in the browser, and if Arkenfox does not update the user.js according to those new features, or if it stops supporting those settings, the counter-criticism falls by itself. I will keep looking for tools and ideas to contribute to PrivacyGuides. Anyway, and seeing that my proposal was rejected, I would like to thank you for the time you have dedicated to this thread. The only criticism that I see relatively valid (although I personally always like to appeal to the individual responsibility of the user) is that the program does not update automatically on Windows. On the other hand, as for the criticism about the time that occurs between Mozilla releases new versions of Firefox and the Librewolf team releases the corresponding version of your browser, at least on Windows and Linux, these times are always around 1~3 days, a really small time considering that the team has one developer per platform, although it will be long to meet your demands. I’m not entirely convinced by the argument, because at the end of the day, Firefox is releasing updates, and it is possible that over time new privacy/security features will emerge in the browser, and if Arkenfox does not update the user.js according to those new features, or if it stops supporting those settings, the counter-criticism falls by itself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |