exactly, no need for tor button. no need also to upgrade from 98se, except tor developers are too lazy to code properly.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:24:27 -0500, "Ted Smith" <[email protected]> said: > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 18:17 -0500, Ringo Kamens wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > It absolutely would. Here are some things TorButton defends against that > > wouldn't be covered in your scenario: > > > > 1. Unauthenticated Updates > > 2. CSS Tracking (I think it does anyways) > > 3. Flash and auto-opening of files > > 4. Browser referral and user-agent tracking > > > > Ringo > > > To be fair, though, 1, 3, and 4 could be configured away in default > FireFox. Updates can be disabled, flash can be removed, files can be set > to "ask", referrals can be disabled, and UA can be modified in firefox > or in Privoxy. > > > Freemor wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:50:27 -0500 > > > Roger Dingledine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > (You need Torbutton 1.2 on Firefox to > > >> have any chance of safe browsing.) > > >> > > > > > > I know that his is a bit off topic so apologies in advance, > > > By the above are you saying that a FF with 0 plugins, 0 extensions, > > > cookies and javascript disables running under its own profile would > > > still be less safe then a loaded browser with Tor button? If so, could > > > you please point me to documentation of the vulnerabilities that Tor > > > button would cover but the completely feature denuded FF would not. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Freemor > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFJkgr26pWcWSc5BE4RAlYQAJ9TOKq7u9nN9ln3Gg30untzQoTD9QCgrxoA > > Hy4PCsUUxxiakGlOQvXr4rw= > > =Q2h7 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be
