Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] Icecat clear downloads unexpectedly destructive

[Mart Rootamm]

The workaround would be to move all downloads to another folder, and
then clear the list.
In addition, the "clear history" setting at exit shouldn't affect downloads.

-M.

2016-11-15 1:39 GMT+02:00, J.H. :
> Icecat android : no option to.remove items from
> download list only;
> clear downloads actually ERASES THE VERY DOWNLOADS from storage.
> - that doesn't correspond to desktop version behaviour at all
> - you wouldn't expect any than the download history affected by an option
> under the privacy menu
> - no confirmation dialog neither.
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[bch]

Hello all

I'm not 'voting' as I do not fully understand what is going on to cause all
the debate and argument.

I started using Icecat as I felt I had a noticeable performance improvement
over the over offerings.
Since then it has not updated much and appears to be well behind the
Firefox base at least.

Just in general to the recent discussions on "what happens to Icecat next
(if anything)"
I like to choose what add-ons I want (or want to 'turn on'). Having them
automatically built in does not seem 'correct'.

Indeed, I believe it should be possible to have a performant browser that
that is cleaned of all the crud (alleged spying, tracking, questionable
code, etc) other versions may introduce and be announced as such and
perhaps released with suggestions of approved/recommended addons to improve
security/privacy. Users may wish to employ there own solutions knowing they
have a great base browser that is doing just what it should and nothing
more.

I have read that some people feel that users might not be competent enough
to know what to 'add-on' for protection and therefore feel it ought to be
built in as such. I do not subscribe to this and believe most people going
down the linux route at least (setting it up, installing, configuring etc)
will have a reasonable idea of security...especially if recommendations of
what people can do comes with it.

Just my two-penneth.

Thank you for Icecat.


Regards
Habs



On 15 November 2016 at 10:26, ng0  wrote:

> ng0  writes:
>
> > "Daniel Quintiliani"  writes:
> >
> >> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
> >>
> >> 1. Yes
> >> 2. No
> >>
> >> I vote #1
> >
> > Assuming that you mean torbrowser code, where most of it is being
> > upstreamed anyway, I vote #1
>
> I change my vote to something between #1 and #2, I can't be
> accurate at the moment.
> In general it would not matter which browser derivation icecat
> will be based on as long as more eyes are looking at its
> code. Talk is cheap action is better, but I have no time to share
> for icecat.
> No matter which code base you choose, it would be a great
> enhancement if the fingerprinting(? html5 canvas? something like
> that) addon / code would be added to icecat.
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[ng0]

ng0  writes:

> "Daniel Quintiliani"  writes:
>
>> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
>>
>> 1. Yes
>> 2. No
>>
>> I vote #1
>
> Assuming that you mean torbrowser code, where most of it is being
> upstreamed anyway, I vote #1

I change my vote to something between #1 and #2, I can't be
accurate at the moment.
In general it would not matter which browser derivation icecat
will be based on as long as more eyes are looking at its
code. Talk is cheap action is better, but I have no time to share
for icecat.
No matter which code base you choose, it would be a great
enhancement if the fingerprinting(? html5 canvas? something like
that) addon / code would be added to icecat.

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] IceCat 45 IMPORTANT consideration: Keep cookie prompt "ask me every time"

[David Hedlund]

You an now click on "Votes" and add your vote(s) on 
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?49607




On 2016-09-27 04:51, mdn wrote:

I don't understand what's the problems with cookies options.

To understand my POV I'll explain what's my experience.

I understood the problems with cookies since 2003/2004.
So in that time each time I used a browser I deleted all info in it.
Never had trouble navigating and I didn't refuse any thing (wasn't aware
enough)

In 2007 I began to use the firefox and I used the automated functions to
deleted what I did before manually.
I still accepted everything (still wasn't aware enough)


Now I just accept cookies but only for the website in use (no third
parties) and everything is still deleted.
I don't have trouble with ebay, since ebay save the basket on their
servers same thing with a lot of other services, amazon for example (if
account).

Plus µblock origin, umatrix, https everywhere, and random agent spoofer.
I just have problems with some banks because some of them use 3rd party
cookies and it's obligatory (wtf).

Something that would be useful is a container for cookies (or more).
Each container opened can only have access to it's own container.

In "Nightly" they introduced "containers tabs" it's seems that these
container can do the functions that I have talked about but when I look at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers

The big problem of the actual container is that you can't make your own
personalised containers.

Also one function by default that could be good in icecat is to put the
"Portable document Format (PDF)" in the application menu in the
preferences, under the "always ask" action.

Good night.


Le 24/09/2016 09:04, Narcis Garcia a écrit :

The only fault I see in Cookie Monster is the lack of an "About" option
to see version & license.

Cookie Monster is oriented in the best way I believe: the 3rd party and
the domains
Cookies are not simply cookies: the bad ones are set from different
origins than user has asked to visit.

eBay, Amazon, AliExpress and maybe others should change their security
policies (security for visitor) and allow responsible users to use their
services.


El 24/09/16 a les 01:16, David Hedlund ha escrit:

David, have you tried "Cookie Monster", or any other similar add-on?

This is my conclusion regarding cookie add-ons that I evaluated in
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:IceCat_extensions_(proposed)


* I use Self-destructing cookies as recommended in the link mentioned in
the first post of this thread.
* Privacy Badger is useful to reject untrusted cookies, keep in mind
that this add-on still is in alpha stage.
* Cookie Monster (CM) rejects 3rd-party cookies by default so you have
to whitelist a lot of domains using CDN domains with CM. This applies to
all the big sites like eBay, Amazon, and AliExpress. This take to much
work for me as there are no editable whitelist like in Self-destructing
cookies. The developer of CM have a copy of this email though.


--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org




--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org


--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] Icecat future development

[Mart Rootamm]

I don't support..
..using Torbrowser as a base, because it is its own thing now. Since
torbrowser upstreams many of its patches, then it's just as good to
take stuff from upstream, as I see the requirement for a
general-purpose browser that's better, of less bloat, and has slightly
better security than vanilla firefox (aka upstream).

Because if IceCat were advertised as "This is just like Torbrowser",
or "Based on Torbrowser code", then this would give privacy-minded,
but mostly uninformed people a false sense of security.

That us why Torbrowser is separate, and should stay as such.

-M.

2016-11-15 9:05 GMT+02:00, David Hedlund :
> Vote for ng0's proposal on https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?49604
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org