In general, Tor Browser doesn't write any history to disk - by design.
If you look in about:config at settings whether to use disk cache, it
should be set to false.
browser.cache.disk.enable;false
If you have enough RAM, you can do the same in regular Firefox. Allow
enough memory to handle
I think of how people actually use a product, which is usually not with all
recommendations applied. There's good reason for using Tor even with an
ordinary OS and Tor Project supports use with Windows and MacOS as well as
Linux and Android, with Linux not limited to Tails
On 10/12/2018 01:47 PM, Nick Levinson wrote:
>> This is the use case for Tails. . . . [T]here are no writes to storage,
>> unless users configure [otherwise] . . . .
>
> One need not use Tails to use Tor (I used to sometimes use Tor and never used
> Tails), so, while Tails may be a good idea,
add the updated tests , the wiki even accept anonymous edits.
you can discuss that openly in the forum of Whonix as well.
(though, i dont see much changes that would make Tor safer only through
the amnesic usage)
intrigeri:
> bo0od:
>> There is a full comparison of Tails and Whonix (persistent
bo0od:
> There is a full comparison of Tails and Whonix (persistent virtual OS)
> can be found here:
> https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Comparison_with_Others#Introduction
FTR the Tails part of that page is quite outdated.
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or
Not really Tor is the best practice using it with amnesic system like
Tails due to the guards entry issue ..
There is a full comparison of Tails and Whonix (persistent virtual OS)
can be found here:
Clearnet Link:-
https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Comparison_with_Others#Introduction
Onion Link:-
> This is the use case for Tails. . . . [T]here are no writes to storage,
> unless users configure [otherwise] . . . .
One need not use Tails to use Tor (I used to sometimes use Tor and never used
Tails), so, while Tails may be a good idea, the question remains for Tor and
its security
On 10/05/2018 05:19 PM, Nick Levinson wrote:
> This replies to a September 26 post with the same title.
> It took some effort to find the bug in FF, it took some more effort
> to convince people at FF that data is persistently stored, and a FF
> derivative is being used in Tor, so I would not
This replies to a September 26 post with the same title.
Thank you; I was unaware of the division. No, in the past I was using Tor as if
it is a browser, so I was using the browser it comes with. I did not try to use
it with any other browser.
I did not know if Tor's browser uses Firefox's
Sorry for this (one) top post - just wanted you & any others new to the
Tor Browser & the whole family of software from Tor Project, not to be
misinformed.
You cited a cookie or history issue in Firefox. You expected Firefox
history - accumulated during NON-private browsing, to be
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018, 2:01:04 AM EDT, Joe wrote:
> * * * * *> Is the claim that Firefox (vs. TorBrowser, based on Firefox esr
version) stores visited URLs in places.sqlite regardless of settings under >
Privacy & Security? > The subject of this message is confusing. Is it asking
I understand Tor is based on Firefox. I haven't had Tor recently, but that was
my impression when I did use it. If it is and if you don't read all of the
Firefox Bugzilla bugs implicating security, please look at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1476152 and consider weighing in
as
12 matches
Mail list logo
