• @ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1385 months ago

      Advertisers track you with device fingerprinting and behaviour profiling now. Firefox doesn’t do much to obscure the more advanced methods of tracking.

        • @hoot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          615 months ago

          Lots do. But do you know anyone that turns JS off anymore? Platforms don’t care if they miss the odd user for this - because almost no one will be missed.

          • @pixelscript@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            285 months ago

            “Anymore”? I’ve never met a single soul who knows this is even possible. I myself don’t even know how to do it if I wanted to.

            I do use NoScript, which does this on a site-by-site basis, but even that is considered extremely niche. I’ve never met another NoScripter in the wild.

          • @MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            45 months ago

            uBlock origin + NoScript for me. I deal with the bigger umbrella of scripts with uBlock and then fine tune permissions to the ones that uBlock allowed with NoScript.

            They might be fingerprinting me using these two extensions though.

          • @pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 months ago

            I use LibreJS with few exceptions. If I need to use a site that requires non-free JavaScript, I’ll use a private browsing window or (preferably) Tor Browser.

        • @Septimaeus@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          85 months ago

          Not all but most, yes. But TBF, sites that still function with JS disabled tend to have the least intrusive telemetry, and might pre-date big data altogether.

          Regardless, unless the extent of a page’s analytics is a “you are the #th visitor” counter, all countermeasures must remain active.

        • @ngwoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          75 months ago

          It’s really strange how they specifically mention HTML5 canvas when you can run any fingerprinter test on the internet and see that Firefox does nothing to obfuscate that. You can run a test in Incognito mode, start a new session on a VPN, run another test, and on Firefox your fingerprint will be identical.

          • @icydefiance@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Well yeah, they’re just blocking known fingerprinting services. If you use a tool that they don’t recognize, it’ll still work, but their approach will still block the big companies that can do the most harm with that data.

            The only alternative is probably to disable WebGL entirely, which isn’t a reasonable thing to do by default.

            • Venia Silente
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              WebGL

              I wish Firefox had a per-site or per-domain preference for WebGL (as well as for wasm, etc), the same way we have per-site cookies or notifs preferences. It’d help clear most issues regarding this.

      • @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        75 months ago

        Honestly would be hard to do. There a perfectly legitimate and everyday uses for pretty much everything used in fingerprinting. Taking them away or obscuring them in one way or another would break so much.

        • Justin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          145 months ago

          Librewolf has Resist Fingerprinting which comes pretty far.

          Every Librewolf browser uses the same windows user agent, etc. But there are downsides, like time zones don’t work, and sites don’t use dark mode by default.

          And even then, EFF’s Cover Your Tracks site can still uniquely identify me, mainly through window size. That’s one of the reasons why Tor Browser uses letterboxing to make the window size consistent.

            • Justin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Oh neat! I just tried it, and it seems it’s broken on Gnome when using 125% scaling though :/ Still cool to have the feature!

              I also just figured out how to expose dark mode and my timezone though with RFP, which is useful.

          • @mitrosus@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            35 months ago

            I don’t know what letterboxing is. But if window size is used to identify me, can’t it be circumvented simply by using the window in restored size, and not maximised?

            • Venia Silente
              link
              fedilink
              English
              45 months ago

              Your restored window size is even more unique than your maximised window size!

              The correct solution is to just not make the window size available to JS or to remotes at all. There’s no reason to ever need specifics on window size other than CSS media-queries, and those can be done via profiles.

              • @mitrosus@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15 months ago

                But the restored size keeps changing - can’t be profiled, right?

                And how do I not make the size available “to JS or to remote”?

                • Venia Silente
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  15 months ago

                  Changing the source code of the browser, unfortunately. I don’t know what Tor Browser does or how, but basically you’d have to do about the same as they do.

  • ArchRecord
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3065 months ago

    For those who don’t care to read the full article:

    This basically just confines any cookies generated on a page, to just that page.

    So, instead of a cookie from, say, Facebook, being stored on site A, then requested for tracking purposes on site B, each individual site would be sent its own separate Facebook cookie, that only gets used on that site, preventing it from tracking you anywhere outside of the specific site you got it from in the first place.

    • peopleproblems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2065 months ago

      Hahahahaha so it doesn’t break anything that still relies on cookies, but neuters the ability to share them.

      That’s awesome

      • @ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        60
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Honestly, I thought that’s how it already worked.

        Edit: I think what I’m remembering is that you can define the cookies by site/domain, and restrict to just those. And normally would, for security reasons.

        But some asshole sites like Facebook are cookies that are world-readable for tracking, and this breaks that.

        Someone correct me if I got it wrong.

        • ArchRecord
          link
          fedilink
          English
          305 months ago

          Total Cookie Protection was already a feature, (introduced on Feb 23st 2021) but it was only for people using Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) on strict mode.

          They had a less powerful third-party cookie blocking feature for users that didn’t have ETP on strict mode, that blocked third party cookies on specific block lists. (i.e. known tracking companies)

          This just expanded that original functionality, by making it happen on any domain, and have it be the default for all users, rather than an opt-in feature of Enhanced Tracking Protection.

          • @ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s not what I was thinking of, which was even more fundamental. But that’s good info (and another way to cover stuff in the article).

            Edit: what I was thinking originally was really stupid, that 3rd-party cookies weren’t allowed at all. Which was really dumb since of course they are.

            • @catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              85 months ago

              No, you weren’t far off. A single site can only get and set cookies on its domain. For example, joesblog.com can’t read your Facebook session cookie, because that would mean they could just steal your session and impersonate you.

              But third-party cookies are when joesblog.com has a Facebook like button on each post. Those resources are hosted by Facebook, and when your browser makes that request, it sends your Facebook cookies to Facebook. But this also lets Facebook know which page you’re visiting when you make that request, which is why people are upset.

              With this third-party cookie blocking, when you visit joesblog.com and it tries to load the Facebook like button, either the request or just the request’s cookies will be blocked.

              Although that raises an interesting question. Facebook is at facebook.com, but its resources are all hosted under fbcdn.com. Have they just already built their site to handle this? Maybe they just don’t strictly need your facebook.com cookies to load scripts, images, etc. from fbcdn.com.

        • @Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          245 months ago

          They’ve been doing this with container tabs, so this must be the successor to that idea (I’m going to assume they’ll still have container tabs).

          • @jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            205 months ago

            Container tabs are still a thing in FF. This is based on that work, if I remember correctly.

              • Kushan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                55 months ago

                Same, they’re an absolute game changer for me. I have to use multiple different identities in work due to separate active directories and container tabs makes it super easy

          • @snaggen@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            75 months ago

            Container tabs are still useful, as they let you use multiple Cookie jars for the same site. So, it is very easy to have multiple accounts on s site.

      • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

        From my experience, blocking 3rd party cookies in general doesn’t seem to make any difference for site functionality anyways. Though I never log into sites with a Google or FB account other than Google or FB sites (and rarely at all for the latter).

    • Liam Mayfair
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      Isn’t this basically Firefox’s version of the third party cookie block that Chrome rolled out a few months ago? Or am I missing something here?

      I mean, it’s good news either way but I just want to know if this is somehow different or better.

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        105 months ago

        It increases implementation complexity of the browser and loses people who fund Firefox and contribute code $$$

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          I still much rather have it than not. It also lead to the spiritual successor GPC which does actually have regulatory requirements under the CCPA.

      • ArchRecord
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 months ago

        Disabling cross site cookies and allowing them to exist while siloed within the specific sites that need them are two different things.

        Previous methods of disabling cross site cookies would often break functionality, or prevent a site from using their own analytics software that they contracted out from a third party.

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          Thank you for your explanation, tbat greatly clears up my confusion.

          TBH, if a person’s concern is being tracked by, for example, Facebook; then this just lets Facebook continue tracking them without directly allowing Facebook’s anaylitics customers to track them to another site directly (but indirectly that information can still be provided). But I guess for all the people giving FB and Google those proviledges better to have this than not.

      • @ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        415 months ago

        As long as it’s not Chromium, I’m happy people aren’t just handing over the keys to the Internet to Google.

      • @croaker@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 months ago

        I haven’t seen anything to signal Mozilla is untrustworthy other than from that one right wing guy with a chip on his shoulder.

        • @TheFrirish@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Most of the revenue of Mozilla Corporation comes from Google (81% in 2022[2]) in exchange of making it the default search engine in Firefox.

          Source: wikipedia

          Other issues I have with Firefox is the telemetry bits, the way they handle some of their employees (laying one guy off because he has cancer), the lack of meaningful updates and features in the last decade, CEO granting herself a nice pay rise after doing well nothing really. The list goes on and on honestly.

          Don’t get me wrong, you should still use Firefox or a Firefox derived browser if you care about a free internet. I myself use firefox (although I just switched to Zen browser on my PC which is based on Firefox). However we shouldn’t be blind ourselves just because we hate anything google based and/or closed sourced. Firefox is still back by a for profit company which is, as I quoted earlier, backed at least by 80% by google.

          For the positive side now it seems that in the last 2-3 months firefox has been pumping out meaningful updates (even on mobile). Things seem to be taking a positive turn recently and I’m actually a bit excited to see where firefox is going to go from here.

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The Mozilla Corporation is a for profit entity owned by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, which lets them claim to be a nonprofit, which is a sketchy looking way to set up and promote your business if nothing else. They get most of their money from Google and they’ve been riding AI like all the other unethical companies.

          I see absolutely no reason to give them a chance, either. Just use an actual open source build instead of the mainstream one.

    • Altima NEO
      link
      fedilink
      English
      285 months ago

      A lot different. Containers act as a separate instance of Firefox. So any sites you visit within a container can see each other as if you were using a browser normally. The containers can’t see the stuff from other containers though. So you have to actively switch containers all the time to make it work right.

      This keeps cookies locked to each page that needs cookies. So a lot stronger.

      • @PeachMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I think there’s some confusion here. You’re talking about Multi-Account Containers, that person was talking about the Facebook Container. Both Firefox features with confusingly similar names, and honestly that’s on Firefox for naming them.

        Facebook Container is similar to this TCP feature, but focused on Facebook. And of course it was a separate extension, so very opt-in. Now, Firefox has rolled it out for ALL sites by default, which is awesome and SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOW COOKIES WORKED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

        • @stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Isn’t there just a non-extension container feature, I can’t tell what’s the difference between that one and multi-account containers.

    • @Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 months ago

      Yeah this basically sounds like it takes the temporary container add on that I think was folded into Firefox at some point recently and basically just does it behind the scenes now on a per domain basis

    • @snaggen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 months ago

      It is making the tracking protection part of containers obsolete, this is basically that functionality but built in and default. The containers still let you have multiple cookie jars for the same site, so they are still useful if you have multiple accounts on a site.

    • Billegh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      635 months ago

      A little. If a third party cookie is set while you’re visiting a site, only that site will get the third party cookie back. Multiple sites can have embedded content making third party cookies, and with this change firefox will track where it was made and only give it back there.

      With this change, it doesn’t matter if it’s first or third or whatever; cookies will only be given back to a site that matches much of what is in your location bar.

  • unalivejoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    285 months ago

    Mozilla completes what Google was too afraid to finish.

  • @Psythik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    28
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Is this the reason why I have to “confirm it’s you” every time I sign into a Google service now? I appreciate the fact that Firefox’s protection is so good that Google doesn’t recognize my PC anymore, but it’s extremely annoying to have to pull out my phone every time I want to watch YouTube.

    This might be what finally convinces me to ditch Google for good. Good job, Firefox devs.

      • @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        75 months ago

        I actually had a problem where on Chrome, I would be signed out of my google account every time I restart my computer, while on Firefox, everything works normally. I use Firefox now lol.

      • @Psythik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        Well have had my cookies set to delete every time I close the browser for several years now but FF only now started doing this verification thing. A week ago all I had to do was enter my email and password.

        • @xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          225 months ago

          If you’re already deleting all your cookies every time you close, then this new change should be identical to your first login of the day when your browser has no cookies. If you’re only getting 2fa requests after this change, then maybe you weren’t actually deleting every cookie, and Google was still fingerprinting you somehow.

        • @catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          85 months ago

          You may want to just use tab containers for youtube, so that it maintains your session, but also isolates it.

  • @bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    125 months ago

    I’m curious how this will affect OAuth (if at all). Does it use an offsite cookie to remember the session, or is that only created after it redirects back to the site that initiated the login?

    • @version_unsorted@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      I my experience it generally breaks it. Leveraging cookies on the auth domain is fine, but once you are redirected to another domain, that application needs to take the access and refresh tokens and manage reauthentication as a background process. Simply don’t store those things as cookies though.

      • @bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        Yeah that’s kind of what I was getting at. It’s been a while since I’ve worked with it so I couldn’t remember if it used cookies for the token exchange or some other mechanism.