dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10081
share rss forum feed


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:14
reply to Grail Knight

 

quote:
Well it is a good feature IMO abet not planned out with an eye on security yet as it is easily disabled the issue is fixing it and letting users now about the potential security issue.
Sadly Grail most ppl DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIER PRIVACY ANYMORE which is why they do things like this! (Thinking no one will say anything)


Chuck Mason

@switchvpn.com
I lost confidence in FF quite some time ago. For one, having to mess around in about:config to turn up privacy is unacceptable. for another, having pbm to be a bit of a pita instead of a simple toggle is a bit curious.

I become worried when they started their unholy alliance with Google. Anything google always raises red flags for me. I mean I can see if they worked out something with a privacy oriented site, like Duck or Ixquick, but google? Lately, having some of the best privacy addons being delisted off their addons repository is also a bit worrisome.

Then we add this HTTPS session capture rubbish, which they should have seen immediately - and don't hotfix ASAP simply adds icing to the cake. I don't trust them, and neither should you.


Grail Knight

Premium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
reply to Dude111
Well we are talking about developers here not most people.
The Fx devs have stated they will fix the issue. I do not believe the Fx devs did this because they want to weaken Fx security.
--
"Paranoia, the destroyer"


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
reply to Davesnothere

Re: Firefox 'New Tab' Feature Exposes Users' Secured Info

quote:
Is FF still as much of a memory hog as in the past ?
Is it, was it?
Open the same sites in various browsers & compare.


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Chuck Mason

Re:  

quote:
mess around in about:config
Many features in FF are purposely UI barren, you know, to "dumb down" the browser for the masses.

quote:
when they started their unholy alliance with Google
That was a long time ago.

quote:
Duck or Ixquick
And you trust them?

Going forward, FF Google searches will be done over HTTPS.
You want Duck to Ix, you are free to change to them.
You don't want Google, you are free to change from them.

quote:
some of the best privacy addons being delisted off their addons
Such as? And why were they removed?

And why would you even place trust in the addons at all?

Further browser extensions are open doors to infect users.

quote:
HTTPS session capture
It is not an HTTPS session capture feature.
It is a feature that they implemented that happened to capture HTTPS screenshots.


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
Reviews:
·PLDT
·Comcast
reply to FF4m3

Re: Firefox 'New Tab' Feature Exposes Users' Secured Info

Not sure that anyone has mention this yet. The simplest method of turning off the new tab page is found here: How do I turn the new tab page off?

This should work just fine, since clicking the images on the new tab page is the problem.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4

1 edit
Yes, it has been mentioned already (in the very first post )

EdmundGerber

join:2010-01-04
kudos:1
reply to chrisretusn
said by chrisretusn:

Not sure that anyone has mention this yet. The simplest method of turning off the new tab page is found here: How do I turn the new tab page off?

This should work just fine, since clicking the images on the new tab page is the problem.

Exactly. Although, someone could come along and turn that back on. I don't let people I don't trust access my 'puter, so I don't worry about that so much. Your solution is all I did the first day I spotted this new 'feature'....

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
reply to chrisretusn
said by chrisretusn:

... turning off the new tab page is found here: How do I turn the new tab page off?

It seemed to me that this turns of the new tab page only. But what was unclear to me is whether or not the snapshots of visited web pages were continuing to be taken and deposited in the user's cache.

I want the snapshot thing shut off too. Whether the new tab page is on or off, I don't want any snapshots available.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

Now THAT's efficient use of space !

Thanks. I want the page displayed as large as possible while maintaining FF funtional access.
said by Davesnothere:

Is FF still as much of a memory hog as in the past ?

Glad you asked...

Full info & test results for the following @ Lifehacker: Browser Speed Tests: Chrome 19, Firefox 13, Internet Explorer 9, and Opera 12 - 12 Jun 2012:
said by Lifehacker :

Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs Open) Winner: Firefox!
Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs and Five Extensions) Winner: Firefox!

We debated ditching "overall scores" this time around, since it becomes harder and harder to tally them up fairly, and it's more important to look at each individual category than it is some arbitrary score. But everyone likes a winner, so we've kept this section at the end for those of you handing out trophies, and the scores are:

Firefox: 81%
Opera: 68%
Chrome: 62%
Internet Explorer: 41%



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to EdmundGerber
said by EdmundGerber:

Although, someone could come along and turn that back on. I don't let people I don't trust access my 'puter, so I don't worry about that so much.

Suggest that users also add the following items to 'user.js'. This prevents accidental changes due to updates, addons, etc.

user_pref("browser.newtab.url", about:blank);
user_pref("browser.newtabpage.enabled", false);
user_pref("services.sync.prefs.sync.browser.newtabpage.enabled", false);


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
Reviews:
·PLDT
·Comcast
reply to darcilicious
said by darcilicious:

Yes, it has been mentioned already (in the very first post )

By golly is sure was.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless

1 recommendation

reply to EdmundGerber
said by EdmundGerber:

I don't let people I don't trust access my 'puter, so I don't worry about that so much.

I understand where you're coming from but...
The point that should be made, especially in a security forum isn't about 'us" though.
Not directed at you at all EdmundGerber See Profile, but shouldn't security be about protecting the average, not computer security literate user?
IMO, setting it as default is not a 'feature', it's a security hole for the average end user & if not the average user who is it that we are protecting?
From a purely security view I'm not convinced that it should be a feature at all, let alone the default.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:6
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

Glad you asked...

Full info & test results for the following @ Lifehacker: Browser Speed Tests: Chrome 19, Firefox 13, Internet Explorer 9, and Opera 12 - 12 Jun 2012:

said by Lifehacker :

Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs Open) Winner: Firefox!
Memory Usage (with Nine Tabs and Five Extensions) Winner: Firefox!

We debated ditching "overall scores" this time around, since it becomes harder and harder to tally them up fairly, and it's more important to look at each individual category than it is some arbitrary score. But everyone likes a winner, so we've kept this section at the end for those of you handing out trophies, and the scores are:

Firefox: 81%
Opera: 68%
Chrome: 62%
Internet Explorer: 41%

This new feature of tricking the user into thinking their tabs are fully loaded is just that... a trick. I want all tabs fully loaded before I use the browser. I don't mind waiting for them to load. I am referring to cold restore. I don't use cold boot so could care less which browser is fastest then. I usually tell Session Manager to restore the last session (occasionally some other session) but I never tell it to start a new session. That's on Fx and SM. Opera 12 is awful now for cold restore. It used to be fast. I hate being tricked into thinking all tabs are fully loaded when they are not at all on Opera 12. I still can't use Opera until all tabs fully load because so much CPU is used to restore the tabs. Maybe when I get a new computer that will not be a problem. But then I don't want anything loading in the background (this is one reason I turn off crap like defrag in the background and indexing in the background). Opera tries to second guess me as to which tabs to load first. It is not possible to always correctly second guess humans and what they want (when that becomes possible then machines will have won and humans will cease to exist) so I don't see the point as Opera chooses the wrong tabs to load first and the feature is useless anyway because I still have to wait for all tabs to fully load to use Opera! I watch Task Manager, which I always have running in the systray, and wait until CPU usage is normal again before trying to use Opera.

I wonder on Fx 13 what happens when you use some tab extension (s) or some session manager extension? (I have Fx 10 ESR). I assume it/they take/s over and then it doesn't matter what Fx 13 has done as far as just loading one or two tabs fully. TBE loads the tabs one after another, I have to wait through 30-50 tabs loading before I can use Fx. But that is ok because I have a desktop that is rarely rebooted/booted and I seldom close Fx or my other browsers. It looks to me like this feature is designed for laptop users.

I was puzzled by Life Hacker's results for Chrome for cold restore. I stopped using Iron awhile back as it was causing my computer to crash but when I was using Iron, I was impressed with Iron being fast for cold restore. Maybe that has changed in later versions or maybe Life Hacker's tests would be different if run on XP.

On a lighter note, are there no superstitious users? Why use Fx 13 at all? Why didn't Mozilla just skip "13"?
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

3 edits
said by Mele20:

This new feature of tricking the user into thinking their tabs are fully loaded is just that... a trick....

....Maybe that has changed in later versions or maybe Life Hacker's tests would be different if run on XP.

On a lighter note, are there no superstitious users? Why use Fx 13 at all? Why didn't Mozilla just skip "13"?

 
& Trix R 4 Kids ! [Silly Wabbit]

While I appreciate the link to those tests, can anyone show us tests comparing all of the newcomers to IE8 (as IE9 is a bad joke, IMNSHO), and with using XP with SP3 for all tests ?

Also, show us tests with mem-hog pages like those at at »www.pcmag.com

Show us tests of pages with lotsa FLASH.

Show us tests of 50+ pages at a time - simultaneously, even. [Snagglepuss]

THEN we'll see who's who !

[sarcasm]
As for skipping 13 - don't worry, they WILL - or it will SEEM like it - just like they skipped 5 thru 12 instead of calling each of them 4-point-something-or-other !
[/sarcasm]

EDIT : to add sarcasm tags

--

We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !


InvisiBill

join:2004-12-01
Saranac, MI
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

Is FF still as much of a memory hog as in the past ?

That has been my main reason for using it less and less.

A lot of work has gone into improving Firefox's memory usage in the past few versions. Check out the MemShrink project. Firefox is on par with or better than other current browsers in most cases. Since they're all different programs written differently, exact memory usage will depend on exactly how you're using the browser. With X number of tabs open, Chrome may be better than Firefox. With Y number of tabs open, Firefox may be better than Chrome. When this plugin or that plugin is in use, this browser or that browser may be better. The best test is really to try them yourself with the stuff you're doing and see which works best for you.

If you've been using Firefox for a while and had massive memory leaks there's a good chance you were simply told, "It's probably an addon's fault." The improvements made to Firefox's diagnostic information reports have been able to prove this.

quote:
Some of the zombie compartments were due to defects in Firefox itself, and these were generally fixed fairly quickly. However, it soon became clear that the majority of them are due to add-ons. It's quite easy to unintentionally create zombie compartments in add-ons. In the worst case, add-ons could leak the compartment of every single site visited.

This led to some lively discussion about how best to handle these leaks, because they are defects in third-party code that is largely out of Mozilla's control, and yet they make Firefox look bad.
Earlier versions of McAfee's addon actually leaked so bad that they've been blacklisted - it's not just random bad coders that had some really bad memory leaks in their addons.

On top of that you have the problem that many people confuse memory usage with memory leaks. There are many values that can be tweaked to change how much memory Firefox uses for certain features. Some may default to high values that use a lot of RAM to give the best performance. While you don't want your browser sucking all your memory away from system stuff, unused RAM is wasted RAM. Trying to make Firefox (or any other program) needlessly frugal with RAM could result in slowing it down unnecessarily. As always, it's a tradeoff, and changing some settings could certainly result in improvements on individual systems.

And with Firefox being open source, you're always free to change it to your own liking if they seriously muck it up. That's assuming it's not a configurable option and there's no addon to handle it.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

As for skipping 13 - don't worry, they WILL - or it will SEEM like it

Really? Version 13.0 was released on June 5, 2012. The current version is 13.0.1.


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
Reviews:
·PLDT
·Comcast
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

This new feature of tricking the user into thinking their tabs are fully loaded is just that... a trick.

Are you referring to the New Tab feature in Firefox? How would this trick anyone in to thinking their tabs are fully loaded. It does not do that, it is not reported to do that.

New Tab Page – show, hide and customize top sites | How to | Firefox Help
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:6
I am talking about cold restore. I hate that in any browser. I want all tabs fully loaded before I start to use the browser.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


chrisretusn
Retired
Premium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1
Oh OK. Tracing your post back did not clear that up. Thanks.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!!
Expand your moderator at work


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL

1 edit
reply to Mele20

Re: Firefox 'New Tab' Feature Exposes Users' Secured Info

quote:
This new feature of tricking the user into thinking their tabs are fully loaded is just that... a trick. I want all tabs fully loaded before I use the browser. I don't mind waiting for them to load.
It is no trick.
Getting snappy – performance optimizations in Firefox 13

If you don't like how it works now, change it so it works how it used to. (It looks like browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs in SeaMonkey & browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand[?] in FF.)


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
reply to Davesnothere
quote:
Show us tests of 50+ pages at a time - simultaneously, even.
Right.
And if I had an efficient way to port my current 522 tabs in 47 windows to Chrome/IE, I'd give you those numbers!


therube

join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD
reply to InvisiBill
Good points, all.
Expand your moderator at work


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to LondonOntGuy

Re: Firefox 'New Tab' Feature Exposes Users' Secured Info

I certainly don't after version 3.6 all you see is + signs in your face driving you to the brink of insanity with no way to get rid of them. I have constantly emailed the firefox people pointing this obvious fact out to them.
Expand your moderator at work