2318
Firefox to become first mobile browser to support desktop extensions later this year
(blog.mozilla.org)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
2318 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59219 readers
4663 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
About time. I'm tempted to switch back to Mull from Bromite, but I'm worried about the security of Firefox compared to Chromium (that's why I switched in the first place), I've heard that particularly Mobile Firefox has awful sandboxing and bad security, I'm pretty sure it was the GrapheneOS team saying this? I'm no security expert though...
Yes it was the GrapheneOS team who said that. See the paragraph just above Camera. I literally just skimmed their guides and saw this yesterday while considering getting a Pixel.
I use Mull and Vanadium on Graphene OS, and the experience on Vanadium is just okay by comparison. It is true that not having extensions does decrease the attack surface, and Vanadium does have a built in ad blocker, but it simply isn't as all encompassing as ublock's list.
I use Mull mainly but don't log into anything with it, and have noscript extension on by default.
I also turn off JS by default in Vanadium. Both browsers have ways of making exceptions for certain sites in this case, but NoScript has more granular control.
I remember reading on reddit a convo that basically the GrapheneOS team was much more concerned with security than privacy. This isn't to say they don't care about privacy at all, just that they will always prioritize security first.
This makes sense considering their decision to only officially support the Pixel line of devices. You still are supporting Google by giving them your money (and a bit of your data in the process of purchase). Additionally, the decision to default to using the Google Play Store and sandbox the apps, rather than use the Aurora Store, also points to these underlying values.
Yeah, I can tell this just from skimming their FAQ and Usage Guides. When they talk about the applications they offer, they always sell it as the most secure thing ever. I still personally care more about privacy than security though.