Firefox is the anti-botnet choice

>>First party isolation kills all cookie based trackers
>How hard is it to just block 3rd party cookies?
It does more than that. That can be bypassed by iframes, thats why fb/twitter/reddit widgets work. First party isolation is a lot stricter choice.

>>resistFingerprinting
>one consistent spoofed header < cycling through multiple headers
>Also last time I checked this function gave you a Firefox 52 useragent. You'll probably stand out less if you just sent your actual useragent.
In current version it no longer does that.

10 shekels have been added to your Google Wallet

Thanks OP, I didn't even know this existed, trying it now

More like privacy.resistTheTouchOfAWoman

FYI
privacy.resistFringerprinting will male your browser open at a fixed size every time you open it. It's for anti-fingerprinting but may annoy some people. Anyone know if there is a way to change this specific behaviour?

God I wish that were me.

>It does more than that. That can be bypassed by iframes, thats why fb/twitter/reddit widgets work. First party isolation is a lot stricter choice.
Install an adbkocker then. Wow that was hard.

I've been thinking about making up a patch that picks from a measured set of screen / window / content sizes, then adjusting actual content size to spoofed content size by zooming, and padding the rest

>trying to play whack-a-mole with wildcard rules is better than handling the problem at its root

Attached: absoluteretard.jpg (1000x900, 78K)

>he thinks adbkockers are just filter lists
LMAOing @ ur life

>wants to resist fingerprinting
>wants to re-enable what makes him unique
quite stupid desu

for all you retards itt who share this opinion
YOU re supposed to leave it as is

Seems like a lot of work. But would be cool if it works. So could this be spoofed to make it look like it opened at the default size but would actually open fullscreen?

I can't use my browser at that small of a size. I would just make ot fullscreen anyways. Screen size fingerprinting isn't the biggest concern of mine.

>Seems like a lot of work. But would be cool if it works. So could this be spoofed to make it look like it opened at the default size but would actually open fullscreen?
Should be possible too.
I was planning to get the measured sizes from some common configuration (default win10, default firefox) on fullscreen on different resolutions.
Lets say on a 1280*720 win10 machine the content size is 1280*690. The true window's inner content size is 1408*760. The code would then decide to use 110% zoom and pad a single pixel at the top, then when asked by the site say you have all the measurements of the previously mentioned machine. This would make you blend in with users of common resolutions on fullscreen

why are you using tor privacy settings then
you see how retarded it is?

user_pref("browser.display.use_document_fonts", 0);
user_pref("browser.onboarding.enabled", false);
user_pref("browser.search.suggest.enabled", false);
user_pref("extensions.pocket.enabled", false);
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.upload-disabled", true);
user_pref("geo.enabled", false);
user_pref("media.autoplay.enabled", false);
user_pref("pdfjs.disabled", true);
user_pref("privacy.firstparty.isolate", true);
user_pref("privacy.resistFingerprinting", true);
user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.unified", false);
user_pref("ui.key.menuAccessKeyFocuses", false);
user_pref("webgl.disabled", true);

resistFingerprinting already disables webgl by default, you need to set another property to even enable the notification asking you to enable it for a site

(not the user you replied to)
For me the screen size is about the only unique part, and it changes whenever i resize windows. Everything else is at worst case 1 in 5 browsers common

>The true window's inner content size is 1408*760
it won't be, a person can have the bookmarks bar or something else, they can have the windows taskbar with smaller icons etc, the only way for this to work is for everyone to use the same size with the same settings denying anything other than viewport size

> 1 in 5 browsers common
according to?

The other settings are useful and I want them. Screen size is not as important to me. What's your problem?

It was an example. That was the exact point of being a random number. I take viewport size, choose closest smaller premeasured common size, then calculate desired zoom and pad from it.

>The other settings are useful and I want them.
why are they important to you?

you could just use a browser that doesn't phone home at all by default if privacy is your concern

Attached: Qutebrowser.svg.png (1200x1200, 97K)

Because it still makes firefox more resistant to fingerprinting. It's better than nothing.

I would rather have a browser with features I want and still be able to have privacy.

github.com/dfkt/firefox-tweaks/blob/master/user.js

the two options in op came somewhere around 57-59
First party isolation came with containers which was kinda a response to the facebook scandal

no it makes you more uniq

>last updated a year ago
This is not up-to-date. Or are you one of those people using an outdated browser?

github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js/

How so? It changes the reported timezone and useragent as well as other things.

from the little about trackers we know profiles are based on any reported or non reported data

the only way [which is what tbb does] is to become one with the many
you are still unique or even more so because you are neither with the normie nor with the tbb
doesn't matter if you disable something, advertisers still know you disabled it - this is still data helpful for pinpointing you, add to that other stuff like a uniq screen size and you're even more unique

I'm not sure if you answered the question. You said the other settings privacy.resistFingerprinting changes makes you more unique. Do you know all of the settings resistFingerprinting changes? Have you tested your fingerprint?

no you niggerfagget i said enabling it and then changing the window size makes you more unique

And I'm saying the other settings changed are still better to have than nothing...
Do you think most people browse with small default screen sizes?

>And I'm saying the other settings changed are still better to have than nothing...

How is changing the reported timezone and the useragent to something more common making me more unique? The resistFingerprinting settings tries to make you blend. This is the whole concept.

first party isolation does something
an example would be yandex image search
While mostly better than google image when it comes to searching for anime, for whatever reason, there are occasions when yandex simply won't download an image link on their end. Pasting a link only works when you already have the image in the browser cache. Turning on first party isolation made this method more impossible because now, Yandex can't access the cache meant for the other website where the image is stored.

by combining all other available data

>python garbage

Again, it still helps me blend in. The window size is going to be unique for most people. You still haven't convinced me.

that's why most people are unique

privacy.resistFingerprinting is really dumb, it leaks your current resolution but if you have it disabled you always send the max resolution.

Attached: 1534679339506.png (933x720, 587K)

Most people are unique for other reasons. Window size alone is not a perfect fingerprinting method. It takes all data reported. And having common data to report is better than unique data.

I know, I (op) am also trying to fix what Mozilla did stupid.

when you have unique size common data is not common

Based

You think more people use small default windows than people with a common monitor size with a maximized window? We honestly don't know, do we?

yeah those who use tbb

But we're talking about clearnet, no? I was at least. I'm only trying to blend in with common trackers, not the FBI or something.

idk I feel like privacy.resistFingerprinting is a bait, I mean there are many better ways to do it but that setting makes the job a lot easier.
How come mozilla haven't fixed that yet?

>implying that deep-net honey-pot is any better

underrated

>he thinks adbkockers aren't just filter lists

about:config

media.peerconnection.enabled = false
media.peerconnection.turn.disable = true
media.peerconnection.use_document_iceservers = false
media.peerconnection.video.enabled = false
media.peerconnection.identity.timeout = 1
privacy.firstparty.isolate = true
privacy.resistFingerprinting = true
privacy.trackingprotection.enabled = true
browser.cache.offline.enable = false
browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled = false
browser.safebrowsing.phishing.enabled = false
browser.send_pings = false
browser.sessionstore.max_tabs_undo = 0
browser.urlbar.speculativeConnect.enabled = false
dom.battery.enabled = false
dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled = false
geo.enabled = false
media.eme.enabled = false
media.gmp-widevinecdm.enabled = false
media.navigator.enabled = false
network.cookie.cookieBehavior = 1
network.cookie.lifetimePolicy = 2
network.http.referer.trimmingPolicy = 2
network.http.referer.XOriginPolicy = 2
network.http.referer.XOriginTrimmingPolicy = 2
webgl.disabled = true
browser.sessionstore.privacy_level = 2
network.IDN_show_punycode = true

Install uBlock Origin

Settings pane:

I am an advanced user: checked.

3rd-party filters pane:

All of uBlock Origin's filter lists: checked
EasyList: checked
Peter Lowe’s Ad server list: checked
EasyPrivacy: checked
Malware Domain List: checked
Malware domains: checked
All other filter lists: unchecked

My rules:

Add * * 3p-script block
Add * * 3p-frame block

All you need. Anything more than this is unnecessary for 99% of users.

You forgot javascript.enabled = false

Attached: 1535538950986.jpg (337x309, 42K)

Decent list with the basics. The cookie and referer settings might not be desirable for everyones use case.

Masochist

Because the initial feature was taken from tor browser bundle where they can use any arbitrary number because everyones will be the same

but why not just spoof that number no matter your current resolution?

They could do that for raw resolution and window size, but viewport is needed for display (css and the like). And then ofc come the problems, like if the viewport ends up being larger than the faked window size, etc.. its more complex than it looks.

But if you disable privacy.resistFingerprinting you always send your max resolution no matter how you resize ur window. Even brave meme browser spoof your resolution...
Isn't css calculated locally anyway?

It can be measured by javascript after that.
And js can retrieve multiple metrics including display size, window size, viewport size.

That's why I posted javascript.enabled = false but that doesn't matter if you still send your resolution.

Privacy isn’t a meme, what’s your info if it isn’t?

Anyways, I use chrome cause it’s the best browser for web development I believe. I’m a Microsoft dev too. Truth be told, i admire what Linux users and all do, and I believe is good for society, but im not going to completely retool myself for a less in demand technology. Just to be some sort of Maurder for freedom, here’s a newsflash, people are free to spend money and be stupid. That’s how people learn. From mistakes.

devtools.onboarding.experiment
network.allow-experiments
media.eme.enabled
security.ssl.errorReporting.enabled

there are thousands of leaks in mozilla from crashes to inadvertent submission of reports to experiments and certificate checking and addon checking and etc

They literally can't and that's why the shill so much against Fx

>>privacy.firstparty.isolate
>>privacy.resistFingerprinting
>How can chrometoddlers even compete
>Privacy is a meme and until Firefox has literally anything else going for it I'm not going to use it
>For even better privacy you can unplug your modem completely which I suggest for the betterment of yourself and this board
>It's so cute that you think that does anything.
>It was an example. That was the exact point of being a random number. I take viewport size, choose closest smaller premeasured common size, then calculate desired zoom and pad from it.
>Still not using Brave browser

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 10K)

FPI and resist fingerprinting were already around ESR 52

>user_pref("browser.display.use_document_fonts", 0);
>Yes please, I want every website to look like shit and have black squares where iconfonts should be.

>user_pref("pdfjs.disabled", true);
What's the advantage of downloading pdfs? I like being able to view them in the browser?

>muh icons
never noticed anything

I think it's just for security. Less js to run? But I don't know how it's any different if you're going to be opening the pdf one way or another.