Several major websites that I have been trying to connect to on my laptop are not responding. Sites include wikipedia, The Guardian newspaper, and other major websites that shouldn't be suspicious in any way. My firefox browser keeps saying that the certificate from these websites is not recognized, and that firefox utilizes secure transport security to connect to these sites. It will not allow me to add security exceptions to these sites either. Can anyone tell me what is going on, and how I can fix it?
I just happened to click on a link for the Guardian and noticed that it too was doing the same thing. I'm not a frequent reader of it. Do you have advice?
Asher Russell
Stop using the tranny browser.
Christian Green
Fix your clock.
Noah Sullivan
You probably got pwned. Post screenshot of the certificate details, then do the same thing (access website and post cert details) from Chrome. Also consider running Malwarebytes.
Liam Green
>blocking homosexual transsexuals makes it the tranny browser the absolute state of botnetcucks
Jaxson Parker
but im a tranny
Andrew Smith
Is this your work laptop?
Justin Walker
No, personal
Nathan Young
Either the version you're running is too old or your clock is fucked up.
Oliver Garcia
Update. Redownloaded Chrome and went directly to Wikipedia (one of the websites that is blocked on Firefox). It worked just fine. Y'all who have offered solutions; given this, do you think it's still the same problem?
Firstly, stop using firefox (you cuck). Then, open another browser and try with that, or use curl to request. Firefox probably detected wrongthink using its tranny spyware and blocked you from accessing safespaces, just use another browser. I'd recommend ungoogled-chromium, bromite or brave if you can't be bothered with setting up an ad blocker or using uMatrix
Ethan White
If you don't post cert details we really have no way of telling you whether or not this is just Firefox being retarded or you getting MITMed.
Jose Hughes
Reinstall it, idiot.
>stop using firefox (you cuck) Literally the least cucked browser, at least it's forks are. It's definitely a better option than anything Chrome based.
Jack Adams
>"stop reading news outlets that don't agree with my points of view!" protip: if all you read is right-wing news outlets, you are a faggot living in an echo chamber just like le SJWs xD
Brayden Campbell
HTTP strict transport security is a HTTP header you set if you want to tell the browser that all access to the site should be via HTTPS.
If you're trying to connect to a site with the HSTS header set, and for some reason you can't connect with SSL, this is a correct response.
Nicholas Richardson
>Firstly, stop using firefox (you cuck). >I'd recommend ungoogled-chromium, bromite or brave if you can't be bothered Why isn't this ironic.
Jayden Howard
>firefox >not cucked >firefox pushing extensions onto users without their permission isn't ok heh, cuck.
Grayson Lee
I use Dillo btw
Jace Ross
Works on my machine. And you do have to permit it to install addons.
Joseph Stewart
Check your time and date
Chase Hall
Firefox is a million times less cucked than anything chromium based, especially fucking brave.
Mason Gomez
use a working browser like older versions of firefox
>BRAVE BAD >POZILLA GOOD if that's your point, actually try to prove it.
Adam Ramirez
>without consent You consented the moment you installed the browser and didn't disable this. >muh Gab addon Banned from everywhere. The point is Brave offers far less privacy and can't be debotnetted. IceCat, librefox and Tor exist and are a proof that Firefox engine is less cucked. There isn't a single fucking chromium browser that's serious about privacy or lets you have proper privacy unless you install a dozen addons and fuck around with launch options, and even then you'll still leak information.
Pic related. And this doesn't even compare browserleaks where tweaked Brave is demolished by a tweaked Firefox.
You can't win this "argument", because it's actually a dick measuring contest on whose browser has the least trannies contributing code to it.
Jonathan Hall
im a brainlet can you explain to me your image
whats the conclusion?
Ian Scott
>BOTNET GOOD >POZILLA BAD if that's your point, actually try to prove it.
Luis Morgan
The Guardian has had to make the most corrections on the basis of factual inaccuracy out of any major uk newspaper for the last 3 years in a row. They have fired every single good journalist they had and converted the rest into freelancers along with a load of know nothing blogger 'journalists'. It's fucking dead Jim.
Asher King
Go to your firefox profile folder, open SiteSecurityServiceState.txt, delete its content, save it and set it to read-only. Also check for malware/MITM stuff.
Kayden Garcia
I don't care about this silly things. This isn't related to the software I'm using
Brave's tracking protection doesn't work chromium browsers need to set custom launch options to disable webGL (while Firefox has about:config for this) and can't spoof your window size which means you can and will be passively tracked. No amount of VPN/Tor/IP switching/proxies will change this. You have absolutely no anonymity and thus no privacy while using a chromium browser and any chromium based browser claiming otherwise is literally spreading fake news (like Brave did at the start). The amount of effort that was put into configuring Firefox's engine to allow for privacy is huge. The entire Tor project is dedicated on making Firefox immune to tracking. Once Chrome does the same then we can talk about it being an alternative to Firefox. panopticlick.eff.org/ browserleaks.com/
Matthew Wood
Fuck Brave. Use Dissenter.
Ryan Thomas
>tor with js If you're using JavaScript in tor then you've got a lot more problems than just fingerprinting. An user already debunked your shit image iirc, check one of the recent brave threads >gadb :DDDDdd My point isn't that Mozilla specifically banned it, I'm telling you mozilla is no better than any other browser. This, I only recommend brave to get free (you)s anyways. Regardless nobody on Jow Forums actually cares about privacy or security, they just say they do so they can feel special Feign argument Cease your Investigations You can disable webGL entirely in chromes equivalent to firefox:config. Are you even trying?
Jonathan Perry
Thanks for solving yet another great mystery, captain obvious.
Juan Hughes
>spoof ok im trying to understand
why would you need to disable webGL to achieve privacy? and how knowing your window size make tracking you possible?
Landon Walker
because websites can store this information about your browser, and CIA can do something like "query all users with this resolution and that..." the more they knew the more easily to track your internet activity and figure your who you are.
Logan Allen
>spoof your window size Is it possible to achieve this in any browser at all? >why would you need to disable webGL to achieve privacy? Having it enabled will show the js its capabilities, making a hash of its fingerprint and, unless spoofed, even things like what GPU you're using. >and how knowing your window size make tracking you possible? Window size alone is not enough to fingerprint you, unless it's something retarded that no one ever uses. It is the combination of tons of factors/browser capabilities/settings that will eventually distinguish you from everyone else browsing the net. The point is that you're trying to lower entropy and this means having a setup that changes as little as possible and shows/spoofs everything to the most common value possible.
Isaiah Garcia
Based >why would you need to disable webGL to achieve privacy? webGL can be used to read portions of a canvas, due to the different implementations per browser and per graphics driver this can return slightly different results per device making it a good form of static entropy >and how knowing your window size make tracking you possible? Not used massively often but it can be used to determine the screen resolution
Hudson Richardson
>You can disable webGL entirely in chromes equivalent to firefox:config It's only been added recently. >user already debunked your shit image iirc False. Brave is just fixing the browser gradually and unfucking the shit pseudoprivacy they have. It's retarded to say that something outdated is disproved and it doesn't mean that Brave works properly.
Because it leaks what GPU you use.
>Is it possible to achieve this in any browser at all? Yes, Firefox. Did you ever use Tor browser? It does that by default. It's just one about:config setting.
Jace Turner
>recently It's existed for years >brave is just fixing the browser gradually… And that's bad somehow?
Liam Butler
>It's existed for years It hasn't in brave, I specifically checked for it last time I used it. You had to add a launch option to manually disable it. >And that's bad somehow? Nobody said it is.
Leo Cruz
>Yes, Firefox When I enable resistfingerprinting, the default actual window size becomes 1000x600 and this value is what panopticlick detects as well. But resizing the window means that the resolution becomes unique in the fingerprinting tests. Even when maximized, the resolution reported is weird, changing due to the UI stuff like sidebar and others. Hell, even in fullscreen it reports the resolution as one pixel lower than the screen resolution for me. I understand that one is supposed to use tor/ff windowed to avoid fingerprinting and one of the reasons for this is the fact that one cannot spoof the window's dimensions to achieve a value identical to other browsers. Did you mean window or screen resolution?
Julian Torres
>it hasn't in brave The flag has existed in chromium for years
Cooper Jenkins
The point is to keep it at 1000x700 to match tor browser, or at least keep it at 1366x768 or 1080p so that you "blend in". >Did you mean window or screen resolution? It's telling the site that your window resolution is your screen size. You're not supposed to resize the window. They made a fix that forces the resolution to stay at 1000x700 but it's not yet added to stable Firefox afaik.
It wasn't available in brave on linux. I don't care what you say, I checked for it three times and I only saw it appear today.
The day that page implements uuid tracking all firefox users will have to stfu... i'm not sure why isn't happening yet as it's been known will happen with web-extension even before quantum release and you don't even need to use more tracking data as uuids are totally unique per user cause they randomize them per user instead of leaving the same for all.
I mean leaking is bad but randomizing it so they are unique is full retard.
Colton Young
Your system clock and timezone are wrong. Also, despite what it says, you CAN add a temporary exception but only in Private Browsing mode.
Adrian Rogers
>they're not right wing therefore you must be a republicunt for disliking them >it's totally not like they're a literal fake news publication or anything xd quite based fellow redditor!
