SecureKongo

Level 24
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Feb 25, 2017
1,334
Which extensions would you personally recommend based on your experiences as well as your colleagues? I am not in the cyber security field, but I try to stay informed as best as possible and hold your opinions in high regard.
I know that you want an answer from cruelsister but nonetheless you should read this:

 

misterman2100

Level 1
Verified
Dec 3, 2018
39
To start off use uBlock Origin
I've used uBlock Origin for...oh...I don't know how long now, NoScript, and HTTPS Everywhere primarily for Firefox. Cruelsister does pose an interesting question overall regarding extensions and add-ons for browsers, even the ones that are considered trustworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cortex

HarborFront

Level 60
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
4,910
I've used uBlock Origin for...oh...I don't know how long now, NoScript, and HTTPS Everywhere primarily for Firefox. Cruelsister does pose an interesting question overall regarding extensions and add-ons for browsers, even the ones that are considered trustworthy.
Not just for browser extensions/addons. If you use DNS blocking or Adguard dekstop you'll also use filters, scripts etc coded by unknown coders
 
Last edited:

Raiden

Level 19
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 7, 2018
900
I think the biggest thing when it comes to privacy online is to always assume you don't have it. While it would be nice to have true privacy, it's really only a figment of your imagination sadly...

While there are some technical ways to help deal with it, the only true way is to limit what you sign up for, post online etc... While this doesn't get rid of everything privacy wise, minimizing your personal information as best as you can will go a long ways.

As @cruelsister mentioned even extensions can both be a privacy and a security issue as well. I wouldn't say never install extensions, but like with regular software, only install what you actually use/need. No one needs 50 extensions....in most cases all one really needs are an ad blocker and a password manager..the rest is fluff IMHO.

I personally don't mind targeted ad's, as they do help fund the various sites, Youtubers, etc... I just hate how they can be used for malware attacks, as well as be too in your face at times. Other than that I'm ok with it.
 

wat0114

Level 5
Verified
Apr 5, 2021
237
It's a kind of "Catch 22" with some of these extensions, a "risk vs reward" trade off if you will. For example, block the 3rd-party scrips, ads and iframes vs all the capabilities the extension has on your browser, and decide which is the best choice. I'm willing to take my chances with an extension such as uBlockO that will achieve all of the above at the cost of having the following:

Code:
[LIST]
[*]Access your data for all websites
[*]Read and modify privacy settings
[*]Access browser tabs
[*]Access browser activity during navigation
[/LIST]

Wow, that is a lot of permissions and unequivocally illustrates just how much direct access some of these extensions have within our browsers! And believe me, the footprint of this extension is considerable, to say the least. But I trust the developer and the long term exemplary reputation and track record it's had, so I use it in all my browsers. The alternative is to allow all those gawd awful intrusive ads, 3rd-party scripts and iframes, all of which could lead to compromising security and privacy.
 

monkeylove

Level 6
Verified
Well-known
Mar 9, 2014
292
I also found this one:


I think the general conclusion is that very few browsers don't snoop, and those that don't might not have a lot of features that many users want. At the same time, several features require allowing certain servers to give or receive data, logging in, loading certain addons, etc.

Given that, what to avoid will likely be dependent on what you want and are willing to give up by way of features. In my case, I need to log in various sites to communicate with friend, relatives, and colleagues, buy goods, use services, etc. I'd like to try various new features and have time to do so. In which case, I decided to do the ff.

Firefox with about:config tweaks (but once I experience fewer problems with LibreWolf I might switch to that)

Multi-Account Containers to separate social media platforms, storms, etc., from each other, and then create several non-personal and non-works accounts for sites that don't need them

Cookie AutoDelete or similar to retain only cookies needed for logins

and another browser (Iridium) for a work account.

For anything else, I add the usual, like uBlock Origin or Adguard (which I now use because I availed of the cheap lifetime promo). I might try additional addons and options, but they sometimes break web pages.

That way, I can still maintain some functionality (like reading embedded content from other platforms where logins are required), with more tracking involving non-personal accounts.
 

JoyousBudweiser

Level 13
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Aug 22, 2013
607
I have it disabled, I like the idea, since I do not even block ADs, but the implementation is just bad, it causes a terrible slow down (webpages load like 4-5 times slower).

That is why I allow only port 443, I would never allow ports 5222 or 5228. 🤫
I would also re-route port 53 and port 5353 traffic (both tcp and udp) to port 443 (DOH)
 

TairikuOkami

Level 31
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 13, 2017
2,050
I would also re-route port 53 and port 5353 traffic (both tcp and udp) to port 443 (DOH)
Thanks but no worries, my browser is allowed only on 443 and QUIC, I use Windows Dev just to have DoH system wide, but it still causes issues, thus MS has postponed it till 21H2. :(
Not that unique if many people use Do Not Track. I know practically no one respects the request
Then do not use it. That setting funny, it basically says: Track Me! (this user do not want to be tracked and probably blocks tracking, so better watch him)
Honestly I’d rather get targeted ads than the stress that come along with pretending I have privacy on the internet. I wouldn’t even block ads if it weren’t for malvertising. I would like the sites I visit to get paid for their content.
I am trying to find that balance, when you block trackers and malware, only known advertisers are allowed, so malvertising should be limited to a bare minimum.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 85179

What's the issue with Safari?
None. These recommendations are from /privacytoolsio - a community.
They're against closed source and proprietary in general. I guess that's the reason for read mark.

Safari provide very good security with best fingerprint protection without doing anything on user side.

Edit: wording.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arequire

Level 27
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,666
I wouldn’t even block ads if it weren’t for malvertising.
I'd probably still block ads on my phone, as they inflate data usage and have a quantifiable cost associated with them. But on desktop, yeah, I'd probably stop blocking ads too.

I actually think that pretty much every browser except Chrome has all the things you might need to improve your privacy nowadays.
The thing is, if I were going to use the built-in protections I'd want them to wholly replace extensions, not compliment them. And as an Edge user, Tracking Prevention is not a viable alternative. It's associated filter list hasn't been updated for an entire month now, you can't add custom filters, and its strictly a tracker blocker, not an ad blocker, so while it does block requests to major third-party ad networks, it doesn't include domains for lesser networks. It also doesn't block requests from domains owned by the same parent organisation as the visited website.

HTTPS Everywhere primarily for Firefox
You can drop HTTPS Everywhere. Firefox has a built-in HTTPS-only mode.
 
Last edited:

JasonUK

Level 4
Apr 14, 2020
165
Firefox would be far more appealing (to me) if it actually came with privacy features enabled as standard (or offered a privacy max version download) rather than rely on users to muck about with about:config settings. Firefox in it's standard settings is not a privacy utopia.
 

Templarware

Level 6
Mar 13, 2021
271
It doesn't. Maybe you confuse it with the DNS-over-HTTPS option for various DNS providers
 

Templarware

Level 6
Mar 13, 2021
271
It doesn't. Maybe you confuse it with the DNS-over-HTTPS option for various DNS providers

Chrome 90 (Edge) will use https by default, theoretically. Currently I open https webpage and Chrome sometimes switches to http, lol. Http to https does not work at all.
 
Top