New Update LibreWolf Browser - A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

[HarborFront]

Anyone has issue with uBlock Origin? The color bands on LW (right picture) are missing as compared to uBO in FF on the left side?

 

[Oxygen]

Back to using LibreWolf again, and I can't figure out why there is wasted space around the corners of a webpage.

 

[CyberTech]

No issue for me, try to change the resolution?

 

[oldschool]

Release v96.0.1 · LibreWolf / Browser / Windows

• The Mozilla release notes.
• This is a bugfix release for a bug with HTTP/3 handling in general, and a proxy bug on windows.

V.96.0 was released 5 days ago. Release 96.0 · LibreWolf / Browser / Windows

• The Mozilla release notes.
• We're using a new build process, it's been tested and things should work normally.
• Added new about-dialog, and improved the LibreWolf settings, the search engines have been revised.
• Many improvements to the librewolf.cfg, which is now at version 5.1

 

[eonline]

Back to using LibreWolf again, and I can't figure out why there is wasted space around the corners of a webpage.


View attachment 263639

I guess it's like Tor, that behavior is to have a little more privacy.

 

[SpiderWeb]

Back to using LibreWolf again, and I can't figure out why there is wasted space around the corners of a webpage.


View attachment 263639

Letterboxing

• Open a new tab
• type about:config into the address bar and press Enter
• Search for letterbox
• Set privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing to False

 

[klepto]

I've been using Librewolf for some time and have been pleased with it. I tweaked the librewolf.cfg a bit to remove some annoyances like resolution changes.

 

[oldschool]

LibreWolf v.96.0.2

• The Mozilla release notes.
• The installer looks a whole lot better now.
• The LibreWolf settings are now at version 5.2.

 

[silversurfer]

I tried LibreWolf recently, looks like browser processes aren't signed at all, may can anyone confirm that?

 

[oldschool]

For any users who were wondering, LibreWolf uses Strict Tracking Protection as default.

• @fabrizio @fxbrit · 2 months ago
  
  as I said above TP and uBO cooperate nicely, and even tho on that front TP is less powerful, it catches some scripts that default uBO misses. also, its functionalities are not limited to blocking trackers, as you can read above (they also added referrer policies recently).
  given that it has basically no significant downsides, I think it's worth having it.
  
  
• 
  @fabrizio @fxbrit · 9 hours ago
  Owner
  no longer relevant since we are now using strict mode.

I tried LibreWolf recently, looks like browser processes aren't signed at all, may can anyone confirm that?

Can't confirm as this issue is above my pay grade.

 

[HarborFront]

LW v96.0.3

Releases · LibreWolf / Browser / Windows · GitLab

/ downloads / issues /

gitlab.com

 

[HarborFront]

For any users who were wondering, LibreWolf uses Strict Tracking Protection as default.


Can't confirm as this issue is above my pay grade.

I just downloaded v96.0.3 portable and as you can see below with LW's default setting is in Standard mode NOT Strict mode. You need to enable Strict mode if you need it.

 

[HarborFront]

I tried LibreWolf recently, looks like browser processes aren't signed at all, may can anyone confirm that?

LW for Windows is maintained by one person only, this guy Bert van der Weerd. IMO, signed or not signed by him is immaterial then.

 

[eonline]

I tried LibreWolf recently, looks like browser processes aren't signed at all, may can anyone confirm that?

Confirmed, they are unsigned.

I just downloaded v96.0.3 and as you can see below with LW's default setting is in Standard mode NOT Strict mode. You need to enable Strict mode if you need it.

I just downloaded it for the first time and it is in strict mode

 

[HarborFront]

Confirmed, they are unsigned.


I just downloaded it for the first time and it is in strict mode

I'm using the portable zip version. Are you using the installed version?

 

[eonline]

I'm using the portable zip version. Are you using the installed version?

Yes, I am using the non-portable version.

 

[HarborFront]

LW portable version. I'm talking of the ZIP file and NOT the EXE file version.

LW does not auto update when there's a new version being release, and it creates a problem if you try to use a new version over the old.

Assuming you have an existing version say v96.0.2 you'll see that it creates a folder librewolf-96.0.2 and inside will have 2 folders (namely, LibreWolf and Profiles) and a file, librewolf-portable.exe

If you manually download the new v96.0.3 zip version and perform the extraction, it'll create another folder, v96.0.3 and inside will similarly have 2 folders and 1 file as above. So it's NOT overriding the old v96.0.2 version. The problem is all the settings and extensions in v96.0.2 will NOT appear in the new v96.0.3 if you execute the librewolf-portable.exe file of the v96.0.3 version

To solve the problem, go to GitHub - ltGuillaume/LibreWolf-WinUpdater: An attempt to make updating LibreWolf for Windows much easier to get the Librewolf WinUpdater and install following the instructions.

You'll get v96.0.3 after you update successfully and running librewolf-portable.exe. The only problem is the folder librewolf-96.0.2 still remains as librewolf-96.0.2. It does NOT rename to librewolf-96.0.3

Note :- The LibreWolf WinUpdater is developed for both the exe and portable versions

 

[HarborFront]

Yes, I am using the non-portable version.

OK so there's a difference. I edited my earlier post #112 and added the word "portable" for clarification

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

BEWARE FAKE SECURITY CLAIM

Fun fact: for the update process you cant' increase your Windows security. SimpleWindowsHardening and SysHardener both offer an option to deny elevation of unsigned and set PowerShell execution policy to restricted. The installer and executables are unsigned, so you can't set UAC to only elevate executables which are signed and validated. The portable update script requires to set the Powershell execution policy to Remote Signed (in stead of Restricted). Combined with the weaker security of Firefox compared to Chromium based browser the claim of authors (focused on security) is a flagrant lie.

Spoiler: How to setup an extension firewall in Edge/Chrome

See Set Chrome app and extension policies (Windows) - Google Chrome Enterprise Help

 

[HarborFront]

BEWARE FAKE SECURITY CLAIM

Fun fact: for the update process you cant' increase your Windows security. SimpleWindowsHardening and SysHardener both offer an option to deny elevation of unsigned and set PowerShell execution policy to restricted. The installer and executables are unsigned, so you can't set UAC to only elevate executables which are signed and validated. The portable update script requires to set the Powershell execution policy to Remote Signed (in stead of Restricted). Combined with the weaker security of Firefox compared to Chromium based browser the claim of authors (focused on security) is a flagrant lie.

But I'm not using PowerShell to do anything like setting a scheduled task for update so should be ok