New Update Osprey Browser Protection discussion and updates

[silversurfer]

Changes in 1.2.7​

• Added custom logos to each protection provider
• Added HideProtectionOptions policy to hide the panel
• Revised approach for displaying Official Partners
• Added policy protections for important default settings
• Added a new blocked cache to reduce network requests
• Block page and icon now show total blocks for all providers
• Renamed Restricted classification to Adult Content
• Cleaned up code

This update has been submitted to all extension stores.

Release 1.2.7 · OspreyProject/Osprey

Changes in 1.2.7 Added custom logos to each protection provider Added HideProtectionOptions policy to hide the panel Revised approach for displaying Official Partners Added policy protections for ...

github.com

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Changes in 1.2.8​

• Removed Bitdefender TrafficLight from protection providers
• Reported by text now displays a list of providers on hover
• Turned Switch.ch Security DNS off by default
• Turned OpenDNS Security DNS on by default
• Fixed issue with block counter number
• Cleaned up code

This update has been submitted to all extension stores.

Full Changelog: 1.2.7...1.2.8

Release 1.2.8 · OspreyProject/Osprey

Changes in 1.2.8 Removed Bitdefender TrafficLight from protection providers Reported by text now displays a list of providers on hover Turned Switch.ch Security DNS off by default Turned OpenDNS S...

github.com

@Foulest Why was Bitdefender removed?

 

[Foulest]

Release 1.2.8 · OspreyProject/Osprey

Changes in 1.2.8 Removed Bitdefender TrafficLight from protection providers Reported by text now displays a list of providers on hover Turned Switch.ch Security DNS off by default Turned OpenDNS S...

github.com

@Foulest Why was Bitdefender removed?

Same reason as the other providers removed in the past - they contacted me and asked for its removal.

 

[piquiteco]

Same reason as the other providers removed in the past - they contacted me and asked for its removal.

And since you're such a nice guy, to avoid lawsuits and other legal issues, you removed it? How sad @Foulest Your extension attracted attention and grew rapidly.

 

[Foulest]

And since you're such a nice guy, to avoid lawsuits and other legal issues, you removed it? How sad @Foulest Your extension attracted attention and grew rapidly.

It is what it is. It's funny - Bitdefender's actual TrafficLight extension slows down browsing considerably. Osprey was the only way to have it not do that.

 

[badboy]

Continuing to use this great extension. I would like to know what detection engines need to be included so I don't have to include all that are available? I just see that the engines change with each version.

 

[piquiteco]

It is what it is. It's funny - Bitdefender's actual TrafficLight extension slows down browsing considerably. Osprey was the only way to have it not do that.

Yes, exactly, your extension didn't slow down the loading of web pages; it loaded almost instantly. With BD TrafficLight, it loads much slower, and the delay when opening pages was noticeable. I've changed my mind now. I'm going to go back to using your Osprey extension on all my browsers. I'm not going to abandon it because of this. I'm going to continue using it and not let it get me down.

 

[Foulest]

Continuing to use this great extension. I would like to know what detection engines need to be included so I don't have to include all that are available? I just see that the engines change with each version.

If you want the best settings, reinstall the extension and get the default settings, or copy them from the GitHub page.

 

[Parkinsond]

Not a smart move by B or other vendors who asked to remove their API.
B, for example, provides some sort of web protection free of charge through TrafficLight as a promotional service for their paid products; Osprey can serve the same job, even in a better way by less slowing down of web browsing.

 

[Jonny Quest]

And since you're such a nice guy, to avoid lawsuits and other legal issues, you removed it? How sad @Foulest Your extension attracted attention and grew rapidly.

Yep, but I can still see how some vendors might want to have their extensions be independent of others with possibly less conflicts (glitches/FPs) and to FAD keeping their "credibility"?

 

[piquiteco]

Yep, but I can still see how some vendors might want to have their extensions be independent of others with possibly less conflicts (glitches/FPs) and to FAD keeping their "credibility"?

Yes, that's true, they are large companies in the security sector, it's difficult to win a fight with them.

 

[Parkinsond]

Yes, that's true, they are large companies in the security sector, it's difficult to win a fight with them.

Why to use Norton safe web extension consuming 120 MB of RAM with CPU spikes, while I can use it through Opsrey with only 20 MB and less CPU utilization.
Norton, for example, has a chance of encouraging a larger scale of users to use their web protection through a better designed extension displaying their label with each block.

 

[lokamoka820]

Same reason as the other providers removed in the past - they contacted me and asked for its removal.

I think this is something related to region restricted on the Middle East too, as I mentioned before I can't install any security software extension on chrome store, but I can install Osprey and get them all at once, which will not satisfy the invisible hand behind chrome store acts.

 

[Foulest]

I think this is something related to region restricted on the Middle East too, as I mentioned before I can't install any security software extension on chrome store, but I can install Osprey and get them all at once, which will not satisfy the invisible hand behind chrome store acts.

Osprey is also open-source, meaning you can install it on any browser in any region by enabling Developer mode and downloading a build from GitHub Actions. Feel free to tell anyone you know in the Middle East about Osprey, especially other people stuck with region blocks that want these extensions.

 

[Parkinsond]

I think this is something related to region restricted on the Middle East too, as I mentioned before I can't install any security software extension on chrome store, but I can install Osprey and get them all at once, which will not satisfy the invisible hand behind chrome store acts.

I live in the cursed ME, but I can install TrafficLight; when have you started facing trouble with?

 

[piquiteco]

Why to use Norton safe web extension consuming 120 MB of RAM with CPU spikes, while I can use it through Opsrey with only 20 MB and less CPU utilization.

Yes, it also had the advantage of consuming little RAM and very few CPU cycles.

Norton, for example, has a chance of encouraging a larger scale of users to use their web protection through a better designed extension displaying their label with each block.

Exactly, if they talked to @Foulest, I'm sure he would put the URL of official partners, as happened with Adguard, for example, and other products that, when you click on the URL, take you straight to the product's official website. Nothing obscure on Osprey's side. It's like @Jonny Quest said, because it's a big company, it may be a matter of $$, marketing, or user telemetry data that will be limited in collection using the API and going through the Osprey extension. Well, I assume that's it.

 

[Parkinsond]

user telemetry data

Brilliant; you have got the real reason.

 

[badboy]

I don't remember if I've asked the author these questions before, but they are as follows:
1. How much does activating all available scanners slow down the connection (if any)?
2. Does it make sense to activate them all and if not, what are they for?
3. Do I understand correctly that when several engines are activated, the page link is checked by all of them on their resources and the result is displayed? Again - how much it slows down the link if it slows down.

 

[Foulest]

I don't remember if I've asked the author these questions before, but they are as follows:
1. How much does activating all available scanners slow down the connection (if any)?
2. Does it make sense to activate them all and if not, what are they for?
3. Do I understand correctly that when several engines are activated, the page link is checked by all of them on their resources and the result is displayed? Again - how much it slows down the link if it slows down.

1. None, or nothing noticeable at all.
2. The default settings are picked to minimize false positives. You can enable as many or as few filters as you want.
3. Yes - and there's no slowdown.

 

[badboy]

Personally, I have disabled the AdGuardDNS filter. Since this is a company from the Russian Federation that has moved offshore to Cyprus, I don't want to jeopardize my personal data or just help this company collect data. You can do this at your discretion, of course.