Are there any benefits to using Firefox or a Firefox-based browser if your main browser is Chromium-based? After all, everything should be compatible on Chromium, so what purpose does using Firefox serve?
Advanced Plus Security Sampei.Nihira's PC Security Config
- Thread starter Sampei.Nihira
- Start date
PC Setup Configuration Help & Showcase
99 Replies
23,553 Views
Original forum configuration · expand details
@Halp2001
To reduce bloat.
I prefer shell extensions to be as clean as possible.
Although Didier Stevens demonstrated,ages ago,that an overly bloated shell could pose security risks, I don't believe those arguments hold water today.
@lokamoka820
I prefer to have a non-Chromium browser as a backup if I use a Chromium-based browser as my main browser.
To reduce bloat.
I prefer shell extensions to be as clean as possible.
Although Didier Stevens demonstrated,ages ago,that an overly bloated shell could pose security risks, I don't believe those arguments hold water today.
@lokamoka820
I prefer to have a non-Chromium browser as a backup if I use a Chromium-based browser as my main browser.
Added the Download Sentinel extension to Brave.
Removed the subscription to the Online Malicious URL Blocklist.
Removed the subscription to the Online Malicious URL Blocklist.
I waited 34 minutes, and even though I enabled the
filter list in uBo-Firefox, the malware isn't being blocked:
Test:
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/3873949/
The malware will eventually be blocked by the filter list, but with relatively new malware, this may not happen.
So don't trust the “online” filter list.
- “Online Malicious URL Blocklist”
filter list in uBo-Firefox, the malware isn't being blocked:
Test:
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/3873949/
The malware will eventually be blocked by the filter list, but with relatively new malware, this may not happen.
So don't trust the “online” filter list.
Last edited:
I ran a new test with Firefox using this malware, which has been running for more than 6 hours:
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/3875188/
No blocks from the “Online Malicious URL Blocklist”.
Instead, he is blocked by Osprey:
Only PP's enabled:
The extension will only be enabled when a download is needed.
P.S.
The malicious file is blocked by Google Safe Browsing at the end of the download.
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/3875188/
No blocks from the “Online Malicious URL Blocklist”.
Instead, he is blocked by Osprey:
Only PP's enabled:
- AlphaMountain Web Protection
- URL haus List
- URL Abuse List
The extension will only be enabled when a download is needed.
P.S.
The malicious file is blocked by Google Safe Browsing at the end of the download.
Last edited:
12 hours is too long; the list is useless in ubo and even more useless in uBoL.
Considering that the malicious webpage isn’t blocked even by NextDNS - HaGeZi Multi Ultimate, and it’s probably just a fluke that the malicious download is blocked by Google Safe Browser, I’ve decided to add the Osprey extension to Firefox to improve security, especially during downloads.
Even though I use Firefox to download files very rarely.
Removed Osprey from Firefox due to a blocking inconsistency.
What was blocked yesterday is allowed today.
P.S.
Even the AI advised me not to add similar extensions to Firefox.
What was blocked yesterday is allowed today.
P.S.
Even the AI advised me not to add similar extensions to Firefox.
Last edited:
Removed "Search Engine Blocker" extension to Brave.
After Brave is closed and reopened, inactive shortcuts are removed:
After Brave is closed and reopened, inactive shortcuts are removed:
How come you dont use edge? As the setup is hardened defender + HC, youre advanced guy and can setup such anti-exploit features to edge. And smartscreen is enough for blocking malicious sites anyways and it seems you have nextdns wich will catch everything
Hi,
I used Edge for a long time, but it eventually became too bloated, with too many bugs after every update, and my list of policies kept getting longer and longer as I tried to eliminate the bloat.
Plus, sooner or later it will drop support for uBo.
Reason:
unacceptable performance drop in the Speedometer 3.1 Test.
With just 2 extensions, I get the same score I had with Chrome + 4 active extensions.
After seeing improved performance with version 2.6, I added APIVoid Script Stop back to Brave/Firefox:
Only a 4.13% (in the worst-case scenario) decrease in the Speedometer 3.1 test compared to the previous 13.1%.
On average, it can be concluded that the impact of version 2.6 of the APIVoid Script Stop is negligible.
Last edited:
I ran some more tests with Speedometer 3.1.
With Brave and these two extensions enabled:
With uBlock Origin, I see a performance drop of about 5–6% on my PC.
Unfortunately, I’ll never be able to use Brave’s ad-Shields as a replacement for uBlock Origin.
However, the ability to enable ad-Shields (click-to-play) on websites (CWS) where uBlock Origin is less effective is excellent.
Brave ad-Shields:
uBo:
With Brave and these two extensions enabled:
- Download Sentinel
- APIVoid Script Stop (Log disabled)
With uBlock Origin, I see a performance drop of about 5–6% on my PC.
Unfortunately, I’ll never be able to use Brave’s ad-Shields as a replacement for uBlock Origin.
However, the ability to enable ad-Shields (click-to-play) on websites (CWS) where uBlock Origin is less effective is excellent.
Brave ad-Shields:
uBo:
Last edited:
Please explain. Don't you use custom rules in Brave Shields?
Brave Ad-Shields is disabled on all websites and enabled only in CWS.
I use one rule to block the light blue alert highlighted by the red arrow pointing down.
I have to remove Download Sentinel from Brave because I no longer see the alert in a new window when downloading files that are definitely malicious.
Last edited:
Added DownloadRestrictions policy = 4 to Brave.
In terms of restriction levels, the scale should be as follows:
0 - 4 - 1 - 2
In terms of restriction levels, the scale should be as follows:
0 - 4 - 1 - 2
Last edited:
No 3 ?
Yes. But you are from Italy the land of the holy trinity, so I thought you would favor 3. In my experience it is 0-1-4-2-3 in terms of blocking scope. But I will look it up again.
Recently browsing
Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes
You may also like...
Continue exploring the conversation.
-
80 -
341
-
R
0Advanced Plus Security realnighthax's PC Security Config
-
63
-
64Advanced Plus Security devjitdutta2025's PC Security Config