Total Cookie Protection

1393 points402 comments21 hours
by 4cao20 hours ago

> Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers.

Would be great to have some more details about it: in particular, how do I turn it off if I prefer to add any exceptions manually.

Edit 1: Mozilla Hacks blog [1] has a bit more but still doesn't answer the question:

> In order to resolve these compatibility issues of State Partitioning, we allow the state to be unpartitioned in certain cases. When unpartitioning is taking effect, we will stop using double-keying and revert the ordinary (first-party) key.

What are these "certain cases?"

Edit 2: Reading on, there's this bit about storage access grants heuristics [2] linked from the blog. But is that really it, or is there a hardcoded whitelist as well? If so, it'd be great to see it.

This bit in particular is ambiguous in how it's supposed to work exactly (who's "we" here):

> If we discover that an origin is abusing this heuristic to gain tracking access, that origin will have the additional requirement that it must have received user interaction as a first party within the past 30 days.



by johannh20 hours ago

(I’m one of the developers of this feature and co-author of the blog posts)

This is a great question and I’m glad you found the answer, you probably understand that for many blog posts we avoid going into too much technical detail.

To answer your final question, there is no hardcoded allow-list for State Partitioning. The heuristics as described on MDN are accurate.

by StavrosK19 hours ago

Have you considered using something like Expounder ( in your posts? (Disclosure, I made it but it's a small open source lib).

I don't see why we can have full-blown web apps but our text needs to be very specifically just text these days.

by wonder_er18 hours ago

This is super cool!

I've only recently discovered that Markdown has footnotes, and I've gone to down adding footnotes everywhere.

I use Jekyll + markdown on my website, and I now have lots of fun adding footnotes to my writing.

I added a "footnote tutorial" for readers on, to help them learn how to navigate the footnotes.

I _love_ your library, and I love the problem that you're solving with it.

Along the way, I've looked at Gwern's sidenotes[0] and Nate Berkapec's "footnotes"/sidenotes [1].

I eventually want to do something more "in-line", like what you've down with Expounder, but I've been satiated with markdown footnotes for now.

[0]: [1]:

by StavrosK18 hours ago

Thank you! I used to use footnotes too, but I didn't like how they took you out of the flow of the text. Expounder aims to specifically let users stay in the flow of reading, which is why one of the core instructions is that the text should work in context, as if it were never hidden.

by gknoy16 hours ago

Oh, wow. The Sidenotes discussion from Gwern that you linked is _phenomenal_. Thank you for sharing these.

by iFreilicht13 hours ago

What I dislike about footnotes like that is that they pollute the browser history. If you want to leave the page but clicked on a few footnotes and their backlinks, you have to go “back” through all of them.

Thank you so much for posting gwern’s sidenote article! I want to use sidenotes on my site and this was a very valuable resource!

by gostsamo16 hours ago

Hi, can you consider adding some accessibility to the library? Currently, I don't have a way to know that a term could be expanded, because the signal seems to be visual only and not detectable via a screen reader. Adding aria-pressed might be the solution, but I'm not an expert, just an user.

by StavrosK16 hours ago

Oh, that's a good point! I didn't realize it wouldn't be discoverable, you're right.

by tpoacher19 hours ago

I love this, but I'm a bit surprised that you do not include the ability to "unexpound" an "expounded" term. Is that intentional?

If I were reading a technical text, I would definitely end up reading most paragraphs at least twice. It would make no sense to keep the expounded terms in the second time; I'd be tempted to hide them back as soon as I was finished with them the first time.

by StavrosK19 hours ago

Yes, it is intentional. The functionality actually exists, it's just not mentioned:

It's because, once clicked, the new text should become part of the old, and that's it. Presumably you've already read it, and I don't want to make the viewer have to re-collapse the links every time.

Your use case makes sense, though, which is why the feature was included. Maybe I should mention it in the README.

by dmix16 hours ago

I feel like the inserted text should be highlighted with a light yellow background or some indicator. Just appearing like that inline seems a bit funky or unexpected.

But I see there is a css class which is nice.

Just a simple rgba(x,x,x,0.5) where the x’s are the usual yellow height.

by StavrosK16 hours ago

I prefer to leave the styling to the user, the library is intentionally minimally invasive there...

by wikibob15 hours ago

I agree with this. It would be helpful.

by psychoslave4 hours ago

I like how it unfold the text, but it doesn't give visual hint on what was unfolded, and doesn't provide a way to fold it again, it seems.

Be it topographic emphasize or coloring, there should be an hint. And clicking the text thus emphasized should collapse it.

That's my opinion, otherwise, nice done.

by StavrosK3 hours ago

It should animate the text while unfolding, but, other than that, there's no need to know what was unfolded. You just click what you don't know and eventually read the relevant info!

by prox18 hours ago

I wonder what this does to SEO, does the hidden text get indexed, and is it not picked up as a dark pattern by crawlers?

by 780011 hours ago

I know that you didn’t mean to completely throw the conversation from Firefox to Expounder, but you succeeded.

Mozilla who? That’s where we are now.

by tannhaeuser19 hours ago

Hasn't HTML the summary and details elements for this specifically, or am I overlooking something?

by gwern12 hours ago

<abbr>/<defn> are also quite relevant, and would fit a number of the example uses better (like the definition of 'atoms').

by tpoacher18 hours ago

Not the author, but presumably you're overlooking the fact that the expounded term doesn't necessarily have to be "inside" or even "neighbouring" to the details element.

The author's intent here is to have terms explained in the text explicitly in such a way that it would 'augment' the text with an explanation somewhere further down the line, but not necessarily "in-place".

It is also intended for text specifically, rather than replacing one element with another.

I agree that display/summary are similar in spirit though, I had not come across those before.

by StavrosK19 hours ago

As far as I know, those work quite differently.

by chrisweekly19 hours ago

Yes, this! Your lib looks awesome. Thanks for publishing it and sharing here!

by StavrosK19 hours ago

Thank you!

by clankyclanker18 hours ago

Is there support for an expound-all button on a page? I definitely have days where I just want to also read the details and don’t want to click a dozen times while I’m reading.

by StavrosK17 hours ago

Not currently, but it shouldn't be hard to add a button with one line of JS to add the required CSS class to all the elements. This might defeat the purpose, though, as it's kind of intended to save you from reading things you already know.

by atleta19 hours ago

Cool! I've been thinking of a similar solution to add to my (planned ;) ) longer blog posts. I'm guilty of going into the details too much sometimes.

by StavrosK19 hours ago

Same here, and I didn't like the tradeoff, so I figured I'd solve it with the power of T E C H N O L O G Y.

by withinboredom19 hours ago

This looks amazing. Would you mind if I packaged this in a WordPress plugin?

by StavrosK19 hours ago

Not at all, go for it!

by accounted19 hours ago

I would like this as well, please share once you do.

by samstave17 hours ago

That is FN DOPE. Wikipedia should adopt it in full.

by urza14 hours ago

This should have always been the only way it worked. Plus it should be easier to create white lists of allowed websites and all other cookies delete with every broswer restart. I know it is possible with Firefox but you need to add websites to whitelist manually in deep settings. At least there are some extensions that make it easier, like CookieAutoDelete

by mjevans7 hours ago

I would like something like, each site by default gets a bucket by name.

If cookies from another bucket should be shared with other sites, or might be seen when requested by a cross-site load from another site, ask the user a four choice question.

"Allow (site) to see cookies from (site)?"

Always Allow, Just this time, Ask later, Always Deny

by heleninboodler16 hours ago

Have you considered that "Total Cookie Protection / Isolation Partition" would be a much better name? :D

by rock_artist14 hours ago

What I wonder/concern is how can one decide for legit use. This also sounds like a possibility for discriminating small players with legit use. (similar to Microsoft's SmartScreen)

Would be great to know how are those concerns handled?

by 4cao20 hours ago

Thank you for your clarification, and your work on Firefox.

I guess that clears it up.

by appleflaxen14 hours ago

> you probably understand that for many blog posts we avoid going into too much technical detail.

Not really... for a highly technical issue like this, at a minimum you should link to the technical details.

There really is no excuse for making every reader of your blog who wants to know the details dig for them independently.

imo, at least.

by johannh13 hours ago

Both the more technical blog post as well as the MDN page are linked shortly after that paragraph.

by Caligatio20 hours ago

I agree I wish they had more detail about the exceptions.

I've been a FPI user for years as a best-effort to reign in tracking but there are a common few sites that just break with FPI (50% of the time PayPal checkout doesn't work). Even if "Total Cookie Protection" is only 98% as effective as FPI, I'm making the switch.

EDIT: FPI = first-party isolation

by johannh20 hours ago

Yes, it’s essentially that, FPI with workarounds for common breakage. You should switch from FPI, this is essentially another take on FPI by some of its original developers, so it should have fewer issues overall, not just site breakage.

by mrweasel19 hours ago

It will be interesting to see how many sites break with “Total Cookie Protection”. Currently I use what I consider are bare minimum of anti-tracking, that is what I can make Firefox provide on its own, plus the DuckDuckGo browser extention. Those two things alone break an alarming number of sites. The DDG extention is pretty regularly mistaken for an ad-blocker.

Given Firefoxs low adoption, I fear that website owner will just ignore that their excessive tracking breaks their site in Firefox... “Works in Chrome... good enough”

by kiwijamo17 hours ago

I have strict tracking enabled in Firefox as well as uBlock Origin and I've yet to see a site broken. The only "broken" ones I've seen are badly coded ones that also fail to work in Chrome. Reputable sites tend to be just fine. YMMV.

by ficklepickle16 hours ago

FF blocked fingerprinting by visa during a transaction. To my surprise, even that did not break.

by lentil_soup20 hours ago


by iruoy19 hours ago
by thayne7 hours ago

I wish there was something better than cookies for these use cases. But then, designing something that can't be abused for tracking, that empowers all the legitimate use cases is also really hard, maybe even impossible.

by laurensr20 hours ago

So if I happen to run a less popular third-party login provider, my fate is sealed?

by johannh20 hours ago

No, there’s no allow-list, you get the same heuristics as described on that MDN page.

by nuker8 hours ago

> Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers.

Facebook and Google will be excepted? This makes it a joke, sadly.

by cmonnow7 hours ago

This is basically Google (Chrome) paying Mozilla (Firefox) to kill 3rd party cookies because Google has a better way to fingerprint users without 3rd party cookies, because they have SO MUCH data about us.

This move is aimed at killing other AdTech companies which rely on 3rd party cookies to track users.

They painting this as a 'PRIVACY' move, after they have already found other ways of tracking users across websites and devices.

by kome20 hours ago

> Would be great to have some more details about it: in particular, how do I turn it off if I prefer to add any exceptions manually.

(on mac) Firefox > Preferences > Privacy & Security > Custom

by 4cao20 hours ago

The question is how to use "Total Cookie Protection" without any hardcoded or heuristics-based exceptions.

Your answer seems to be about how to turn off "Enhanced Tracking Protection"/"Total Cookie Protection" or parts of it (resulting in weaker protection). I want to keep it enabled and disable the exceptions (for stronger protection), i.e. the opposite.

I haven't installed the new version yet, so can't say for sure, but as far as I know there is no setting for this in that menu. [1]

If I misunderstood what you meant, please elaborate.


by andrewmcwatters13 hours ago

There's a lot of comments in here about how it's bad that cookies haven't always worked this way, but a significant amount of web content to this day still requires third-party cookies to work. And I'm not talking about cookies that are designed for analytics purposes; the discussions here where concern is raised revolve around simple things like logins breaking.

For greenhorn web developers, you could say the same thing about TLS certificates. Why weren't they always free?

Well, another reason is because TLS (and formerly SSL) wasn't (weren't) just about encryption, but about a "web of trust." Encryption alone isn't trust.

Many things about web technologies have changed over time; and it's easy to say that any individual piece of functionality should have worked this or that way all along, but the original intent of many web features and how those features are used today can be very different.

One day industry standards may dictate that we don't even process HTTPS requests in a way where the client's IP address is fully exposed to the server. Someone along the way might decide that a trusted agent should serve pages back on behalf of a client, for all clients.

After all, why should a third-party pixel.png request expose me browsing another website?! How absurd. Don't you think? And yet, we do it every day.

by tvprod12038 hours ago

> Well, another reason is because TLS (and formerly SSL) wasn't (weren't) just about encryption, but about a "web of trust." Encryption alone isn't trust.

Which is a nice principle, but given corporate and government incentives, the trust provided was lackluster at best. The PKI is pretty much broken because of it.

In the end, all it did is incur an unaffordable cost for hobbyist bloggers and other netizens.

by Thorrez5 hours ago

You used to be able to simply install a Firefox extension[1] or Android app[2] and automatically steal the accounts of everyone on your wifi network on every website. https stopped that.



by Spivak7 hours ago

Yeah, in the end it’s silly that we ended up with “trust” meaning only you’re connected to someone that controls the domain” which doesn’t actually need PKI to accomplish if we just supported a SRV record with the public key(s) and verifiably authoritative DNS queries.

Which fair it’s trading one PKI for another but web servers vastly outnumber authoritative DNS servers. But DKIM gets along fine without it so we probably could too.

by account4229 minutes ago

Well there is DANE but browser support is unfortunately missing.

by laggyluke3 hours ago

> "web of trust."

"Web of trust" is a pretty specific term that doesn't apply to TLS/SSL:

Did you mean to say "public key infrastructure" (PKI)?

by smichel177 hours ago

> a significant amount of web content to this day still requires third-party cookies to work.

Not in the corners of the web I frequent. I've been blocking 3rd party cookies for years and the only site that's broken was some Pearson online homework site.

by AbuAssar20 hours ago

Total Cookie Protection creates a separate cookie jar for each website you visit.

why this is not the default behavior already?

by SamWhited20 hours ago

Because it breaks a lot of things like SSO providers (although I completely agree with you, screw that, make it the default and add exceptions as necessary like Mozilla is doing now).

by ratherbefuddled15 hours ago

I've had third party cookies completely disabled for years, and first party cookies only allowed by exception. It works fine on everything I use except for whatever it was Atlassian were (are?) doing with their very odd collection of about two dozen domains they round tripped through on authentication.

To be honest though, browser fingerprinting makes this mostly irrelevant unless you carefully use a script blocker with a whitelist too. Any domain that includes trackers that drop third party cookies almost certainly includes scripts that can fingerprint you and send results to a server without using a third party cookie.

by stilisstuk14 hours ago

(A bit of OT)... which is why I am considering SPAs to be complicit in 'evilness'. All these webpages that require js for no real reason is generally making the web insecure and implicitly hostile and difficulty to navigate. Very few have the mental overhead to evaluate each site, so most just let any page do what ever it wants. Tracking and miners be damned.

by codezero13 hours ago

This is just my hunch as I work in analytics and deal with cookies a lot but both Salesforce and Atlassian appear to intentionally trade off the third party inconvenience because their products are enterprise (you have to log in for work) and they rely on upsell/cross sell across their products which they host on different top level domains. So forcing the third party cookie helps immensely with their sales and retention, and doesn't hurt usage because it's often required for work and if you need to work around it, you usually can find a way if you are so inclined.

If they had used the same domain for their products historically and just separate subdomains they wouldn't have to make this trade off, but it probably also helps with third-party ad networks/segmentation to get folks to turn it on anyways.

by SamWhited12 hours ago

> makes this mostly irrelevant

Solving a problem isn't irrelevant just because there are other problems; there's definitely more to do, but this still has value.

by dastx14 hours ago

Weirdly for me Atlassian doesn't work when I have the spoof referrer enabled in about:config. Like why does referrer, a property that is a header, define whether my login is valid or not?

by roywiggins14 hours ago

I had the same problem and tracked it down to uMatrix's quite reasonable spoof-referrer default, which breaks nothing else. Just Atlassian's sign-in, which seems to bounce you around to several domains before it lets you in.

by Thorrez5 hours ago

Some sites use referer for CSRF protection. If they do that an you spoof your referer, they think you're being CSRF attacked and block it.

by nl7 hours ago

I've worked on (non-Atlassian) SSO projects where the provider used the referrer to send the client to the page-after-logout (and occasionally page-after-login) if they weren't set as parameters in some circumstances.

Here's a reference to a F5 device providing SAML SSO services and having a similar issue:

by andor20 hours ago

At least based on my usage, it breaks very few sites.

SSO via OAuth still works fine, because OAuth uses redirects instead of cookies.

by koolba20 hours ago

Not only does redirect based login work, it's an inherently better model than sharing cookies.

With shared cookies nothing stops site A from taking a copy of your cookie and using it to impersonate you on site B. With redirect based login the identity provider has to authorize each application that is being accessed and each site has its own session cookies.

The main problem is dealing with globally revoking access but that's usually solved with shorter termed session cookies that periodically need to be refreshed from the identity provider.

by adrr18 hours ago

Site A can’t access 3rd party cookies. Cookies only can be accessed by the domain they are created on. Otherwise any site could toss a 1x1 image pointing to any website and steal the cookies.

by LinuxBender20 hours ago

Could a site fix this by delegating a subdomain or CNAME to the SSO provider like so that the cookie is still using the same domain, but pointing the IP to the SSO provider? Assuming the SSO provider supports this, that is. I believe OKTA supports this method.

by hinkley15 hours ago

I mean effectively today hardware you or your boss owns is doing most of the work of tracking yourself.

This is making them have to allocate resources to achieve the same effect. Like taking lojack off of your car and phone, and making 'Them' have to tail you and scour security footage like in the old days. It's more expensive. Expensive things do not scale, so you have to prioritize who is worth the cost. People who are under legitimate suspicion of causing harm. Less 'by-catch' to use a commercial fishing concept.

When it's cheap to harass everyone, nobody is 'safe'. But when terrorists can't be tracked at all, nobody is 'safe' either. So we have checks and balances.

by lancesells20 hours ago

I believe so. That is what ad tech companies are now doing to get past the improved privacy measures.

by ficklepickle16 hours ago

I regularly use nginx to reverse proxy third-party API calls. I use it to protect API keys.

In my case, I strip all cookies and sensitive headers. One must keep in mind that the browser will treat it as a first-party request and the security implications that has. You may have to filter or modify cookies/headers.

by cratermoon18 hours ago

That is the preferred solution if you're using cookies across a company.

by merb20 hours ago

well sso providers would still work, if it was made correctly? sso works without cookies. if I implement google sso I would not login via the google supercookie

by wdb20 hours ago

Most seem to require a cookie to the pin the session or to match the passed state

by merb20 hours ago

there is a state parameter? so If I want to have a cookie that passes stuff, I can just store my stuff inside a cookie and pass the stuff inside the state param, there are so many possibilites via openid (which is super easy), I do not know how saml2 works, which might be different tough.

by lordlimecat11 hours ago

Bearer tokens via post parameters seems a lot easier / less problematic than cookies.

by zxcvbn403818 hours ago

Not a huge loss, if you depend on federated logins its just a matter of time until Google or Facebook's algorithms decide to ban your account without explanation or recourse and then how do your users access your site? All you'll be able to do is try to shame the companies on social media and hope enough people are outraged that the company takes notice.

by sodality220 hours ago

Disabling cross site cookies breaks many sites.

by driverdan20 hours ago

No it does not. I've had 3rd party cookies disabled for as long as I can remember. I've found less than five sites that had issues.

by adrr17 hours ago

It's going to break all 3rd party social layer providers. Most news sites don't have native comments and rely on a 3rd party like a Disqus. Login in state is stored as a cookie. It also going to break all the openID stuff that is heavily used in organizations like Walmart. OpenID is all based around cookies. I remember having to rebuild our provider when Safari released an update that you can't set 3rd party cookies without user interaction.

by kreeben13 hours ago

>> It's going to break all 3rd party social layer providers

Good. Disqus had it too easy.

>> It also going to break [..]

Good. They had it too easy.

I'm absolutely loving the fact that my switch to Firefox is paying off. Finally!

by aczerepinski14 hours ago

What did you do instead? Redirects?

by jjav8 hours ago

Same. I've always had 3rd party cookies disabled for as long as the option has existed (which is a long, long time). Never noticed any problem to me.

by sodality219 hours ago

I guess we use different sites then. I should specify I mean it doesn't keep me logged in. I consider this breaking because if I click a link to that site, it loses the original context once logged in.

by enriquto20 hours ago

sounds like a desirable feature to me

by sodality219 hours ago

Agreed, that's why I use it!

by candiddevmike20 hours ago

It's a shame because local storage and friends aren't quite as secure (no way to block all JS from accessing it like you can with cookies).

by gruez20 hours ago

Is this really an issue? If the attacker has XSS on your site you're already screwed because they can manipulate the DOM to simulate user actions.

by staticassertion13 hours ago

It means they can't exfiltrate the cookie, which I think is a pretty nice win, even if they can still perform requests to the domain with that cookie.

For one thing it means they're locked to my session.

by isbvhodnvemrwvn13 hours ago

How would they steal HTTP-only cookies this way?

by mvolfik20 hours ago

What would be the point of localstorage if JS couldn't access it? Cookies can be set and get via http headers, but is localstorage available by other means than JS?

by ficklepickle16 hours ago

No, it is only accessible from JS. Parent comment does not make sense.

By that logic, we should turn off our computers to improve security.

by abdullahkhalids20 hours ago

The only sites that really break are organizational websites, which you can whitelist anyway.

by marshmallow_1220 hours ago


by sodality219 hours ago

Good question. third party login sites mostly don't keep me logged in, kick me out, doesn't let me log in, etc.

by kiwijamo17 hours ago

Give us some real concrete examples. This does not match my experience at all so I'm dubious.

by arbitrage13 hours ago

People have been asking that question for twenty-five years.

by NikolaeVarius20 hours ago

No one but idiots like me wants to figure out how to unbreak every other site they go to.

by happymellon20 hours ago

What sites does it break for you?

by OJFord20 hours ago

Nice, sounds like I can get rid of the extension I use to toggle `privacy.firstparty.isolate`.

> In addition, Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers. Only when Total Cookie Protection detects that you intend to use a provider, will it give that provider permission to use a cross-site cookie specifically for the site you’re currently visiting. Such momentary exceptions allow for strong privacy protection without affecting your browsing experience.

That's exactly why I have to toggle it. Anyone that uses auth0, and many publications sites (follow a link to a PDF, get redirected to `/cookie-absent` instead) fall foul.

by rsync9 hours ago

"Nice, sounds like I can get rid of the extension I use to toggle `privacy.firstparty.isolate` ..."

Forgive me ... do I understand that there is a true/false setting in Firefox named "privacy.firstparty.isolate" that you like to toggle from time to time ... and you use an extension to do that ?

I don't do much browser customization and use only one extension (uBlock Origin) but ... couldn't I toggle a single Firefox setting with a simple command line ?

Why would you need an extension to do that ?

Genuinely curious ...

by dvfjsdhgfv20 hours ago

Moreover, I've heard loud voices before that controlling 3rd party cookies will break login providers - guess what, it turned out if there is a will, there is a way.

by thinkharderdev15 hours ago

I find this very annoying. An OpenID Connect provider is perfectly capable of working without using third-party cookies. The only reason they need them is to allow OIDC authentication without actually redirecting to the provider (by using a hidden iframe to do the OIDC flow on the same site). But if 3rd-party cookies are disabled it should just fall back to the normal OIDC redirect.

by jsmith4515 hours ago

The OIDC front channel signout functionality relies on third party cookies to work properly. This feature has the IDP basically loading your app's end session page in a hidden iframe.

Similarly the OpenID Connect Session Management feature (check_session_iframe) also depends on the ability to use third party cookies.

This functionality is needed to be able to detect if user logged out from front-end code without relying on having any back end code that could receive either a front-channel or back-channel signout notification and send it back.

In the absence of that a pure SPA with no backend could only detect the logout if access tokens are stateful, and they get an error message back that the token refers to an ended session.

Some people get really cranky if a single sign out feature does not actually sign you out of everything.

by laurensr20 hours ago

So if I happen to run a less popular third-party login provider, my platform will break and I will need to lobby for an exception...?

by matt-attack19 hours ago

No. There’s no hard coded list. You get the same heuristics as everyone.

by MR4D20 hours ago

I’ve heard the whole name for this is Total Cookie Protection/Identity Protection, or TCP/IP for short.


by andrewmcwatters20 hours ago

They don't spell it out here, but I wonder if this means that third-party embedded web software requires the Storage Access API now.

It's not particularly fun to implement. It's not hard, but the heuristics are enough of a nudge that it can create weird experiences for users.

"I thought I already signed in, but after I navigate, I have to click sign in again, and a window pops up and then I'm automatically signed in? Why?"

Edit: Yeah, seems so.

See also:

by dkdbejwi3832 hours ago

How does Firefox 86 compare with Safari now for privacy, protection against tracking, etc?

by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc720 hours ago

What's the difference to setting "privacy.firstparty.isolate = true"?

And what's the migration path for users who have been using that setting previously?

Can I now disable it? Do I have to disable it?

by orblivion17 hours ago

Maybe I don't know enough about cookies but it's kind of shocking that that this wasn't the behavior from day one. I suppose it's one of many things designed for a simpler time, but so many of those have been fixed by now.

by bscphil12 hours ago

Kind of an important point: this appears to be an attempt to make third party cookies useless, without actually disabling them since many sites depend on them. This is achieved in two ways:

1. By allowing third party cookies, but compartmentalizing them by the first-party site that sent the request (a much better name for this feature would be "per-site cookie containers", "total cookie protection" is completely uninformative).

2. By using a heuristic to selectively allow cookies to be accessed across the container boundary if they are actually needed, e.g. for logins.

To answer your question, this doesn't make sense as "day one behavior" because it's basically a patch to work around a historical problem with as little breakage as possible. If you were setting up cookie permissions on day one, knowing what we know now, you wouldn't kneecap third party cookies, you'd disable them entirely. Mozilla is trying to make third party cookies useless for 99% of what they're used for: if that's how you feel about third party cookies, you'd just not implement them.

Incidentally, I do block all third party cookies by default and have for years. That's a much stronger approach than the compartmentalization that Mozilla is attempting. I can count on one hand the number of sites I've seen break because of this, most of them are happy to let these cookies fail silently.

by foepys15 hours ago

There is so much legacy tech out there that is still working on the trust level from back when DNS was a hosts file you manually copied to your system once in a while.

BGP and SS7 are other famous examples.

by anticristi17 hours ago

Is this really effective for the users' privacy? Won't AdTech networks simply migrate to browser fingerprinting, perhaps with a bit of server-side tracking?

I'm not arguing to give up. Rather, I'm more convinced in investing in privacy NGOs like and make it expensive to toy with my privacy.

by glsdfgkjsklfj17 hours ago

> Won't AdTech networks simply migrate to browser fingerprinting, perhaps with a bit of server-side tracking?

they don't even have to. Just store two (or N) sets of cookie trails as they already do. This will waste a few MB of storage on the client side and do nothing to Ad/privacy.

Sites never shared the ID anyway, specially since GDPR-et-al.

AD tech works like this: you send a hash of one ID and on the backend attach all the profile info (nobody will ever share that with partners, because that is gold), then the other side just assign their own hash of their ID and also keep all their targeting info on their backend. The only thing that matters is that party A ID123 is known to match party B IDabc. Note that those IDs are transient and set at random, because party A and party B doesn't want to give up their secret info by matching IDs from multiple sites. That is called cookie match. it does NOT depend on a single cookie jar. It doesn't even depend on cookies! why do you think most Ads (and google search result links -ha!) have those weird hashs appended? zero cookies needed)

Another thing that helps even more than 3rd party cookie is multi-site referrer, but google killed that on both chromium and firefox a long time ago (firefox still have the about:config way to disable/set to single-site, set to multi-site-domain-only, but good luck finding a single human who changes that setting by selecting magic numbers)

by jefftk16 hours ago

This is wrong: third party cookies are still widely used in the ad industry. Among other things, the cookie matching that you describe is dramatically more effective with third-party cookies than first-party only.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

by glsdfgkjsklfj15 hours ago

never said it is not widely used or not effective.

Just saying that it won't matter much if removed from the equation.

I mean, if something makes your life easier, you would be a fool to not use it. but that is like saying not having a ferrari prevents you from driving to the store.

by jefftk15 hours ago

Third party cookies are not simply a matter of making adtech developer's lives easier. Imagine you visit shoes.example and are now on news.example. Both of these sites work with ads.example, and the shoe site would like to show you a shoe ad.

With third party cookies this looks like (simplified MVP form):

1. When you visited shoes.example, it loaded a pixel from ads.example. That pixel automatically sent your ads.example cookie, and put you on a remarketing list.

2. When you visit news.example, it sent an ad request to ads.example, which also automatically sent your ads.example cookie. Now the ad tech vendor knows to include the ad from the shoe site because it recognizes the third-party cookie.

On the other hand, without third-party cookies or any replacement browser APIs, how do these identities get joined? Very occasionally someone will follow a link between a pair of sites, and then you can join first party identities, but you probably don't have a chain of identities that connects a news.example first-party identity to a shoes.example identity.

by glsdfgkjsklfj17 hours ago

btw, the only way to fix this mess and not break the internet in the short term is to fix the UI. not the black magic hidden from the user.

Just show 1st class useful controls on the browser UI for cookies and the problem solves itself. what EU cookie law should have been.

Every user understands "site A wants to store a save file" "site A wants to access save file". Nobody understands cookies and same-origin and cors.

by anticristi15 hours ago

Yeah, the cookie law was a false start. Laypeople don't care about the exact technical implementation (e.g., session cookies vs. persistent cookies vs. local storage vs. browser fingerprinting).

What I care as a EU citizen: Are you collecting and storing information that can directly or indirectly identify me? Yes, tracking and profiling are included in this.

You want to store some session cookies, so you remember my shopping cart? Go ahead!

You want to store some cookies, so you remember I was logged in? Sure!

You want to use every available technological loophole to follow my every path on the Internet? Errrr, no thanks!

by josho12 hours ago

I see this as a test of government. A well functioning government will iterate on their laws and see what they got right/wrong and improve it.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for a GDPR 1.1 that patches some of the things they got wrong.

by cmonnow7 hours ago

This is basically Google (Chrome) paying Mozilla (Firefox) to kill 3rd party cookies because Google has a better way to fingerprint users without 3rd party cookies, because they have SO MUCH data about us.

This move is aimed at killing other AdTech companies which rely on 3rd party cookies to track users.

They painting this as a 'PRIVACY' move, after they have already found other ways of tracking users across websites and devices.

by qwerty45612720 hours ago

> Total Cookie Protection creates a separate cookie jar for each website you visit.

This should have always been the only way it worked. Every website should run like if it was opened in a separate browser.

> third-party login providers

Don't use these, it's a trap.

by cj20 hours ago

> Don't use these, it's a trap.

Except if you're setting up SSO for your company's employees. Using a 3rd party login provider is a necessity. You shouldn't trust employees to create unique / strong passwords for every individual service they login to.

by Frondo19 hours ago

Or if you're setting up a SaaS application where some of your customers will want integration with their own SSO. We don't have developer time to spare implementing that sort of thing but Auth0 lets us do it as one of its built-in integrations.

It lets us offer SSO with whatever Auth0 supports as a freebie add-on, instead of "well, we could work with your platform but it's gonna cost you."

I don't see how it's a trap, except that we have to pay auth0 a monthly fee to handle our authentications instead of having some number of hours a month spent maintaining and securing our customers' logins and integrations.

by sintaxi16 hours ago

I don't see why OAuth doesn't solve this problem for you.

by randomsearch19 hours ago

Would a password manager solve that problem?

by folbec18 hours ago

Not really, at scale.

SSO is a must in any big organisation, there are tens or hundred of applications.

People are incredibly and consistently bad with security. You really need a way to be able to cancel all accesses in one swoop for any individual.

by foepys15 hours ago

Not only that. As a user it's incredibly frustrating entering a password 5 or more times each morning. This results in users using extremely weak passwords.

The same is true for forcing users to reset their password every 50 days or so, by the way. This outdated password guideline doesn't seem to die. I know way to many cases where people are using a weak base password with a number attached to it because they got sick of trying to remember a new password every month.

by adrr18 hours ago

SSO is more than password management. It is instant provisioning and deprovisioning of users. Role management and auditing. Enforcement of security standards like 2FA in a central place.

by yladiz17 hours ago

Not really relevant for the specific topic, but to be more precise, SSO is only the sign on part. Usually the provisioning/de-provisioning is handled by SCIM, which is related but distinct. You have some SaaS products that offer SSO but not SCIM, for example.

by samstave16 hours ago

Who is the best SSO provider?

Where can I learn about best SSO practice/implementation?

by hellcow19 hours ago

If you can enforce that they use the password manager, it solves that one problem.

But SSO centralizes access management. For instance, with one switch I can set password requirements, require 2FA, and grant/revoke access to all of an employee's services when they join the company or leave.

by petre19 hours ago

I'm sure there are ways to use 2FA or OTP without externalising access management to Facebook, Google or another SSO provoder, unless you want to pick convenience over privacy and security.

by koheripbal16 hours ago

No because you want to be able to offboard/disable those accounts without having to manually do it for each one.

by llarsson19 hours ago

> Don't use [third-party login providers], it's a trap.

Pretty hard to avoid in many cases. Logging in to your Microsoft account for Office (Teams, Outlook, et al.) uses a login service, as does Google, and practically all services that span across multiple domains. Which includes all of the major ones, at this point.

Good that Firefox gives us this option, given how the web has evolved!

by amitparikh20 hours ago

For what it's worth, I find third-party logins (e.g. Spotify via Facebook) to be a nice convenience feature that I use quite often.

by woodrowbarlow20 hours ago

i don't think anyone would deny that third party logins are convenient -- either from the user perspective or from the developer perspective. but they are also a huge vector for privacy-invasive ad-profiling, if that's the login provider's business model.

by saddlerustle19 hours ago

I'd bet for the average user privacy impact of tracking is much less significant that the privacy impact of constant account compromises.

by woodrowbarlow18 hours ago

that is true, but that is virtually always because of password re-use. if you use a password manager and randomly-generated passwords unique to each service, this is almost entirely mitigated.

with a single third party login for all services, though, if that third party account gets compromised the results are catastrophic.

by xyzal20 hours ago

With all respect, did you think of the consequences of you losing access to your login account?

by vntok19 hours ago

This is a feature in corporate contexts.

by randomsearch19 hours ago

a good password manager beats this hands down, for convenience, privacy, and security.

by cakoose15 hours ago

I use 1Password (and the browser extension) for all my passwords, but I still choose "Sign-in with Google" when that's an option.

The "Sign-in with Google" button is makes it much quicker to create an account and slightly quicker to log in.

Also, I can rely on my Google 2FA rather than setting up and filling in a different TOTP for each site. Something like U2F or WebAuthn would make the filling-in part more convenient, but even sites that offer 2FA usually don't offer those. (And many sites don't even offer 2FA.)

Using 1Password's 2FA feature would make TOTP more convenient, but I'm a little nervous about putting 2FA in 1Password. This might be overly-conservative thinking, though.

by mNovak14 hours ago

I agree it can be super convenient, though 'Sign in with Google' is totally broken for me, because I've accumulated a handful of google accounts.

Every time I log in to a service, I have to guess which account it's associated with (bearing in mind I may have signed up years ago). And if I'm wrong, half the time it immediately attempts to create a new account, and then I'm stuck with a bunch of empty dummy accounts on various services.

by cortesoft18 hours ago

It doesn't for corporate usage... having to create accounts for every new employee on every service you use, and then remove those accounts when someone leaves is not scalable. Having SSO is needed.

by DavideNL17 hours ago

>> Total Cookie Protection creates a separate cookie jar for each website you visit.

> This should have always been the only way it worked. Every website should run like if it was opened in a separate browser.

FYI: Extension "Temporary Containers" does this:

by sudosysgen18 hours ago

I have no choice but to. The school services I must use are all tied into O365.

by colinclerk18 hours ago

Great privacy-focused launch, Firefox!

If anyone wants to see these protections in action, leverages the Storage Access API in development mode - where we need to share session data across localhost and a clerk-owned domain.

With this launch, developers are now prompted to explicitly allow third-party cookie access in Firefox.

(In production mode, the prompt isn't thrown because our cookies are set in a first party context.)

by deugtniet20 hours ago

Mozilla is really fighting the good fight for the users privacy. I've been using Firefox for as long as I can remember, even when there were faster and more fancy alternatives available. Their ideology and service to the user is what makes me loyal to them

by pastrami_panda20 hours ago

> even when there were faster and more fancy alternatives available

This seems to indicates there's not faster alternatives around anymore, but the last time I tried FF (4-6 months ago) I couldn't make the transition because the lag was pretty obvious when coming from Chrome based browsers. Is this not the case anymore?

by DangerousPie19 hours ago

I use Firefox and Chrome at the same time and I don't really notice any difference. Maybe a bit for Google apps (Hangouts, Docs, Meet, etc) but I just see that as a symptom of Google's attempts at using their market dominance to harm competitors, which makes me want to use Firefox even more.

by jk7tarYZAQNpTQa19 hours ago

It seems to me that Google is always trying to make their products run much slower on browsers that aren't Chrome.

by cratermoon18 hours ago

It's unlikely they put any effort into intentionally make them run slower, it's just that they are written to work optimally on Chrome and minor differences in the behavior of things like the V8 vs. SpiderMonkey and Blink vs Gecko. Given that each one is written with different tradeoffs, it's not surprising things perform differently.

Whether or not the Google programmers use specific proprietary knowledge about the behavior of Chrome to optimize performance is different. If they do, that would be similar to the things that got Microsoft in trouble.

by samstave16 hours ago

What is your opinion of Brave Browser.

I use Brave + Ublock exclusively.

by DangerousPie15 hours ago

I haven't tried Brave, never understood the point of it. What does Brave + uBlock offer you that Firefox + uBlock doesn't?

by mFixman20 hours ago

I think this might be more about perception than anything else.

I've used Firefox since 2006, and Chrome always seemed heavier, laggier and uglier. Maybe it's the snappy iOS-like animation when you scroll to the bottom of the page that makes it seem snappier?

by jan_g16 hours ago

It's not imaginary - for years Firefox drained battery on macbooks really fast. Then there is this pesky issue of randomly freezing whole laptop for a minute or so, usually associated with file uploads or locking screen [1], [2], [3], ... Fixed in one version, then appears again in the next version.

I still used Firefox a lot for various reasons (and still do), but I'm not blind to how it performed.

[1] [2] [3]

by Sodman19 hours ago

Firefox is fine and quick as long as you don't need to use any heavy Google apps. Some people might even consider this a plus. For me, between work and personal use I'm effectively married to Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and Google Hangouts. Unfortunately that makes Firefox a non-starter for me. Not to mention Firefox's privacy settings trigger countless reCAPTCHA gates across most of GSuite. I get that this is not Firefox's "fault" and it's done intentionally by Google, but as a user it becomes my problem.

I really want Firefox to work for me and I'd love to drop Chrome, but last time FF made big noise about performance improvements I tried it out and Gmail was still unusably slow.

by neogodless16 hours ago

I use Google Calendar and Google Docs without any issues in Firefox. I agree Gmail is coded terribly and do not use the web site! I stick to using Thunderbird on the computer, and checking email on my phone. Have not been using Hangouts for a couple years, though.

For me, the way Google is keeping Gmail terrible for other browsers is exactly the reason to not use Chrome. No way I'm OK with that.

by jakemal18 hours ago

FWIW I use all of those apps on a daily basis with Firefox and have not noticed any performance issues. It may be worth giving it another try if you haven't in a while.

by kiwijamo17 hours ago

Indeed. Hangouts is one I find works better in Firefox even! But I observe it seems to vary. Perhaps Intel Macs has some quirks that makes it more peformant and reliable in Firefox.

by hojjat1200017 hours ago

I switched to FF when Quantum came out. I use it exclusively. Not because I hate Chrome, but because I don't see any need for chrome. Once in a while I see a website that forces me to use something other than FF. But it happens rarely, and it is mostly some webgl-based under-development demo website.

I even use it on my phone. The mobile version is definitely worse than Chrome, but it has plugins (or it used to! nowadays it only support a few popular ones which is a shame) and also I can send tabs from my phone to my computer (which is a better place to read articles anyways).

by chociej17 hours ago

Have not ever noticed any performance problems using FF for Google products, personally. Works great.

by koningrobot17 hours ago

I switched back to Firefox last week and I had the same experience -- Google apps and Slack were dog slow. But after a day or so they were working fine, I imagine it's a matter of populating the cache. YMMV.

by Abishek_Muthian17 hours ago

It also depends upon the operating system among several other variables,

I didn't find noticeable difference between FF and Chrome based browsers(Vivaldi, Edge) on macOS(although Safari runs circles around them) after using them extensively. I used each of them for a separate project with several common websites loaded in them, there were different quirks for each browser(especially reg tab hibernation) but latency was not one of them.

On Linux FF seems definitely faster than Chromium, although there are occasional DNS errors which stops loading the web pages altogether(likely result of my own doing). I've stopped having different browsers for different projects and just use FF for all.

On Android with Chrome, not just Chrome but even WebView using it is astonishingly fast(e.g. DDG browser), I presume it's because of data saver feature. On de-googled android like LineageOS, FF/Fennec seems to be on same level as Chromium and DDG is faster here as well.

On iOS, everything is Safari.

I don't use Windows much, but I've seen others mentioning Edge seems to be faster than Chrome recently.

by ptato20 hours ago

How much faster is it for you guys? I legitimately can not tell the difference.

by tempest_19 hours ago

I find them to be close enough to imperceptible for just normal html and css etc.

The stumbling block for me as FireFox user is I am increasingly bumping into web apps that preform poorly in FF but are fine in Chrome for one reason or another. One instance I bump into a lot is ElasticSearches Kibana runs like trash in FF for some reason.

by StavrosK18 hours ago

It sounds like the old "nobody uses Firefox because nobody tests on Firefox because nobody uses Firefox" vicious cycle, unfortunately.

by cortesoft18 hours ago

I am guessing performance differences might be masked by good hardware? Sometimes performance differences don't show up until you use an underpowered machine.

by foerbert18 hours ago

I don't think it's just that. I have a half-dead Chromebook with linux, and I use Firefox on it. Some years back I ran Chrome on it because it worked better, but at some point I started seeing issues with Chrome and tried Firefox again. I've been using Firefox since.

by Sohcahtoa8215 hours ago

I switched from Chrome to Firefox about a year and a half ago. Chrome definitely felt more snappy, but the difference wasn't that much.

Except on Facebook. My Facebook tab is incredibly laggy, and gets more and more laggy the longer I leave it open. I'm one of those users that tends to keep 50+ tabs open, and I have to close and reopen the Facebook tab at least once a day to keep it from becoming a nearly frozen mess. Even then, if a video is playing and I click it to make it fill the window, it takes several seconds for it to happen. And with an i9-9900K, 32 GB of RAM, RTX 3080, and a 1 TB NVMe drive, my computer is definitely no slouch.

by moritonal20 hours ago

No. I still use Firefox, but when I use Edge or Chrome it hurts a bit just how much snappier they are.

by hiq19 hours ago

Did you have ublock origin installed on Firefox?

I feel that most people complaining about slow browsers have no blocker installed.

by sodality219 hours ago

My CPU immediately pumps to 100% usage after opening google docs. Granted, it's on my old laptop, but I can use electron apps and they run far better than gdocs.

by kiwijamo17 hours ago

Interesting, I have uBlock Origin and indeed I can't tell the difference between Chrome and Firefox.

by bartvk19 hours ago

Did you see lag on all websites? Or in specific instances? Which platform and on what kind of hardware?

by behnamoh18 hours ago

I've noticed that Firefox has become even snappier than Chrome.

One big advantage is that I now have way more addons installed on Firefox that would otherwise make Chrome utterly slow and unusable.

by FlashBlaze18 hours ago

I have tried regular as well as the developer version of Firefox, but no matter what I use, YouTube videos always skip frames after every 10-15 seconds or so. So I use Brave for YouTube and other WebGL heavy stuff and Firefox developer version for daily browsing.

by kiwijamo17 hours ago

That sounds very strange. Certainly don't see that in Firefox on Mac (work laptop) and both Linux and Windows (personal laptop). Try adding the h.264 extension. That forces YouTube to provide h.264 videos which is hardware accelerated on pretty much any hardware.

by FlashBlaze8 hours ago

Tried the addon. Still nothing. I have also tried clean installing Firefox with no addons, but same issue.

by behnamoh16 hours ago

Adding that extension disables 4k video on YouTube.

by hojjat1200017 hours ago

I don't know if you're on Linux. But I had issues with Youtube as well. Two things helped me an updated graphics driver and Wayland.

by FlashBlaze8 hours ago

I'm on Windows 10 with latest drivers for Nvidia 1050Ti. Still the same issue.

by Nextgrid16 hours ago

Keep in mind that Firefox opens their website on first run and on every update and that includes Google Analytics.

I find the majority of their privacy claims dubious and dangerously misleading for those that don't know any better. If they were serious about privacy they'd offer uBlock Origin (or equivalent functionality) preinstalled by default.

Their current countermeasures such as containers, tracking protection and this cookie thing is trivial to bypass with browser fingerprinting and IP address tracking if you have a global view of the Internet (which Facebook and Google do have).

by godshatter14 hours ago

I modified the settings long ago to come up with a blank tab on startup. I use NoScript and do not allow google analytics through. No facebook domains make it through NoScript as far as javascript is concerned, very few google ones do.

I get you about the updates. It's a risk-reward ratio I accept because firefox + noscript + always starting in a private session is way more helpful than the update problem is harmful. Using a VPN a lot of the time helps, too. There is no solution I know of that is perfect. My threat model is pretty relaxed, though, so what I do is mostly for my peace of mind. You have reminded me that I should start spoofing my user agent again.

by Nextgrid7 hours ago

I don't disagree that it's possible to configure Firefox to respect your privacy. I myself use it sometimes and have a similar configuration.

But it is extremely misleading for them to be shouting "privacy" at every opportunity while the truth is that their browser leaks personal data like a sieve in the default configuration. This would give a false sense of security to non-technical people who don't have the skills to see through these lies.

by chungy16 hours ago

> Keep in mind that Firefox opens their website [...] on every update

I haven't experienced this since the rapid release schedule started. They're pretty silent now.

by koheripbal16 hours ago

What do you think of enabling letterboxing, uBlock, and DoH to prevent fingerprinting?

Are there any other config changes you would recommend to Firefox to harden it?

by igobyterry15 hours ago

Not only that, but Firefox for US users will track what websites you visit to target their discover campaign content.

by cpeterso13 hours ago

From Mozilla's Firefox New Tab FAQ:

"neither Mozilla nor Pocket ever receives a copy of your browser history. When personalization does occur, recommendations rely on a process of story sorting and filtering that happens locally in your personal copy of Firefox."

by nashashmi20 hours ago

I preferred chrome cookie control over Firefox after switching. (I have had to compromise with umatrix to fill this feature gap.) Very granular control for each cookie where a cookie can be allowed, temporary, or blocked.

I went through my entire list of cookies once, 400 at least and started perma blocking all those I didn’t recognize. It was beautiful. I can’t do the same in Firefox.

I’m not feeling very good about this move where third party cookies are isolated by website. There are lots of websites separated across multiple domain names sometimes unrelated. (Sharepoint, office 365) they will have difficulty.

And then there are special login websites and others like dish network telling CNN you have a subscription with them.

This breaks. And creates a predetermined list of who can do what.

by quesera19 hours ago

> I went through my entire list of cookies once, 400 at least and started perma blocking all those I didn’t recognize. It was beautiful. I can’t do the same in Firefox.

If I understand your description correctly, you can definitely do this in Firefox also. Preferences/Privacy & Security/Cookies and Site Data.

by foepys15 hours ago

> I went through my entire list of cookies once, 400 at least and started perma blocking all those I didn’t recognize. It was beautiful. I can’t do the same in Firefox.

I did this in Firefox before Chrome was even a thing. This has been supported natively without add-ons since at least 3.5, if not even earlier.

by nashashmi13 hours ago

That would be under "Cookies and Site Data". There are two options: Manage cookies (which only give option to remove cookies) and Manage Exception (which require you to manually add domain names. This is not usable for massive cookie block list.

by nashashmi14 hours ago

That would be under "Cookies and Site Data". There are two options: Manage cookies (which only give option to remove cookies) and Manage Exception (which require you to manually add domain names. This is not usable for massive cookie block list.

by Nextgrid18 hours ago

Is there a reason why uBlock Origin is still not included in the browser? In this day and age, you can't have privacy online without it, and claiming otherwise is misleading at best and maliciously deceptive at worst.

by Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL18 hours ago

Not affiliated with Mozilla, nor do I know, but my thoughts:

A quick check reveals that while ublock origin seems to be the most popular, it's by far not the only popular add-on to block ads ; so why include ublock origin specifically? Especially since it has become much more than a simple adblocker (script blocking capabilities for example), why not something else? Why not integrate an ad-blocker developed completely by mozilla?

Why not include NoScript + Containers by default? And some UserAgent Switch capability? And more fine grained cookie storage options (currently available via add-ons), et cetera?

When you start integrating capabilities currently being offered by add-ons, the questions are :

- where to stop

- how to discriminate what to include, what not

- how will users and developers feel (for example the user who wants to use his favorite add-on, which now is not developed anymore because almost no one bothers to install it since functionality X has become part of the browser)

- how to deal with edge cases (the one site which breaks because of ad-block is the reason a non-technical person might simply install chrome and move on with their life)

- is the increasing complexity worth it? to what degree is it?

by Nextgrid18 hours ago

> why include ublock origin specifically

A lot of the other ad blocking extensions are malicious and collude with the advertising industry through some kind of whitelist program. Their license might also not be permissive enough to allow this.

> Why not include NoScript + Containers by default?

NoScript requires lots of manual intervention, uBlock Origin with the default lists is still seamless and rarely causes breakage thus very little need for manual intervention.

I am not convinced that Containers does anything at all. Browser fingerprinting & IP address tracking defeats it very easily.

> And some UserAgent Switch capability

This is absolutely needed and I'm baffled this isn't offered natively, though this would be less for privacy and more as a developer tool.

> And more fine grained cookie storage options (currently available via add-ons), et cetera?

I find the whole craze around cookies overblown. Your IP address is a relatively persistent cookie you can't clear. The only way is to prevent requests made to the malicious actors to begin with, with some kind of blacklist like what uBlock Origin provides.

> how to discriminate what to include, what not

I'd argue that if your mission is to make the web better and protect people's privacy then including a proper ad blocker is a no brainer.

> does it do any good

That is up to discussion with the add-on author (the author of UBO has repeatedly declined donations and seems to be doing his efforts out of passion and/or hatred for ads, so he should be onboard), but otherwise, the secret sauce isn't really the blocker per-se but the blocklists such as EasyList/Fanboy's lists, and Mozilla has enough resources to reimplement a compatible client from scratch if needed.

> how to deal with edge cases

Contribute back to the lists to fix any edge-cases by adjusting an over-reaching blocking rule, and offer an easy way for users to temporarily disable the blocking on a per-site basis.

by godshatter13 hours ago

> I find the whole craze around cookies overblown. Your IP address is a relatively persistent cookie you can't clear. The only way is to prevent requests made to the malicious actors to begin with, with some kind of blacklist like what uBlock Origin provides.

In my personal opinion, no one should be connecting to the internet in this day and age without using a VPN service wherever possible.

by _-david-_15 hours ago

My preference would be to include the functionality of ad blockers but not include any of the actual lists. You would then be able to pull down the same lists that ublock origin provides by default and add any additional lists you want.

by Jerry215 hours ago

>Is there a reason why uBlock Origin is still not included in the browser?

Once you look into where Mozilla gets their money from, you'll find millions of reasons.

And in the past, Mozilla has stated that bundling ad blocking with the browser would 'hurt the Internet'.

by SilverRed13 hours ago

They may find that websites, along with their adblock blockers, will just add the firefox useragent to the block list.

by hertzrat18 hours ago

Maliciously deceptive is pretty strong wording

by Nextgrid18 hours ago

I'd argue that this is justified when it comes to misleading non-technical users about their privacy.

Mozilla plasters the word "privacy" everywhere and yet opens their own website on first run and after every update which includes Google Analytics, from the same company that's known to violate people's privacy on a large scale and profit from it.

Browser fingerprinting and IP-based tracking is reliable enough that blocking cookies is absolutely useless in this day and age against an omnipresent adversary such as Google & Facebook. Blocking their request uBlock Origin-style is the only way to go and claiming to protect your privacy otherwise is very misleading.

by sudhirj19 hours ago

So we have a suite of B2B products, hosted on,,, with an OAuth2 provider on isn't very "well known", and it won't be, because we run it privately for auth and user management for our own products only. There are no subdomains anywhere, only individual domains.

Does this break our setup? And how do we tell users to un-break it? And is there a way to tell Mozilla via directives that we have a private list of sites we'd like to share cookies in?

by michaelt19 hours ago

No, it's still easy to perform oauth2 login.

User clicks log in at, they get forwarded to which checks their (now first-party) cookies, then once they're logged in they get forwarded back to with a token in an URL parameter.

by sudhirj19 hours ago

Ah, right, thanks. So this is a problem only if we have in-page widgets from that load on and hope to find a the currently logged in user there. Makes sense, that's basically what an ad is.

by kevin_thibedeau13 hours ago

This weakens security. Now auth tokens can be logged or actively intercepted on corporate networks with TLS MITM and these URLs will eventually find their way into emails and other unencrypted locations. Not exactly progress.

by michaelt2 hours ago

The behaviour with third party cookies blocked is how oauth2 works by design.

Even without third party cookie blocking, if you're at and you click to log in with but you're not logged into yet, you get forwarded to to sign in.

So with third party cookies blocked, it's no less secure than it was before.

by SilverRed13 hours ago

If you have TLS MITM malware on your computer than security is already dead.

by ThePhysicist19 hours ago

Safari solves this by sending third-party cookies only if the user visited the originating domain within 24 hours.

Not sure how Firefox handles this but I guess it would be easy to detect a redirect from to and recognize this as a use-case where a third-party cookie from should be sent for a request originating from

That said it's probably more privacy-friendly to append an access token as a hash parameter to the URL when redirecting and extract it via JS, which will not be affected by cookie limitations.

by grishka20 hours ago

Why not just do away with third-party cookies altogether already?

by agildehaus20 hours ago

We're on the road to that.

by grishka20 hours ago

I mean, why are all these lengthy intermediate steps necessary? It's only a matter of changing the default value of one damn setting. I've had third-party cookies disabled for more than a year and the only websites I've had problems with were ridiculously poorly-made ones — like AliExpress, that for some reason has a zillion subdomains and relies on third-party cookies for authentication.

by bzbarsky20 hours ago

I have third-party cookies disabled, and have for years. A non-exhaustive list of sites where I have login or other problems as a result:

1) One of my local banks (who use weird third-party hosted modules for some of their functionality).

2) Verizon.

3) T-Mobile

If I were a normal user, any one of these ("I have to do _what_ to see my FIOS bill?") could be a show-stopper.

Which is what makes it hard to turn this on by default without driving away users.

by grishka19 hours ago

On the other hand, if third-party cookies were going away for real, this would force website developers to finally fix their crap.

by faitswulff16 hours ago

It's funny you note that the only website that had issues was a top 50 website ( that no doubt has a lot of ordinary non-technical folk on it. Breaking sites like these would likely kill an already relatively niche browser.

by bpicolo19 hours ago

> relies on third-party cookies for authentication

A lot of websites depends on this via auth0, cloud identity, cognito... and the experience becomes subtly broken in a way that you need to be extremely technically savvy (a developer that has a whole lot of auth experience) to understand.

by behringer20 hours ago

because you're fighting the ad industry. The ad industry which also has their own browser and tells grandma whenever she searches about problems with cookies that there's a "better" browser out there.

It's google. I'm talking about google.

by igetspam20 hours ago

Precisely. Google is an ad behemoth AND has the majority of the market of browsers. If Firefox (or Safari of Opera or etc) changes to something that breaks Google but Chrome doesn't, they'll just get more of the market. For non chromium browsers to survive, they have to play a long game and show people why these changes are important. People are happy to sacrifice privacy for convienience, unfortunately.

by andrewmcwatters20 hours ago

It breaks non-tracking functionality for embedded things on the web as currently implemented in major browsers, in particular, which is one of the largest use cases.

by mvolfik20 hours ago

What's an example of this?

by andrewmcwatters20 hours ago

Signing into a website through an iframe redirects you back to a sign in page inexplicably if the post-signin page requires a cookie.

Another example is you're signed into website A, and while on website B, iframes to website A behave in such a way that you're not signed in, and you cannot sign in.

by michaelt18 hours ago

If you disable third-party cookies, you can't download files or view videos in Google Drive without a workaround.

This is because the download is from while your browser remains at the whole time - and to download private files, expects you to have a login cookie. If you block third-party cookies the download gets stuck in a redirect loop, sending you to get a cookie over and over again.

Google is aware of this but hasn't fixed it.

by MaxBarraclough14 hours ago

Safari already does this by default, if I understand correctly.

by bpicolo19 hours ago

> Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers

How does this work out? Say I want to launch a new popular login provider - how do I get past the Firefox gatekeeper?

by jefftk16 hours ago

It isn't based on a list of login providers, instead there are temporary heuristics:

In the Firefox storage access policy, we have defined several heuristics to address Web compatibility issues. The heuristics are designed to catch the most common scenarios of using third-party storage on the web (outside of tracking) and allow storage access in order to make websites continue normally. For example, in Single-Sign-On flows it is common to open a popup that allows the user to sign in, and transmit that sign-in information back to the website that opened the popup. Firefox will detect this case and automatically grant storage access.

Note that these heuristics are not designed for the long term. Using the Storage Access API is the recommended solution for websites that need unpartitioned access. We will continually evaluate the necessity of the restrictions and remove them as appropriate. Therefore, developers should not rely on them now or in the future.

by bpicolo14 hours ago

Perfect context - thanks!

That said, hopefully that doesn't start a new cat and mouse game for ad networks? hah

by jefftk14 hours ago

The heuristics seem pretty intrusive, so I doubt most ad networks would be interested in trying to meet them.

by IMTDb19 hours ago

Great ! Can we now remove all these cookie banners that have been plaguing the web since a pencil pusher in the EU thought it would a great idea to force every single website to display an annoying popup.

by jefftk16 hours ago

This change is about blocking third-party cookies, while cookie banners also include notification around first party cookies.

For example, first-party cookies used to implement analytics are included. See

by kleiba19 hours ago

The better way to do this would be if you could configure your preferences once and for all in the client which then transparently communicates it to the website providers.

by tcit18 hours ago

The DoNotTrack header didn't work.

by kleiba15 hours ago

But there is a difference between a volunteer action by some browser developers, and the law. I think the bigger problem is that there are different policies in place in different legislation, so it would be very challenging to implement something that satisfies the needs.

by jx4716 hours ago

These banners are there to fool you into accepting all cookies. They are basically a dark pattern at this point. The GDPR and the so called cookie law state that strictly functional cookies have implicit consent by the visitor. Even selfhosted tracking via cookies is considered functional. The GDPR/cookie law also does not enforce those banners. They only state that the user has to consent to every form of tracking.

So every time you see one of these huge banners it is the deliberate effort by the website owner to trick you into accepting the tracking.

by marshray16 hours ago

Nobody wants to argue with GDPR regulators which cookies are "strictly necessary" and they certainly don't want to pay lawyers to review the purpose and use of every cookie.

It's not a trick, it's just that the easiest path for all sites to comply is to obtain blanket consent for everything.

Classic perverse incentive.

by SamuelAdams17 hours ago
by belorn19 hours ago

Simple, make a law that makes consent via banners invalid.

by Nextgrid16 hours ago

Spoiler alert: we have that law. The GDPR as it stands outlaws annoying/misleading consent banners.

Next step: fire the incompetent people staffing the various data protection agencies and replace them with someone that would actually enforce said law.

by thitcanh18 hours ago

I just imagined that video of a cat in zero-gravity

by infogulch5 hours ago

This is great! I recently tried to this fudge behavior into firefox myself by using container tabs and temporary containers extensions. I wonder if these extensions would add any additional protection above strict mode now.

by OscarCunningham20 hours ago

Does this make Firefox's containers unnecessary?

by happymellon20 hours ago

It depends on your usecase. Containers for me has nothing to do with this.

I use containers for sites like AWS where it doesn't understand the concept that I might want to switch regions or accounts but only in some tabs so that I can work on multiple parts of the network.

This obviously does nothing for that.

by gruez20 hours ago

There are other use cases for containers besides third party cookie isolation. If you want to have two separate sessions for a site, you'd still need containers.

by als019 hours ago

Private windows can let you do that, so you don't really need containers.

by daveFNbuck18 hours ago

Having containers means you don't have to log in every time, and you can have multiple sessions open in different tabs in the same window.

by magicalhippo18 hours ago

I have multiple sites like Github, Dropbox etc where I have multiple accounts I'd like to access separately. Typically private account vs work account, but also other scenarios.

Containers makes this a breeze.

In addition, at least Firefox only has a single private session. So if I open a site in one private window and another in a different one, they're in the same session, sharing cookies etc. Not so with different containers.

by happymellon16 hours ago

I find this a horrible usecase for me, I keep my password managers separate from my work provided one and my personal one. Containers don't solve this, and I use profiles, which I have to be thankful for MultiFirefox for fixing it. But only on MacOS.

I don't understand why fixing profiles isn't a priority, I find the usecase for them is completely different to containers which are awesome in a completely different way.

by pityJuke20 hours ago

I use Containers to make sites have no stored memories of me. Most sites I open, a new, temporary container (extension required) for that visit, and swiftly deleted afterwards.

All my YouTube views are firmly disassociated from my account, so recommendations will only be impacted based on geographic data. News sites can't remember if I've been there before, other than using IP addresses.

by goalieca20 hours ago

I’ve had a miserable time with Putting Google in a container and switching over SSO.

by nimbius20 hours ago

the most aggravating trend Firefox jumped on was making the option to allow-list cookies a byzantine and infuriating process from what it used to be.

If you want to reject all cookies and allow-list only a handful of sites, youll need to go into privacy settings and choose a "custom" option to reject all cookies. presumably you're knowledgeable if youre here but if not, theres a scary warning that tells you doing this will "cause websites to break." Once thats done, reload your tabs and realize that if you choose "allow all cookies" at a later date, switching back to the "custom" setting doesnt return you to your former "block all cookies," just the watery default of blocking some cookies.

now if you want to allow-list a site, good luck. You cant use add-ons to do it and theres no menu option to quickly accomplish this anymore. open your settings again, under privacy, and custom settings again, and youre faced with a form to enter your new site. once you add the site to the list, you must hit save. Yes, the site is in the list now, but unless you hit save, you didnt add it.

Now arguably firefox cracked down on cookie block/allow capability at the behest of google and advertisers some years ago but to see them doubling back on the cookie issue --not to fix the blocklist feature but to nanny-state your cookie preferences even further-- is a real slap in the face.

stop tip toeing around the issue to appease advertisers. Let us block what we want to quickly and easily.

by roboman20 hours ago

Does anyone know of a good comparison between FF and Brave regarding both security and privacy?

by topspin19 hours ago

This site appears to provide a reasonable analysis of all the common browsers. It was mentioned on HN a year ago to zero comments. Chrome is completely indifferent to prevailing privacy compromises. Brave is locked down pretty hard. This one is amusing: "Brave: Add noise to Canvas, WebGL and AudioContext APIs to make fingerprinting more difficult"

I don't think it's been updated yet for this new Firefox feature.

by mattowen_uk20 hours ago

Other than this is how cookies should have worked from the get-go, I have a question/scenario:

1. User visits, which sets a cookie containing 'ThisIsUser9'

2. also rewrites every external URL on the page, with a new param '&adtrack=ThisIsUser9'

3. User clicks on external link on and goes to

4.'s server sees the adtrack param on the end of the URL and sets a cookie 'ThisIsUser9' and also adds the adtrack param to all external URLs on the returned page.

5. Advertising company works with site-a and site-b (and many many other sites) to build up a persistent profile of your browsing habits.

We can't stop this, even with this new FF cookie isolation. Those of us who care will install an extension to strip known trackers from all URLs, and 90% of all other web users, will still be tracked as usual.

Face it, the private web is lost. :(

by alkonaut18 hours ago

>'s server sees

I can at least SEE that siteA passes my information to siteB. Or at least that it passes something (e.g. a huge base64 chunk in the url). That's a big step forward. I can also block the referrer headers so it's not visible in siteA url itself. If I want to navigate from SiteA to SiteB and the url doesn't look "expected", I can choose to not click it. Tracking that only takes place in URLS and only when I click things, isn't nearly as scary or problematic as cookies.

by randomsearch19 hours ago

this doesn't work if I don't go to first

most of the time I go direct to a URL by typing in the address bar

> Face it, the private web is lost.

this reads like marketing for Eric Schmidt

by pantulis19 hours ago

Isn't this more or less how tracking used to work before the days of adservers and programmatic advertising?

by hwc19 hours ago

What they describe is how I thought cookies worked already.

by aecorredor17 hours ago

Same here.

"That’s because the prevailing behavior of web browsers allows cookies to be shared between websites, thereby enabling those who would spy on you to “tag” your browser and track you as you browse."

Is that true though? I thought it was well known that you can only access cookies from your own domain:

by callmeal17 hours ago

>Is that true though? I thought it was well known that you can only access cookies from your own domain:

That's where ad networks come in. A cookie set by <adtracker> when you're browsing say, will be sent to that <adtracker> when you're browsing say and that's how the adtracker know's it's the same person on both sites.

by deagle5019 hours ago

Amazing, thank you. Does this also isolate cache, IndexDB, LocalStorage, plugin data, and service workers?

by tuxone18 hours ago

Http cached assets are already isolated as part of Firefox First-Party Isolation.

by candiddevmike20 hours ago

With all of the cookie protections and in app privacy settings, is highly targeted advertising becoming less effective? If targeted advertising is less effective, will the advertising giants need to provide a disclaimer when you try doing it? Will it lower ad prices?

Or will it take regulations to remove targeted ads?

by nine_k20 hours ago

Cross-domain ads possibly become less effective.

OTOH on-premises ads, like inside Facebook, or on Google's results page, should remain pretty targeted.

by KeyBoardG6 hours ago

I've been using an extension called Temporary Containers. Every site gets its unique instance and then it is destroyed afterwards.

by julianlam13 hours ago

Does anybody know whether this would complicate existing implementations of session sharing via a shared cookie?

For example, a site may save a cookie for domain, and would be able to read it. Site A would then be able to provide some information for Site B to consume, such as logged in state or ID.

From the sounds of it, this total cookie protection feature will essentially not allow this implementation to work.

by andrewmcwatters13 hours ago

I'm fairly sure this pertains moreso to divisions between hostnames.

by julianlam10 hours ago

Could be, but there are also cases where sites under the same domain differentiate between customers via subdomain.

A quick example of the top of my head being

by 780018 hours ago

That’s wonderful!

Now, if Mozilla would allow Firefox to be configured such that it doesn’t call home or update itself in any way, that would be nice also, as I don’t see why Mozilla needs to know about me either.

by anderspitman16 hours ago

So is Mozilla going to start gatekeeping which login providers are considered big/reputable enough? What if I want to make my own login provider?

by fay5916 hours ago

It sounds like you can design a login provider around that: direct to login site with a return address, confirm with user they want to log in, post back to return address with token that allows site to query login provider.

by anotheryou18 hours ago

It's the same thing chrome wants to roll out, right?

Doesn't this push advertisers towards fingerprinting which we absolutely don't have any good countermeasures against yet?

by flerchin18 hours ago

Don't we? We can reduce the amount of info that the browser provides. Done.

by anotheryou17 hours ago

Not sure, how does the tor browser score in these fingerprinting tests?

Looked like you loose quite a bit of functionality. Would be nice to have tor-browser like safety and a permission for "use advanced browser stuff that might enable fingerprinting" so you can trust certain sites where you need it.

edit: watching this now :)

by metalliqaz20 hours ago

more good stuff from Firefox. I'd be more excited if so many of the sites I visit didn't break on a non-Chromium browser.

by falcolas20 hours ago

Sigh. Yeah.

My company only officially supports Chrome. Why? Because most users only browse via chrome. Why? Because my company only officially supports chrome…

by heywire19 hours ago

Do you have any good examples of sites that don’t work on Firefox? I hear this a lot, but I don’t seem to experience it. I exclusively use Firefox on the desktop, while I use Safari on mobile.

by metalliqaz19 hours ago

most of the time the sites "work". Issues are usually in one of two categories: (1) bad/ugly layout, (2) failure to login properly. Occasionally, web apps for smaller organizations will just stop me at the door due to my User Agent string.

by nerdponx20 hours ago

I just hope Mozilla Corp doesn't do any further harm to Mozilla Foundation and Firefox keeps getting better.

by deagle5016 hours ago

Does cookie isolation work with "Custom" tracking protection selected?

by CobrastanJorji17 hours ago

I like this idea a lot. One thing I'm confused about, though. Does this also apply to CORS requests? If sends a withCredentials CORS request to, won't the cookies still be sent?

by jefftk16 hours ago

No, the cookies won't be sent. That would defeat the whole purpose.

by CobrastanJorji15 hours ago

So this effectively eliminates the "XMLHttpRequest.withCredentials" setting? Interesting! Thanks for clarifying.

by jefftk15 hours ago

No, is still has an effect. CORS operates on a per-origin basis, while privacy mitigations operate on a per-site basis. You might want withCredentials if wanted to share cookies with

by urza14 hours ago

This should have always been the only way it worked. Plus it should be easier to create white lists of allowed websites and all other cookies delete with every broswer restart. I know it is possible with Firefox but you need to add websites to whitelist manually in deep settings. At least there are some extensions that make it easier, like CookieAutoDelete

by eslaught16 hours ago

What's the relationship of this with privacy.firstparty.isolate?

by thinkharderdev15 hours ago

First party site isolation is more thorough than just blocking third party cookies:

Basically, everything is isolated to the first party domain (the domain of the URL in the address bar), including content caches, HTTP/2 connections, local storage, preferences, etc.

by rank019 hours ago

> In addition, Total Cookie Protection makes a limited exception for cross-site cookies when they are needed for non-tracking purposes, such as those used by popular third-party login providers.

Oh, so like Facebook and Google?

by sudosysgen18 hours ago

There is no allowlist. The tracking supercookies from FB and Google should be blocked, only those detected to be for sso using a common heuristic are allowed.

by Nextgrid18 hours ago

What prevents them from adapting and using the SSO cookie as a tracking vector? Why are we assuming they aren't doing this already?

by sudosysgen18 hours ago

Then they get put in a blocklist and only redirect based SSO is allowed.

That being said, if I understood right, as long as you don't use sso it shouldn't allow them.

by appleflaxen15 hours ago

> We also want to acknowledge past and ongoing work by colleagues in the Brave, Chrome, and Safari teams to develop state partitioning in their own browsers.

Classy call-out

by gegtik16 hours ago

Awesome work - in retrospect it seems insane it took the world until 2021 to think about this in-hindsight obvious solution for responsible data segregation.

by tannhaeuser19 hours ago

Wondering if we can get our sane olde Web back by piecemeal subtraction of all the stuff of the 2010's, and starting over. Makes browsers much simpler, too.

by andrewmcwatters19 hours ago

There's an opportunity for this to happen by taking some time to just read through CSS 2.1 and implement the renderer. So much of the web is driven by that portion of spec alone. Then, you could tack on whatever other programming language you wanted to play around with. It doesn't even necessarily have to be JavaScript.

Most people don't even succeed implementing CSS 2.1, though. It takes a non-neglible amount of time.

by taneq20 hours ago

Did this update also re-enable sponsored links on new tabs? They just popped up on all of my computers. Mostly I think Firefox is great but things like this annoy me.

by Nicksil18 hours ago

I caught this as well. Fixed it by deselecting "Sponsored Top Sites" option from within Options > Home > Firefox Home Content > Top Sites.

Even though I had "Top Sites" already deselected, I had to temporarily select that options in order to deselect the "Sponsored Top Sites" option.

by jackewiehose20 hours ago

And what about fingerprinting? What is this good for if you can be tracked so easily anyway?

At least cookies give you some control. The alternative seems worse.

by 2OEH8eoCRo012 hours ago

There sure is a lot of negativity for what seems like a good feature.

by InTheArena17 hours ago

If you care about using a open, secure and not surveillance driven Internet and you are using Chrome rather then Firefox (or Safari or even Edge) you are part of the problem rather then the solution. That said, I run on Mac and on Linux. in both places, Firefox is roughly the same speed, but dramatically better privacy. The internet is a awful place without containers for isolating google and facebook.

by jonplackett13 hours ago

It’s kind of ridiculous that it didn’t work this way to begin with.

by SilverRed13 hours ago

To begin with the web was full of academic pages that weren't trying to spy on you

by FalconSensei17 hours ago

That's kinda nice, maybe someday I'll try FF again.

Unfortunately, every time I try, the usability and flows are - for me - lacking. Like, not being able to easily add and edit search engines (adding search for amazon, youtube, etc), history and bookmarks not opening in full tab by default, closed tabs and windows being separated on history...

by baggy_trough17 hours ago

The main thing I don't like about FF is that the UI is kind of blocky and clunky looking compared to Safari or Chrome. (This is on macOS.)

A trivial example of missing UI polish - when you open "About Firefox" after restarting the browser, the window always appears in the top left for a split second, then moves to the center.

by shuringai13 hours ago

users can already get this behaviour by setting 2 values in about:config why is this presented as new feature? mozilla laid off devs to start making marketing stunts?

by BiteCode_dev19 hours ago

Is Total Cookie Protection a Mozilla Intellectual Property ?

In short, should I say we are talking about TCP/IP ?

by xPaw20 hours ago

Does this also break add-ons communicating from other site to another using a background script?

by skyzadev18 hours ago

Why has it taken us so long to get features like this implemented?

p.s. Firefox ftw :).

by MikusR20 hours ago

Does it also work with Google (company that pays hundreds of millions to Mozilla) cookies?

by pulse719 hours ago

Psssssst... don't talk loud about this...

by oblio19 hours ago

It's open source, you can literally check it and drop (or not) the tinfoil hat.

by stylemilzy11116 hours ago

I wan't to connect my account but I can't do it i don't have the screen to tap the verificator code of apple I'd help me

by CyberRabbi16 hours ago

My total cookie protection: turn off cookies for casual browsing

by baggy_trough18 hours ago

This seems like a nicer solution than Safari, which is blocking even session cookies in third party iframes. Makes it hard to have a multi-page browser game embedded in gaming sites.

by jijji20 hours ago

no mention about cookies shared by subdomains of a domain, are these still supported by this feature?

by atomicson18 hours ago

Why now? I guess the guys at Mozilla already found another sophisticated way to track their users. Please don't believe what they said. Some clever guys out there could inject a unique identification number to your established tcp/ip connection. Game over!

by jaxslayerv19 hours ago
by njdullea20 hours ago

I thought TCP was a pretty common thing?

by njdullea14 hours ago

It's official: hacker news has no sense of humor

by andrewmcwatters19 hours ago

This is guaranteed to break old software out there. Not in a minor way, but in a large amount of billable work type of way.

This is almost the type of change in a browser that should require browser vendors to start providing a backwards compatibility mode.

by johnchristopher20 hours ago

Total Cookie Protection ? Great, I wish it will solve my year long problem of Firefox eating my cookies and session when it silently updates itself. /rant

by teknopaul17 hours ago

Another feature, that no one asked for, that breaks stuff. Every site that mozilla breaks is one more nail in its coffin. Speed is your second requirement, then security, then privacy: the first requirement is alway that the bludy websites work. When mozilla lost track of this and prioritiezed security then privacy then performance, and finally/ maybe letting you get your job done, their market share started to fall. The world needs an alternative to google's vertical. One that actually works.

by djschnei16 hours ago

It's too bad Mozilla supports internet censorship... Some good alternatives if there stance on deplatforming is unacceptable to you:

by Nextgrid16 hours ago

Can you elaborate? Why do you think they support censorship?

by koheripbal16 hours ago

I suspect he is referring to this blog post...

by djschnei16 hours ago
by 1vuio0pswjnm714 hours ago

I control cookies outside the browser, in a forward proxy. I can allow/deny any cookie based on rules I set. I value privacy protection against a browser vendor just as much as privacy protection against advertisers (who keep browser vendors in business). I do not trust the browser. I trust the proxy. That's how I get "Total Cookie Protection".

by endisneigh20 hours ago

I really, really like Firefox, but this is basically what happens when I try to get people to use Firefox (and yes, I do actually try to get people to use Firefox):

E: Hey use Firefox!

O: OK, I'll give it a try!

O: Hey, why doesn't X site work properly with Firefox?

Firefox: Introduces something making it more likely that another site doesn't work

O: Hey, now Y site doesn't work either!

E: Hey, just wait a second you can-

O: Sorry, I don't have time for this, I'm switching back to Chrome.

IMHO - Firefox's #1 priority should be making sure every site in the the first 10,000 of Alexa work equally as well with Firefox as it does with Chrome, period.

What good is amazing privacy stuff if your userbase is rapidly dwindling?

list of sites that don't work (many, if not most of these work on Chrome without issue):

by gosslot20 hours ago

What sites are people visiting? I've used Firefox for over a decade and yet have to run into any kind of issue like this.

by simias20 hours ago

I've been using Firefox as my main browser for a long time and over the past couple of years I noticed an uptick in websites that wouldn't work lest I used Chromium. For instance last week I had to use a crappy HSBC website that wouldn't let me login in Firefox (it would just hang) while it worked in Chromium.

It's still very minor and I can't even come up with a 2nd example off the top of my head but it does definitely happen from time to time.

If anything these few cases only makes me value Firefox even more, I don't want to enable the Chrome monopoly.

by needz20 hours ago

Ebay works on and off for me. I often have to resort to Safari

by _flux20 hours ago

What kind of problems are these? I've never used anything but Firefox on Ebay.

by needz18 hours ago

"Unsupported browser" messages when attempting to login on both desktop firefox and mobile firefox.

by andor20 hours ago

Which sites don't work for you?

Even GSuite works better for me in Firefox. Slides stays smooth even when scrolling through large presentations and it never locks up (like Chrome does).

by aninteger20 hours ago

Cisco Webex is a repeat offender. The experience is much better in Chromium. If I am using Firefox I have to dial in to a meeting using my phone instead of being able to use my USB headset.

by zaik20 hours ago

Microsoft Teams is Chrome only. A good reason not to use it.

by happymellon20 hours ago

Excel via Office online is a bit funky for me.

by Hjfrf20 hours ago

Why is this a complaint at Firefox, and not at Google for abusing their monopoly to create new features on a whim regardless of what it does to other browsers?

by pdanpdan19 hours ago

I suppose because some of them are in the standard and not implemented in other browsers. Or there are some 20 year old bugs (reported) that are not fixed while pocket and robot are featured.

by woodrowbarlow19 hours ago

settings that are known to break websites are disabled in the default configuration, and labeled clearly in the settings pane.

firefox doesn't exist to "win" the browser wars. it doesn't even exist to give users the best possible browsing experience, although that's certainly a primary goal and in my experience they're doing well.

the #1 reason that firefox exists is so that mozilla can have a seat at the WHATWG table -- because very important decisions about the fabric of the world wide web happen there, and the other seats all belong to apple, google, and microsoft.

mozilla is the closest thing we (the users -- not just firefox users, but all web users) have to a "representative" in the WHATWG, because mozilla doesn't answer to shareholders.

> What good is amazing privacy stuff if your userbase is rapidly dwindling?

aside from a noticeable dip when the new chromium-edge started shipping with windows, firefox browser usage on desktop has been pretty steady for the past 5 years.

the value in adding privacy features is that it solidifies a certain use of the protocols, making it harder for WHATWG to make spec changes that undermine the provided security.