[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Supercookies

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:10:53 -0400
Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 07:47 +0000, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> Am I the only person who thinks it is generally a bad idea to keep
> adding surface area to a browser that is supposed to be anonymous? If
> we have an extension to rein in a plugin, and an extension for that
> extension, that is a _lot_ more potential for exploits than just
> removing that plugin.

You're not alone. I use a seperate browser for Tor and it is completely
stripped out no plugins, java/javascript disables, defaults to saving
to disk rather then opening stuff. etc. 

I think the problem that people are bumping into is that many of the
"popular" sites are unfriendly to such a browser if not down right
hostile. The old ideal of "fail gracefully" seems lost on modern web
designers. It seems little attention is paid to the fact that not
everyone has a super fast machine, flash 10, ie7, ff3.x, etc., Of
course the other side of the problem is that few people try to hold
such sites to account. IMHO All sites should work (display something
useful even if not as functional as the "full" site) with browsers as
basic as Lynx.



This e-mail has been digitally signed with GnuPG - ( http://gnupg.org/ )

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature