Anonymous Servers - Firefox with tor

Author

Firefox with tor

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-02-21, 1:12 pm

I have been using firefox as my main browser but used opera with tor
because I had to have the proxy settings turned on and java/javascript
turned off to use tor.

A couple of plugins for firefox have allowed me to get rid of opera.

One plugin is the noscript. It is set by default to block execution of
javascript and can be temporarily turned off for a given site. Very easy
to use, with an icon that turns red if you are blocking scripts.

The second plugin is the 'tor enabled' / 'tor disabled' plugin. You toggle
the icon to enable or disable the proxy connection / direct connection
switch in preferences.

You can leave Java and javascript turned on, because the noscript plugin
will block them by default.

Anonyma

2007-02-21, 7:12 pm

In article < 462b66f4b6a09663bb7fcc4fd9e7b799@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> I have been using firefox as my main browser but used opera with tor
> because I had to have the proxy settings turned on and java/javascript
> turned off to use tor.

You can turn them off in Firefox config. I can understand wanting to
turn Java off, but javascript can't harm you (unless there's some bug
in the firefox implementation of it).

George Orwell

2007-02-21, 7:12 pm

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> I have been using firefox as my main browser but used opera with tor
> because I had to have the proxy settings turned on and java/javascript
> turned off to use tor.
>
> A couple of plugins for firefox have allowed me to get rid of opera.
>
> One plugin is the noscript. It is set by default to block execution of
> javascript and can be temporarily turned off for a given site. Very
> easy to use, with an icon that turns red if you are blocking scripts.
>
> The second plugin is the 'tor enabled' / 'tor disabled' plugin. You
> toggle the icon to enable or disable the proxy connection / direct
> connection switch in preferences.

Opera has had these features for years now. In fact I have a whole tool
bar I can drop down and either single click my proxy and active crap
off or on, or toggle things like Java, Javascript, Cookies, Plugins,
etc., individually for things like web forum that need cookies but not
Javascript or whatever. That's if I don't care to set them up
permanently with per-site defaults, and just have to click the "Proxy"
button. Which I do for sites I visit frequently.

Firefox is WAY behind Opera in most ways. That's not a browser war
troll, it's a simple statement of fact. Where Firefox needs plugins and
third party addons, Opera does it natively. And Firefox is becoming
every bit the security problem MSIE has been, while MSIE actually
improves just a little bit. While Opera keeps an almost unblemished
security track record going, and steadily imporves usability and
compatibility. Not that compatibility is much of an issue for Opera
any more.

Anonyma

2007-02-21, 7:12 pm

In article < d81b01b34190d791ef68236d4d08340d@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> Firefox is WAY behind Opera in most ways. That's not a browser war
> troll, it's a simple statement of fact.

Oh yeah? Them be fighting words!

I think we can all agree that Internet Explorer 7 beats both Firefox
AND Opera in just about everything.

And unlike you, this was a browser war troll.

Anonymous

2007-02-23, 7:12 am

I've noticed Firefox in WinXP uses a lot of memory,
over 100 megs in my case. IExplorer uses 30 megs
and I have the same things running.

Any comments?

Anonymous Remailer (austria)

2007-02-23, 1:13 pm

In article <0b51d594e0178193e3a9c0ebef137993@ecn.org>
Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> I've noticed Firefox in WinXP uses a lot of memory,
> over 100 megs in my case. IExplorer uses 30 megs
> and I have the same things running.
>
> Any comments?
>

Firefox does use lots of memory, but comparing it to Internet Explorer
is a waste of time. Internet Explorer integrates a lot of its code
into the operating system which gets loaded when you boot your
computer; it will always appear to load faster and use less memory.

If 100megs is a problem for you, try Opera - it has low memory requirements.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-02-23, 1:13 pm

Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:

> I've noticed Firefox in WinXP uses a lot of memory,
> over 100 megs in my case. IExplorer uses 30 megs
> and I have the same things running.

1. Don't expect ANY Micro$oft application to give you an accurate
representation of its memory usage. It's been known for a long
time now that part of the reason Microsoft keeps a lid on their
source code is because they have special ways of making their
software "use less memory" and thus apper more attractive. Like
convincing the OS that the JS engine isn't really part of IE for
example.

2. You obviously didn't "have the same things running". Firefox
and IE are completely different pieces of software and load completely
different code even if you think all you're loading is a browser.
Which you're not because each browser loads it's own set of support
applications, add ons, and libraries.

>
> Any comments?
>

Don't waste your time trying to "profile" the memory footprint of
applications in Winblows without some pretty heavyweight tools, or
virtualization. It doesn't work. The results will ALWAYS be biased
toward Micro$oft.

Non scrivetemi

2007-02-24, 1:13 am

In article < 4d6ac38dea7c30e828e203119dca4794@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
>
> 1. Don't expect ANY Micro$oft application to give you an accurate
> representation of its memory usage. It's been known for a long
> time now that part of the reason Microsoft keeps a lid on their
> source code is because they have special ways of making their
> software "use less memory" and thus apper more attractive. Like
> convincing the OS that the JS engine isn't really part of IE for
> example.
>

A little too much paranoia on your part. The bottom line Firefox
uses 70-100 MB more. That's what available physical memory is telling
me.

> 2. You obviously didn't "have the same things running". Firefox
> and IE are completely different pieces of software and load completely
> different code even if you think all you're loading is a browser.
> Which you're not because each browser loads it's own set of support
> applications, add ons, and libraries.
>

I had the same "user" apps running, a couple of radio streams and a
couple of tabs with the weather channel and a google search. That's
what I care about, anything else the browser loads is immaterial.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Don't waste your time trying to "profile" the memory footprint of
> applications in Winblows without some pretty heavyweight tools, or
> virtualization. It doesn't work. The results will ALWAYS be biased
> toward Micro$oft.

I think I've got it pegged correctly, Firfox is a memory hog.

I'll try Opera as suggested by someone else, I don't like using IE
because it's the target of every new exploit.

Non scrivetemi

2007-02-24, 7:13 am

Non scrivetemi wrote:

> In article < 4d6ac38dea7c30e828e203119dca4794@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it>
> wrote:
>
> A little too much paranoia on your part. The bottom line Firefox
> uses 70-100 MB more. That's what available physical memory is telling
> me.

It's not paranoia, it's a pretty well documented fact that Microsoft
uses undocumented and allegedly unknown Windows "features" to fool the
unwashed masses into believing their crap is leaner and faster than the
competition's. They've been to court over it in fact.

Physical memory isn't telling you anything. Windows it telling you what
Bill Gates wants you to believe, and you're swallowing it hook, line,
and sinker. Plain as that.

>
>
> I had the same "user" apps running, a couple of radio streams and a
> couple of tabs with the weather channel and a google search. That's
> what I care about, anything else the browser loads is immaterial.

This would skew the results even further. IE for sure doesn't include
any process that runs Java or Javascript in IE's memory footprint. We
know that for a fact. I'm betting virtually NONE of IE's "plugins" show
up in a tally of its footprint, while ALL of Firefoxe's do. The more
crap you load the more inaccurate the numbers become.

>
>
> I think I've got it pegged correctly, Firfox is a memory hog.

You almost certainly do not. You're trusting the wolf when he tells you
there's only 11 chickens in the barn this day. There's really 12, there
won't be tomorrow morning, and you'll apparently remain willfully
ignorant in spite of the wolf's protruding belly.

>
> I'll try Opera as suggested by someone else, I don't like using IE
> because it's the target of every new exploit.

Firefox is quickly catching up to IE in this respect. Although it's
considerably easier to lock down than IE is, it still takes some effort
and exacts a penalty.

Opera has a near sterling track record in this respect, but I'll bet
cash money that Window's flaky resource reporting will show it uses
more "physical memory" than even Firefox.

If you want to believe Microsoft's idiot lights then feel free. But
please don't try to convince people who know better that they're
anything resembling accurate, or even useful for the comparisons
you're using them for. They're not.

Non scrivetemi

2007-03-20, 7:12 pm

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0100, Non scrivetemi wrote:

> Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
>
> It's not paranoia, it's a pretty well documented fact that Microsoft
> uses undocumented and allegedly unknown Windows "features" to fool the
> unwashed masses into believing their crap is leaner and faster than the
> competition's. They've been to court over it in fact.
>
> Physical memory isn't telling you anything. Windows it telling you what
> Bill Gates wants you to believe, and you're swallowing it hook, line,
> and sinker. Plain as that.
>
>
> This would skew the results even further. IE for sure doesn't include
> any process that runs Java or Javascript in IE's memory footprint. We
> know that for a fact. I'm betting virtually NONE of IE's "plugins" show
> up in a tally of its footprint, while ALL of Firefoxe's do. The more
> crap you load the more inaccurate the numbers become.
>
>
> You almost certainly do not. You're trusting the wolf when he tells you
> there's only 11 chickens in the barn this day. There's really 12, there
> won't be tomorrow morning, and you'll apparently remain willfully
> ignorant in spite of the wolf's protruding belly.
>
>
> Firefox is quickly catching up to IE in this respect. Although it's
> considerably easier to lock down than IE is, it still takes some effort
> and exacts a penalty.
>
> Opera has a near sterling track record in this respect, but I'll bet
> cash money that Window's flaky resource reporting will show it uses
> more "physical memory" than even Firefox.
>
> If you want to believe Microsoft's idiot lights then feel free. But
> please don't try to convince people who know better that they're
> anything resembling accurate, or even useful for the comparisons
> you're using them for. They're not.

I have heard that Opera is top-notch for security, but it seemed kind of
klunky compared to Firefox. If Firefox is securable, I think I will stay
with it. I run the noscript plugin and assume it is keeping out the crud.

auntivyrus@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org,

2007-03-20, 7:12 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article < 366e451a081ae1e9084c4ca4e4fa44a0@pboxmix
.winstonsmith.info>
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0100, Non scrivetemi wrote:
>

snip
[vbcol=seagreen]

Not really, all you need do is use noscript, adblock and one or two others
and FF behaves very nicely.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I have heard that Opera is top-notch for security, but it seemed kind of
> klunky compared to Firefox. If Firefox is securable, I think I will stay
> with it. I run the noscript plugin and assume it is keeping out the crud.

Opera is decent, at least as of 8.02 or so which is the last version I've
seen. It does however gobble up a lot of memory when it loads.

Also, while it's a great browser, it's "M2" email client sucks eelbash's
nuts!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/ AwUBRgBNsAc1ZuHjbNh8EQJdHwCcDErTWurhD+o1
LGxCSJuCwSLJ3pMAmwc2
EoLGHNXHQSj+AhBfu9C4Nu9T
=kW/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-03-20, 7:12 pm

In article <2OAXD4KC39161.9545833333@anonymous.poster>
auntivyrus@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org wrote:
>
> Also, while it's a great browser, it's "M2" email client sucks eelbash's
> nuts!

The problem with those all-in-one browser suites is that the other
features like mail, news, rss are usually woefully underfeatured and
crap. It's better to do one thing excellently than a bunch of things
badly.

Gogarty

2007-03-20, 7:12 pm

In article < 4763b8c98e17d14b76e92aef7c9aeec1@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>,
anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it says...
>
>
>In article <2OAXD4KC39161.9545833333@anonymous.poster>
>auntivyrus@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org wrote:
>
>The problem with those all-in-one browser suites is that the other
>features like mail, news, rss are usually woefully underfeatured and
>crap. It's better to do one thing excellently than a bunch of things
>badly.
>
Amen!

Aunti Virus

2007-03-21, 1:16 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article < 4763b8c98e17d14b76e92aef7c9aeec1@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> In article <2OAXD4KC39161.9545833333@anonymous.poster>
> auntivyrus@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org wrote:
>
> The problem with those all-in-one browser suites is that the other
> features like mail, news, rss are usually woefully underfeatured and
> crap. It's better to do one thing excellently than a bunch of things
> badly.

I have to agree with that.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/ AwUBRgCVRwc1ZuHjbNh8EQLtBQCeOasRQ2H+7atn
ld91vTYIE74JvPgAoI3X
43aW9zDEIP8gNK+gRe2MRedR
=KFRT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.