Popular Firefox Add-Ons And Their Google Chrome Equivalent
Google's Chrome web browser has developed into an interesting competitive browser ever since its first release. Part of this comes from features that Chrome supports but other browsers such as Firefox don't. This includes among other things a focus on security, a multi-process system, and better JavaScript performance to name a few things.
While Chrome does better in some areas, it does not in others. Firefox's add-ons system for instance is far superior to that of the Chrome browser.
Many Firefox users have grown accustomed to using add-ons which is one of the reasons why they are not making the switch to Google Chrome, or any other browser.
This situation is slowly changing with the release of the Google Chrome extensions repository, an official website hosted by Google that lists extensions for the web browser. Not all extensions are listed on the page however. Extensions that download media from Google properties are for instance prohibited from being listed on the store.
The listing below looks at popular Firefox add-ons and tries to locate equivalent add-ons for the Google Chrome web browser. Many Firefox users have lots of add-ons installed but consider only a few indispensable.
Adblocker
- Adblock Plus is the add-on for blocking advertisement in Firefox. Some users prefer NoScript which adds a lot to the security of the web browser. These two add-ons are the most downloaded at the Mozilla website.
- Google Chrome does not offer an equivalent to NoScript which is unfortunate. The closest to NoScript is NoScript Suite Lite or uMatrix.
- Adblock Plus is available for Chrome as well, and newer blockers such as uBlock Origin are available for both browsers.
Verdict: Ad-blocking works well in both web browsers thanks to add-ons. Missing something like NoScript on the other hand is a big minus in the eyes of users who want that functionality in the Google Chrome web browser.
Security
- Last Pass is the most popular password manager for the Firefox web browser. It comes with a lot of features that includes secure password generation, form filling profiles, an online vault to access the passwords from locations where the extension is not installed, automatic logins and more.
- The developers of Last Pass have created a Google Chrome extension that is offering the same functionality as the Firefox add-on.
Verdict: The fabulous password manager Last Pass is available for both web browsers. NoScript on the other hand is missing.
Downloads
- Firefox offers many download manager add-ons like Down them all or Flashgot.
- Chrome Download Manager is an alternative for the Chrome web browser that offers similar functionality.
- Imagehost Grabber is a popular Firefox image downloader that supports many different image and photo hosts.
- The aforementioned Chrome Download Manager supports this as well.
Verdict: Both browsers offer sufficient add-ons to download files from the Internet.
Web Development
- Firebug is an indispensable add-on for web developers. It can be used to edit, debug, and monitor CSS, HTML, and JavaScript live in any web page.
- Firebug Lite is available for Google Chrome. The web browser does offer a comparable build in feature that is not as sophisticated called the developer tools.
Verdict: Both browsers ship with powerful Developer Tools that make most development related add-ons superfluous.
Social Networking Sites
Social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter are highly popular. Both web browsers support userscripts which provide enhancements and changes for most social networking sites. There is not really a need for extensions or add-ons to deal with those issues.
Verdict
The situation has changed for the better in recent time. Chrome extensions are available in a multitude, and most features that add-ons add to Firefox are also provided by Chrome extensions in one way or the other.
Still, NoScript is Firefox only and unless Google changes what extensions are allowed to do, that won't change anytime soon.
Which extensions, besides the ones mentioned in this post, are currently not available for Google Chrome as well? Let us know which you would like to see ported to the Chrome web browser.
Firefox Containers are awesome.
I recommend using “Multi-Account Containers” in combination with “Temporary Containers” and “First Party Isolation”.
They are a hassle to setup at first but after that they are great.
To make it easier you should first enable “Multi-Account Containers” and save all your relevant Accounts in them. After that you can enable the other two.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/first-party-isolation/
What exactly is the difference between temporary containers and multi-account containers? I don’t see how they can be combined since they seem to achieve the same goal in the same way.
First party isolation is a preference that you can disable manually from about:config so you can save one addon installation. Considering that would already make your browser fingerprint more unique and easier to track, which is the whole point of going through this trouble, is a good idea to look to reduce the number of addons like this one.
Just my observation, not criticizing, thank you for sharing this!
@thebrowser, disabling first party isolation is stupid.
First party isolation protects your privacy.
Read about it here: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/11/22/how-to-enable-first-party-isolation-in-firefox/
BTW, privacy.firstparty.isolate = “true” is the default of the ghack user.js, so you don’t have to worry about leaving a unique “fingerprint”, you’ll have plenty of company (other user.js also borrow heavily from the ghack user.js).
Oops, I didn’t mean disable by toggle it, my bad. But still, what’s the difference between the first two addons? I’m really curious if there’s a benefit in using them separately.
“But still, what’s the difference between the first two addons?”
From what I understand, multi-account containers can provide permanent containers while temporary provides only temporary containers.
Tried and tested it. It just does not work as intended, it’s such a pain to use and configure. Plus it is of course not integrated so if, say, I want less fingerprints with, for instance, User Agent Switcher then I need to configure it for each container which, in the case of Temporary Containers, means every and each domain…
So, at the end, you will definitely be tracked as if you haven’t those extensions.
This concepts should be:
– builtin Firefox
– usable out-of-the-box with decent default values
– invisible to non tech users.
If not, then it just like recommanding Tor and NetBSD to grandma.
Good idea, but many years overdue for me, as I already use 3 different computers for different uses and each of those has at least 2 operating systems and a VM, and I use VPNs and clear/avoid all cookies and block trackers and ads, and I don’t share accounts between systems, and more… Also, I no longer use Firefox, but good info to know, thanks.
I’m giving you an A+ for this report.
@Mr. Hand: You go on great lengths to play Minecraft, I give you that.
@Anon
Well, whatever you gave me, it’s retarded blather.
I use ESET EIS Security Suite with a Banking & Payment Protection feature (Protection against KeyStroke Loggers) and the two don’t seem to mix. The Ext installs for regular FF use BUT (ie) Financial sites setup to open in a Green-bordered BPP Window don’t recognize the Containers Ext and an attempt to Install it netted Install failed-Ext appears to be corrupt.
I’m valuing Keystroke Logging over Privacy, so I uninstalled the Ext.
IF anyone knows how to marry the two, much appreciated by a Not-An-IT-Pro.
What about the tracking via Localstorage?
Not good.
Firefox is not supporting removing site localStorage per container – it means that you could remove all localStorage or nothing (for example removing youtube.com localStorage in “Default” container will also remove YouTube settings in “Google YouTube” container).
https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/wiki/Documentation#enable-localstorage-support
Except the type of problems Danniello wrote about, the local storage is supposed to be separated by containers, like cookies, indexedDB, HTTP data cache, image cache, and any other areas supported by originAttributes, according to this source:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers#What_is_.28and_isn.27t.29_separated_between_Containers
History, bookmarks and Security Exceptions for Invalid TLS Certificates are not separated (yet).
Saved passwords, saved search and form data, HSTS flags and OCSP responses are not separated, on purpose.
I’ve tried it. It’s useless for me because the history is not isolated to each containers.
Why do you need history isolation? Web sites don’t have access to your history.
“Web sites don’t have access to your history.”
Actually, there used to be a hack whereby websites could sometimes infer your history regarding other sites you had previously visited. It was an evil derivation of innocent code that some web developers (including me) had implemented: custom CSS code to change the color or style of a visited link, in a different way from the default style that websites back then used for visited links.
Unfortunately for me, after I put a lot of work into my snazzy visited-links styling, the browsers all blocked such custom styling because of the evil tracking hacks (which didn’t even exist at the time I wrote my code). I (and other developers) were furious that the browser companies didn’t implement the fix in a more fine-grained way: they should have just blocked that kind of styling on links to _other websites_, but not to links on the same site, since the site owner can log what pages you visited on his own site anyway.
I’m not aware of any history-sniffing hacks since then, but I wouldn’t bet that it’s not possible in some other way.
@skierpage
read gerdneuman’s comment here
https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues/47
That’s what profiles are for. Containers is about site isolation and for using multiple accounts / cookies of a site in the same profile.
@Ashwin, my reccommendation for your next article is DNS-over-HTTPS (Martin covered it, but he hasn’t used it & reported back about a longer-term user experience).
IMO, everyone on Firefox should be using it (Chrome promised a general roll-out of DNS-over-HTTPS, but it hasn’t happened due to “technical issues” according to Google).
You can add ESNI for even better results.
And use a VPN, although, a good VPN cost money every month (whereas, DNS-over-HTTPS is free on Firefox).
Thank you for the suggestion. I’ll add it to my list.
Can I have some containers with all/most addons disabled (i.e. as if they were in safe mode) and other containers with addons enabled?
I get the basics of conatiners but I don’t understand the difference between the containers that now come with Firefox, and the add-ons – why do I need the extension? Is it because I can “reopen in container” but need the add-on/extension to make sure that whenever I open a particular webpage it opens within the container?
Ah – yes – the add-on just does the job automatically each time.
A mix of uBlock and Firefox’s own tracking settings can block the vast majority of the tracking content that is fed to a page, which makes the use of containers a bit redundant unless you are looking to have multiple tabs open with different accounts logged into the same website (or service) – which I have no need for.
That said, I having nothing against the concept of containers, just feel they are something that might have been beneficial years ago rather than now.
What’s more, if you genuinely want to stop the tracking, you could just use a private browsers session.
I’m surprised that container tabs isn’t part of the default installation yet even in the latest FF version which is 81.0 at the time of writing.
I’m using Waterfox Classic which supports XUL/XCOM extensions and is probably regarded as old fashioned by some; yet container tabs are available in prefs without the need to install an addon. Here’s a pix.
https://i.postimg.cc/43zKXb8K/container-tabs.png
I love Firefox Containers. Started using them about a year ago. Then the screen on the laptop I set them all up on died. Setting up a new laptop now and found that they’re not carried over to a new computer, even with Sync enabled. Ugh. Revived the old laptop specifically for the purpose of figuring out how to move them over to a new computer. Haven’t figured it out yet. Beware of this limitation if you use them.