Here is what is new and changed in Firefox 77.0 - gHacks Tech News

ADVERTISEMENT

Here is what is new and changed in Firefox 77.0

Firefox 77.0 is the latest stable version of the Firefox web browser. It was first offered on June 2, 2020 as an in-browser upgrade and direct download from Mozilla's website.

All previous stable versions of the Firefox web browser, including Firefox 76.0 and 76.0.1, will be upgraded to the new version if automatic updates are enabled.

Other Firefox channels are also updated to new versions. Firefox Beta and Developer editions are moved to Firefox 78.0, Firefox Nightly is moved to Firefox 79.0, and Firefox ESR is upgraded to 68.9.

Firefox for Android is also updated to version 68.9.

The next stable version of Firefox is scheduled to be released on June 30, 2020.

Executive Summary

Firefox 77.0 download and update

firefox 77 stable

The rollout of Firefox 77 starts on June 2, 2020. The new version will be pushed to Firefox installations automatically if automatic updating functionality is enabled.

Firefox users may run a manual check for updates by selecting Menu > Help > About Firefox. Note that the new version will only be picked up if Mozilla has released it already at that point.

The following pages list direct downloads for supported Firefox channels (will be available later on June 2, 2020)

Firefox 77.0 Changes

  • Mozilla introduces support for optional permissions in Firefox.
  • Certificates can now be managed on about:certificate.

Introduction of optional permissions

Mozilla introduces optional permissions in Firefox 77. These permissions won't trigger a permissions prompt anymore during installation or upgrade. The following permissions may be declared as optional by the developer:

  • management
  • devtools
  • browsingData
  • pkcs11
  • proxy
  • session

Mozilla provides two explanations for the move. First, that users were often overwhelmed by permission prompts, and second, that ignoring new permission requests during extension updates would leave users "stranded on older versions".

Optional permissions are listed in the manifest.json file under optional_permissions but are not displayed anymore during installations or upgrades.

Additionally, the unlimitedStorage permission no longer throws a permissions prompt during installation or update.

Developers may furthermore request some permissions during runtime; these are also listed under optional permissions but when they are needed, a permissions prompt is displayed. A basic example is the permission to look up geolocation information. When a user interacts with a map, a geolocation permission prompt could be displayed instead of asking for permission during installation of the extension.

Additional information is available on the Extension Workshop site.

Manage certificates on about:certificate

firefox about certificate

Firefox 77 users may load about:certificate in the browser to manage certificates in the browser. Firefox separates certificates into server and authorities on the page.

Options to display individual certificates as well as export them are provided.

Preference browser.urlbar.oneOffSearches has been removed

firefox onoff searches

Firefox displays icons of enabled search engines in the address bar overlay that opens when a user starts to type. The user may click on these to run searches using these search engines.

Users who did not require the functionality could use the preference browser.urlbar.oneOffSearches to turn it off; this preference has been removed.

Mozilla suggests that users disable search engines under One-Click Search Engines on the about:preferences#search preferences page. The icons are removed entirely if you uncheck all search engines on the page.

Other changes

Firefox for Android

Mozilla lists "various stability and security fixes" without providing details.

Developer Changes

  • New permissions.onAdded and permissions.onRemoved events to "react to permissions being granted or revoked".
  • CSP header improvement when multiple add-ons modify content security policy headers. These are now merged to avoid functionality issues.
  • Firefox Developer Edition features a Compatibility panel in the Developer Tools > Page Inspector that lists browser support for CSS properties used on the page.
  • New WebExtensions API features for extension developers.
  • JPEG images are rotated by default using Exif data.
  • Application Cache storage has been removed.
  • JavaScript debugging improvements makes loading and stepping through sources faster and less memory is used.
  • Firefox accessibility improvements
    • The applications list in Firefox Options is now accessible to screen reader users.
    • Some live regions previously didn't report updated text with the JAWS screen reader. This issue has been fixed.
    • Date/time inputs are now no longer missing labels for users of accessibility tools.

Known Issues

none listed.

Security updates / fixes

Security updates are revealed after the official release of the web browser. You find the information published here.

Additional information / sources

Summary
Here is what is new and changed in Firefox 77.0
Article Name
Here is what is new and changed in Firefox 77.0
Description
Firefox 77.0 is the latest stable version of the Firefox web browser. It was first offered on June 2, 2020 as an in-browser upgrade and direct download from Mozilla's website.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. ilev said on June 2, 2020 at 7:29 am
  2. Addy T. said on June 2, 2020 at 8:32 am

    Well, now let’s wait for the inevitable 77.0.1.

    And dear UK users — disable the Pocket bloatware or you’ll soon be spammed with the most cringy “recommendations” imagineable.

    1. then said on June 2, 2020 at 2:45 pm

      “recommendations” – is that what theyre calling ads these days?
      Id feel very uncomfortable having this tech sitting in my browser, not knowing if the switch actually disables the code. Is it still not seperated into an optional extension?

      Looks a loke like this:
      https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/mozilla-is-building-context-graph-a-recommender-system-for-the-web.387026/
      ^yikes

    2. matthiew said on June 3, 2020 at 2:38 am

      I have been using Pocket since it was an extension, and I have never been given recommendations or any other notifications from Pocket.

    3. Nico said on June 3, 2020 at 4:22 pm
  3. Jefferson "jscher2000" Scher said on June 2, 2020 at 8:36 am

    Firefox 77 removes the browser.urlbar.update1 preference some users set to false to disable the enlarging address bar. The enlargement can be tamed using custom style rules in a userChrome.css file instead. I’ve got tips for that on my page here: https://www.userchrome.org/megabar-styling-firefox-address-bar.html

    1. Kubrick said on June 2, 2020 at 2:17 pm

      what on earth were mozilla thinking by implementing this urlbar nonsense.It is an eyesore.
      And why is it useful.?
      Mind boggles.

    2. Erik said on June 2, 2020 at 9:27 pm

      Good resource. But have a little bug:

      1: Create css with classic urlbar only (without expand).
      2: Write something in urlbar then try highlight text.
      3: In bottom shows thin grey line (on blue edging)

    3. matthiew said on June 3, 2020 at 2:54 am

      They at least adjusted the size of it so it no longer goes over the bookmarks in the Bookmarks Toolbar. It’s still ugly though.

  4. stefann said on June 2, 2020 at 10:09 am

    I prefer to get Firefox here: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases

    I always remove the contents of the folder: ….\Mozilla Firefox\browser\features

    I do also always remove some files in the install folder of Firefox, like maintenance-files (never installed anyway), updater and pingsender.

    1. Scott said on June 2, 2020 at 1:14 pm
    2. Ray said on June 2, 2020 at 6:31 pm

      I also remove the contents of browser\features :)

      I’m going to start removing the other files you mentioned as well like pingsender as well.

      1. Yuliya said on June 2, 2020 at 8:31 pm

        Here’s a handy list of what you can remove on Windows Firefox:

        folder contents:
        “\firefox\browser\features\*”
        “\firefox\gmp-clearkey\*”
        “\firefox\uninstall\*”

        files:
        “\firefox\updater.exe”
        “\firefox\crashreporter.exe”
        “\firefox\default-browser-agent.exe”
        “\firefox\firefox.VisualElementsManifest.xml”
        “\firefox\maintenanceservice.exe”
        “\firefox\maintenanceservice_installer.exe”
        “\firefox\minidump-analyzer.exe”
        “\firefox\pingsender.exe”
        “\firefox\plugin-container.exe”

        FFS if you MUST use this privacy-invasive, malware-ridden browser, DO NOT INSTALL IT! Extract the .exe installer with something like 7-Zip then place the “core” folder contents where you keep your programs (typically that would be “C:\Program Files\”). You can also download the zipped version and extract that with Windows Explorer directly from their ftp-like http site.

        You can “automate” this nonsense via a bat file, for instance save this text in a fx_clean.bat file:

        del /S /Q “C:\Program Files\Firefox\browser\features\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\gmp-clearkey\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\uninstall\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\updater.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\crashreporter.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\default-browser-agent.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\firefox.VisualElementsManifest.xml” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\maintenanceservice.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\maintenanceservice_installer.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\minidump-analyzer.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\pingsender.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\plugin-container.exe”

        You will need to run it as an administrator if you’re a LUA: Right click > Run as Administrator

      2. Yuliya said on June 2, 2020 at 8:54 pm

        I have missed a few:

        folder contents:
        “\firefox\browser\features\*”
        “\firefox\gmp-clearkey\*”
        “\firefox\uninstall\*”

        files:
        “\firefox\crashreporter.exe”
        “\firefox\default-browser-agent.exe”
        “\firefox\firefox.VisualElementsManifest.xml”
        “\firefox\maintenanceservice.exe”
        “\firefox\maintenanceservice_installer.exe”
        “\firefox\minidump-analyzer.exe”
        “\firefox\pingsender.exe”
        “\firefox\plugin-container.exe”
        “\firefox\plugin-container.exe.sig”
        “\firefox\plugin-hang-ui.exe”
        “\firefox\updater.exe”

        So the .bat should be more like:

        del /S /Q “C:\Program Files\Firefox\browser\features\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\gmp-clearkey\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\uninstall\*” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\crashreporter.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\default-browser-agent.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\firefox.VisualElementsManifest.xml” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\maintenanceservice.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\maintenanceservice_installer.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\minidump-analyzer.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\pingsender.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\plugin-container.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\plugin-container.exe.sig” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\plugin-hang-ui.exe” “C:\Program Files\Firefox\updater.exe”

        There is so much crap in this browser, how do you cope with it, mozillians?

      3. Yuliya said on June 2, 2020 at 9:11 pm

        Not to leave any confusion: Regarding that bat file, you can extract firefox on your path and just run that bat file afterwards so you don’t have to hunt for the files, potentially missing some of them. Obviously, you’ll have to modify that bat file if your extraction path is any other than “C:\Program Files\firefox\”.

        Do note, even though there is an “updater.exe”, which I strongly recommend you remove, firefox can still update, and there is no way for the user to disable this nasty behaviour, they took this functionality away with fx63. At this point that updater.exe is probably used strictly for telemetry purposes, regarding the whole update process.

        If you want to block it from updating, you’ll have to add these entires to your hosts file:

        “C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts”

        0.0.0.0 activations.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 aus5.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 crash-stats.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 detectportal.firefox.com
        0.0.0.0 experiments.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 fhr.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 getpocket.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 input.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 install.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 onyx_tiles.stage.mozaws.net
        0.0.0.0 qsurvey.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 search.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 self-repair.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 telemetry.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 telemetry-experiment.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 tiles.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 token.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 versioncheck.addons.mozilla.org

        Also, just to point out the not-so obvious: None of this nonsense exists in Chromium. Cromium has none of these problems, out of the box!

      4. Anonymous said on June 2, 2020 at 11:06 pm

        Nice list but you missed the most important ones here:

        Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Programs and Features > Mozilla Firefox

        and

        Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Programs and Features > Mozilla Maintenance Service

      5. Yuliya said on June 3, 2020 at 3:22 pm

        I assume no sane person would willingly install this hot garbage on their computer :) They would extract it, so no uninstaller should be crceated.

      6. Iron Heart said on June 3, 2020 at 6:55 am

        @Yuliya

        > Also, just to point out the not-so obvious: None of this nonsense exists in Chromium. Cromium has none of these problems, out of the box!

        That‘s not quite true. Vanilla Chromium still phones home to the mothership, albeit not quite as much as Chrome or Firefox. That‘s why Ungoogled Chromium exists, after all.

        However, in the light of Manifest V3 arriving soon, which will render adblock extensions useless… Only built-in adblockers will continue to work as before, e.g. Brave‘s internal adblocker won‘t be affected.

        So considering Manifest V3, I think Brave > Ungoogled Chromium > other Chromium-based browsers.

        Just my 2 cents.

      7. Pants said on June 3, 2020 at 2:42 pm

        > However, in the light of Manifest V3 arriving soon, which will render adblock extensions useless… Only built-in adblockers will continue to work as before, e.g. Brave‘s internal adblocker won‘t be affected.

        It was my understanding that Brave (and maybe a few others) were going to ensure that the old APIs were kept in their builds (if/when google start to rip it out / disable it). Didn’t Brave’s CEO state that? Of course that also relies on the fact that the extension developers would also have to maintain using said APIs.

        That said Brave’s internal adblocker can’t handle CNAME cloaking (and neither can chromium-based extensions). Firefox unmasks CNAME cloaking in order to get the correct origin attribute – and the DNS API is available for web extensions

      8. Iron Heart said on June 3, 2020 at 7:01 pm

        @Pants

        > That said Brave’s internal adblocker can’t handle CNAME cloaking (and neither can chromium-based extensions).

        Chromium extensions are under the limitations of APIs which currently do not allow for unmasking CNAMEs. Brave’s internal adblocker is not an extension and could(!) handle CNAME uncloaking, as has been confirmed in their community forums, this capability is just not implemented yet – the adblocker is not the only focus of the Brave team.

        CNAME uncloaking can also be accomplished via HOSTS file or Pi-Hole, that capability alone is not a good enough reason to use Slowfox (look at benchmarks before complaining about “Slowfox”, please).

        > It was my understanding that Brave (and maybe a few others) were going to ensure that the old APIs were kept in their builds (if/when google start to rip it out / disable it). Didn’t Brave’s CEO state that?

        You are (once again) misinformed. The webRequest API will remain part of the Chromium codebase, Google will just turn it into an Enterprise-exclusive capability, i.e. they will disable it in vanilla Chrome. Unlocking that capability shouldn’t be too difficult for the Brave team.

        > Of course that also relies on the fact that the extension developers would also have to maintain using said APIs.

        Even if e.g. gorhill decides not to, what would I really lose? I still have Brave’s internal adblocker and a full-fledged Pi-Hole running here, and I can have an additional 150,000 rules provided by an adblocking extension, even after the API change has taken place. Do you think I will be seeing see ads? Think again.

        Something as easily overcome as this won’t make me switch to a browser that will fade away in the mid-term, sorry Pants.

      9. Pants said on June 4, 2020 at 6:45 am

        > Brave’s internal adblocker is not an extension and could(!) handle CNAME uncloaking

        That’s **exactly** what I said using the present tense: “Brave’s internal adblocker **can’t** handle CNAME cloaking (and **neither** can chromium-based extensions)”

        Invalid speculating. Until or if they build it in … it CAN’T handle it. That’s 100% fact. You want to always compare browsers: so compare them in their current states, otherwise that’s just speculation (your word) and next time I’ll just counter any of your posts with “but Firefox might be doing x and y”

        > CNAME uncloaking can also be accomplished via HOSTS file or Pi-Hole

        Invalid and so what! This is about browsers, not other tools. You want to keep comparing browsers – so compare apples to apples. Otherwise next time when you complain that Firefox has telemetry, I’ll just counter with “but it can be blocked via HOSTS file or Pi-Hole”

        > Even if e.g. gorhill decides not to, what would I really lose? … Do you think I will be seeing see ads? Think again

        I don’t think anything of you. That’s an invalid personal argument. This is about the Brave browser and **all** it’s users. What about all the ones who lack the technical knowledge for a setup like yours. You keep talking about “out-of-the-box” – so comparing out of the box browsers only, with regards to default internal blocking and extension blocking ability

        > You are (once again) misinformed

        I wasn’t misinformed, I wasn’t informed at all, in any detail – hence asking and eliciting you to clarify. I was pointing out that Brave wasn’t dropping it as far as I knew – but instead… do you feel threatened that you feel the need to attack the questioner? The below link/quote is basically all I knew and cared to know about Brave’s plans (and read the once a year ago).. I don’t care one iota about Brave or Chrome

        https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/
        > In an email to ZDNet on Friday, Brendan Eich, CEO of Brave Software, said the Brave browser plans to support the old extension technology that Google is currently deprecating

        > Something as easily overcome as this won’t make me switch to a browser that will fade away in the mid-term, sorry Pants

        Once again, I don’t care about **you** – it’s about what you (or anyone else) bring up in comments

      10. Iron Heart said on June 4, 2020 at 8:17 am

        @Pants

        > Invalid speculating. Until or if they build it in … it CAN’T handle it. That’s 100% fact. You want to always compare browsers: so compare them in their current states, otherwise that’s just speculation (your word) and next time I’ll just counter any of your posts with “but Firefox might be doing x and y”

        Brave has been on the market since… let’s see… oh right, 2016! It is a fairly young browser, and one of its focuses (but not the only one) is the adblocker. The adblocker is also unique in that it was developed by the Brave team from the ground up, and not just forked from elsewhere. In order to judge it fairly, it should be given more time (Firefox exists since 2004). CNAME uncloaking is on the radar of the team, it will arrive eventually. But yes, currently Brave can’t defend itself against this rather obscure privacy threat (which you deliberately chose because it is one of the few things Brave currently can’t do, haha).

        But then, “out of the box”, Firefox can’t do it, either. uBlock Origin for Firefox can, but uBlock Origin is not part of Firefox, and thus doesn’t count as “out of the box”. Ootb, Firefox comes with a weak tracking blocker that uses the equally weak Disconnect list, whereas Brave comes with a full-fledged ad- and tracking blocker using various known lists, as well as HTTPS Everywhere. It also doesn’t phone home as much as Firefox does out of the box. Pants, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn’t really enter into a comparison of the default states, which you have avoided so far for good reasons.

        By the way, a HOSTS file and / or Pi-Hole is necessary anyway, if you take privacy seriously. Windows 10 and macOS, on which many people depend because their software just isn’t available on Linux, both have privacy issues. If you really care about privacy, i.e. if you are not a hypocrite, you would have to limit the spying activity of the OS as well. And Slowfox doesn’t help limiting the spying activity of the OS at all, so even if I really had to use Slowfox, I would still need to have a Pi-Hole, HOSTS file or similar. That also goes for anyone else who cares about privacy.

        > Otherwise next time when you complain that Firefox has telemetry, I’ll just counter with “but it can be blocked via HOSTS file or Pi-Hole”

        When browsers like Slowfox do privacy-threatening stuff like that deliberately (instead of just lacking a capability), then this needs to be criticized, other tools or not.

        > This is about the Brave browser and **all** it’s users. What about all the ones who lack the technical knowledge for a setup like yours.

        I have seen Brave’s internal adblocker become more powerful over time, Brave users will be fine. You are probably mad that Slowfox won’t gain market share after Manifest V3 lands, because of alternatives like Brave. You certainly wanted to turn this into a big selling point along the lines of “See, Firefox is the only browser that can still block ads!” or similar. And yes, I think you are actively shilling for Firefox, before you ask.

        I shall burst this precious bubble now: Before Slowfox gains market share, browsers of which the internal adblocker is a selling point (Brave) will gain market share, then system- or network-wide solutions like AdGuard or Pi-Hole, and then maybe Slowfox.

        > You keep talking about “out-of-the-box” – so comparing out of the box browsers only, with regards to default internal blocking and extension blocking ability

        The out of the box blocking capabilities of Firefox are substantially weaker than Brave’s out of the box blocking capabilities. And extensions of course do not count as “out of the box”, I think this is fairly self-explanatory.

        > I wasn’t misinformed, I wasn’t informed at all, in any detail

        Then why are you bringing up the topic?

        > do you feel threatened

        My feelings towards you have never exceeded mild annoyance.

        > I don’t care one iota about Brave or Chrome

        Cool, and the world no longer cares about Slowfox (5% overall market share, down from 30% – I wonder why).

        > In an email to ZDNet on Friday, Brendan Eich, CEO of Brave Software, said the Brave browser plans to support the old extension technology that Google is currently deprecating

        Yes, the Brave team will most likely be able to unlock the webRequest API after Google disables it. What is your point here?

        > Once again, I don’t care about **you** – it’s about what you (or anyone else) bring up in comments

        Let’s see what you brought up here: A very obscure tracking method, which Firefox can’t counter out of the box either, only with necessary and not-so-out-of-the-box assistance of uBlock Origin. A tracking method that can easily be countered by other means (Pi-Hole) as well, means that are necessary anyway to counter any kind of spying that goes on outside of the browser.

        Sheesh, Pants, move on, go back to your obscure user.js, that you compiled with the kind assistance of the pre-existing documentation of the Tor team, and leave me alone. Thank you very much.

      11. Pants said on June 5, 2020 at 3:48 am

        Let’s recap. In an article about Firefox, YOU brought up the topic of built-in blocking and extensions and manifest 3. It wasn’t clear from your comments that Brave wouldn’t be affected by Manifest 3 – so I asked you to clarify that (for others) – that’s a good thing. You should be glad to declare that Brave won’t disable the old APIs.

        And on the topic of built-in blocking and extensions, which YOU brought up, I mentioned that currently on chromium web extensions can’t handle cnames (but Firefox’s ext APIs can), and that Brave’s built-in blocker also currently doesn’t (but Firefox actually does). This is a Firefox article after all. That’s simple, clear, concise, and correct.

        Imagine if you had relied with something like “cname is on their radar, so hopefully coming soon. And yes, manifest 3 won’t impact Brave” – and it’d all have been cool

        But what follows instead is you being argumentative (about things no-one ever said), making up wild excuses (no-one accused anyone of anything), going off on tangents, personally attacking me, seem to take things personally, and more (using nicknames for Firefox – really showing your class there). These behaviors are all very symptomatic of people who feel threatened

        When you don’t like something, you do feel threatened and you lash out: your typical behavior can be seen in the link below, which forced Martin to issue a warning (just look at all the people complaining about you)
        https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/17/mozilla-adds-dynamic-first-party-isolation-option-to-firefox-77/#comments

        You are not objective, and you are biased: you shill Brave, have a burning hatred of Firefox, and twist everything to your own view. Anyone who disagrees with anything you say (valid or not), is relentlessly attacked with name calling, personal attacks, and any one of dozens of fallacies in what I can only describe as trollish

        I’ll pre-empt you (I know you’re going to call me biased in return): I’m not the one starting comment threads. I’m not the one constantly comparing browsers. I’m not the one constantly shilling a product.

        But as long as you (or anyone) keep spouting nonsense at me, I’ll keep replying

        > But yes, currently Brave can’t defend itself against this rather obscure privacy threat (which you deliberately chose because it is one of the few things Brave currently can’t do

        It’s relevant to the items YOU brought up (see the first sentence in this comment) in a Firefox article. I’m not choosing anything else because it’s not relevant

        > Brave 2016 .. Firefox 2004 etc

        This is an example of a wild excuse. No one accused Brave of being slow, or not caring, or not being busy, or not doing other things for privacy etc. Not only is it totally irrelevant, but the actual argument is just plain dumb even just from a timeline perspective, and trying to debunk it only causes you to make more outlandish or irrelevant comments

        You said “In order to judge it [built-in blocking] fairly, it should be given more time (Firefox exists since 2004)” – but Firefox didn’t build their in-built blocking until the last four years either

        You call cnames a “rather obscure privacy threat”, but why then is uncloaking being considered in Brave? Considering the rise of adblockers over the years, cnames **are** being used to bypass blocking, and its use **is** growing. The actual % is irrelevant – it’s a “privacy threat” (you called it that yourself) that is in use today. Firefox certainly catches them in ETP, and just ask uBO users. cnames have only come to the forefront as a privacy issue in the last year, and comparing 2004 to 2016 makes no sense.

        You said “It is a fairly young browser” – what you mean is that 0.01% of the browser is fairly young. Brave is a fork. So all they have to do is focus on is bolting on their extras, and making changes to a few other things. Comparing 4 years of brave dev to 16 years of Firefox dev is stupid. What’s your point?

        You said “A very obscure tracking method, which Firefox can’t counter out of the box either” – but it can and **does** counter it out of the box: it’s built-in blocking encounters and is able to block it. And you can split hairs about “out-of-the-box” vs extensions all you like (no one called an extension out of the box), but an code-unmodified Firefox enables users to also block it, via extensions.

        None of your arguments or excuses make any sense. It’s all just walls of garbage.

        > out of the box

        YOU brought up built-in blocking **and** extension blocking. So I said compare out-of-the-box browsers **and** extension blocking **ability** : quote me

        > so comparing out of the box browsers only, with regards to default internal blocking and extension blocking ability

        They are two separate things. Where did anyone say an extension is provided and enabled out of the box? You’re clearly upset and twisting words to make your argument: arguments you start

      12. Iron Heart said on June 5, 2020 at 7:17 am

        @Pants

        > But what follows instead is you being argumentative (about things no-one ever said), making up wild excuses (no-one accused anyone of anything), going off on tangents, personally attacking me, seem to take things personally, and more (using nicknames for Firefox – really showing your class there). These behaviors are all very symptomatic of people who feel threatened

        And you are complaining about “walls of garbage”. THAT was a wall of garbage. I didn’t personally attack you when you said that your user.js is irrelevant – look at its user numbers and you’ll see yourself that it’s irrelevant. I called Slowfox “Slowfox” because it is comparatively slow, and benchmarks prove it. It’s a fact – I am just saying how it is, and you do not like that too much.

        [Editor: removed the unsubstantiated claim]

        That is, if talking about god forsaken web browsers *can* even make one feel threatened, this is unlikely in its own right. I do feel annoyance though, the very moment I read “Pants”, because I know that discussions with you are pointless, fruitless, and a waste of time. Look at this whole thread, you brought up a very obscure privacy threat Brave can’t defend itself against, thought this is a great argument against it (it isn’t), and this again produced walls of text on both sides, to the detriment of other readers.

        > When you don’t like something, you do feel threatened and you lash out: your typical behavior can be seen in the link below, which forced Martin to issue a warning (just look at all the people complaining about you)

        The people who complained about me *teary sob* were the usual Firefox fanboys, who are consequently fans of you (no surprises there). And Martin didn’t allow me to reply to your outrageous insults (insinuating that I am supposedly mentally ill, a troll and other such nonsense), probably because he wanted to avoid escalation, which would have been quite understandable considering the severity of your insults. You were lucky that you had the moderation on your side right then and there, despite being deserving of a ban. But anyway, I won’t do the same to you and dig out old posts of yours where you behaved like an (self-censored, don’t want to trigger the censor), because that just isn’t worth my time and effort.

        > You are not objective, and you are biased: you shill Brave, have a burning hatred of Firefox, and twist everything to your own view. Anyone who disagrees with anything you say (valid or not), is relentlessly attacked with name calling, personal attacks, and any one of dozens of fallacies in what I can only describe as trollish

        Firefox’s default configuration is garbage, whether or not I like it doesn’t change that one bit!? And “name calling”, “personal attacks” and the other usual blah blah… We’ve been through all of that a thousand times by now. If I would actually call anyone names like you insinuate, it would most likely be probably be you, since you annoy me and are very provocative.

        > I’m not the one constantly shilling a product.

        Thorin Oakenshill, I beg to differ. Oopsie, was that name calling? Maybe, but it’s true as can be.

        > But as long as you (or anyone) keep spouting nonsense at me, I’ll keep replying

        Do you even remember that YOU were the one starting this thread? I did neither wish nor intend for you to come here, why would I? Only annoyance and fruitless discussions would be the result, as can be seen.

        > Firefox certainly catches them in ETP, and just ask uBO users.

        Proof or bust. Screenshots? Other sources?

        > cnames have only come to the forefront as a privacy issue in the last year,

        Hence why I said that a relatively young browser should be given more time to deal with them, adblock is not the only thing they are working on. And you call me “biased”… pfft. Your bias is obvious.

        > You said “It is a fairly young browser” – what you mean is that 0.01% of the browser is fairly young.

        But these “0.01%” are what we were talking about here, Brave’s internal adblocker.

        > Comparing 4 years of brave dev to 16 years of Firefox dev is stupid. What’s your point?

        Brave is a a younger and much smaller operation and the adblock is not their only focus, that’s my point.

        > You call cnames a “rather obscure privacy threat”, but why then is uncloaking being considered in Brave?

        Because they are still a privacy threat in spite of being obscure, but their obscurity leads to them not being high priority.

        > The actual % is irrelevant

        As a company (i.e. not just a hobby project), you work with priorities. Because of the low %, this is low priority, but still on the radar.

        > None of your arguments or excuses make any sense. It’s all just walls of garbage.

        Walls of garbage? Most of things you yourself wrote were walls of garbage, not sure if you are in a position to complain here.

        > They are two separate things. Where did anyone say an extension is provided and enabled out of the box? You’re clearly upset and twisting words to make your argument: arguments you start

        I am not twisting anything, thinking about how to twist anything you say would be a waste of time. At this point, I just want to be left alone. Remember, you started this thread by replying to me, again wasting my time for no reason at all.

        You stated in the thread you linked to that getting me off gHacks is a goal of yours (“the hill you were willing to die on” blah blah), for whatever reasons – that won’t happen. All you achieve is wasting my time while at the same time wasting yours, making the experience here worse for everyone else. Great accomplishment, maybe Martin will put a dent in your own trolling efforts against me eventually, but I doubt it.

      13. Pants said on June 5, 2020 at 9:12 am

        And there we go again. Absolutely all irrelevant. My walls of text are in reply to your walls of text, because there’s so much to wade though – I don’t even try to call you out on all of it

        > At this point, I just want to be left alone. Remember, you started this thread by replying to me, again wasting my time for no reason at all.

        No. You started it, I merely asked you to clarify for readers that Brave wouldn’t cripple the old APIs. And I’m fully entitled to elaborate on something **you** brought up. If you don’t like the facts, then stop replying with mountains of rubbish and off-topic excuses. I’ll continue to comment on anything I feel I want to, from anyone.

        Just remember, if you had been civil to start with, and simply replied that “yes, brave will keep the old apis, and hey, brave is looking at getting cname uncloaking soon – although I consider cnames to not be a major threat yet”, then everything would have been cool – instead you chose to make it personal: quote “you are (once again) are misinformed” as a reply to a question, and go off on silly comparisons

        If you don’t want to waste your time, then don’t read my replies or reply to them – or be civil and relevant. It’s your choice.

        > The people who complained about me *teary sob* were the usual Firefox fanboys

        Far from it. It’s people wanting a usable comments section and some sort of civility. That comment there sums up your attitude and bias: name calling and instantly writing off anyone who disagrees as a “fanboy”

        > I didn’t personally attack you

        Yes you did. Everyone can see your comments

        > since you annoy me and are very provocative

        So I ask you a question and post a fact, and that annoys you and is provocative? You reply with comparisons that make no sense and put your own spin on it, and make it personal. So I point out it makes no sense. And you escalate with insults and more arguments that make no sense and get even more personal.

        If you don’t like facts, or what I post, then just ignore them and don’t reply

      14. Iron Heart said on June 5, 2020 at 11:07 am

        @Pants

        > And there we go again. Absolutely all irrelevant.

        Just how are the things you write more relevant? How? You come up with walls of garbage yourself.

        > I don’t even try to call you out on all of it

        It’s not a case of you not even trying, it’s a case of you being unable to. What I say is provable.

        > And I’m fully entitled to elaborate on something **you** brought up.

        In theory, yes. In practice, you will come up with a whole lot of nonsense in defense of Firefox, a whole lot of nonsense nobody here cares about.

        > If you don’t like the facts, then stop replying with mountains of rubbish and off-topic excuses.

        Which facts? Your alternative facts, or “facts” with no sources given? Ridiculous. And I am not making up excuses, I openly said that Brave can’t defend against CNAME blocking for all to see, while at the same time stating that they can implement it, and stating that a Pi-Hole is necessary anyway due to privacy threats coming from the operating system. This was all logical, coherent, and part of a concept of privacy that is inherently integral.

        > Just remember, if you had been civil to start with, and simply replied that “yes, brave will keep the old apis, and hey, brave is looking at getting cname uncloaking soon – although I consider cnames to not be a major threat yet”, then everything would have been cool – instead you chose to make it personal: quote “you are (once again) are misinformed” as a reply to a question, and go off on silly comparisons

        Just because I do not reply like you expected I would, doesn’t mean my reply isn’t good. In fact, going by your track record, disagreeing with you usually is a hint at someone having done his or her research.

        > Far from it. It’s people wanting a usable comments section and some sort of civility.

        Yes, because you, * [Editor: stop that please] Pants, are always contributing with civility:

        https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/02/protect-yourself-against-a-pure-css-data-stealing-attack-called-exfil/#comment-4406904

        Someone says something, and you immediately say, without having been provoked at all: “Stop being severely idiotic. No-one is interested.”

        Fantastic, and you are still complaining about me supposedly steeping too low for no reason at all, lol. At least you haven’t lost your humor. What I saw there also consistent with you insinuating that I am supposedly mentally ill, or you calling me a “troll” for no reason. You don’t know how to behave yourself, and still expect civil replies from others. Earth to Pants: Behave yourself, only then can you expect others to behave themselves. If you break that rule, you have forfeited your right to a civil reply, and can’t complain anymore.

        I don’t feel guilty about anything I’ve said so far, * [Editor: stop that please] Pants.

        > name calling and instantly writing off anyone who disagrees as a “fanboy”

        gHacks has lots of Firefox fanboys, it’s not just some claim I make. You are among the bigger ones.

        > Yes you did. Everyone can see your comments

        I did attack you? Haha, sure, let’s see:

        I claimed that your user.js is irrelevant. –> Look at the number of people using it, it is objectively irrelevant.

        I claimed that it is badly researched. –> Many entries that you recommend break stuff on the web, you recommended extensions list also has “outdated / redundant / inferior to other options” entries all over the place.

        [Editor: removed the unsubstantiated claim]

        > So I ask you a question and post a fact, and that annoys you and is provocative?

        You are annoying and provocative by not posting any facts, and in the rare cases you do, by these topics being obscure and / or irrelevant. You add imputations and personal attacks on top of that, and then you wonder why people react how they react. What a surprise…

        > And you escalate with insults and more arguments that make no sense and get even more personal.

        Blah blah… Nothing new in the West.

        > If you don’t like facts, or what I post, then just ignore them and don’t reply

        Produce facts with some relevance and I may like them – before that, no dice.

        Leave my alone and don’t spam any further, I’ve had enough “Pants” for a lifetime already.

      15. Pants said on June 5, 2020 at 12:35 pm

        My replies are to **your** assertions. I asked a question and stated a fact and you reply with irrelevant information and an insult. I am merely pointing out how silly these are: such as Brave only having four years to come up with a built in blocker. Well, Firefox did theirs in the same time period. Why does Brave get a pass and need more time, but Firefox doesn’t? Why does Brave need more time for cnames, when no-one even started or considered it until about a year (or more like six months) ago – and yet Firefox’s excuse for doing it is they’ve been around since 2004? That’s like Trump claiming he inherited a bad Covid-19 test from Obama. It just makes no sense.

        And when I point out how silly these are, you (not me) go off on even more tangents that are irrelevant and silly, and I then point how silly those are. You’re perpetuating the cycle. If you didn’t post silly comments, then I wouldn’t need to reply.

        I find it ironic that you want to be left alone and have had enough of “Pants” – how do you think most readers felt about your year or two of constant repeated shilling of Brave by spamming comment sections (namely only Firefox articles because you clearly have a burning hatred of Firefox for some reason), abusing others, and shit-posting about Firefox. I’m not against criticism or facts, its the hypocrisy, irrelevance and/or repeated-ness of it.

        However, apparently that is all behind us now after Martin’s warning (I certainly don’t see constant shilling like the past, and to almost everyone you have been civil – everyone except me). So I was willing to engage you (after ignoring you and this site for a long time): e.g engage you as in ask a question here or there, or clarify something, or add something relevant to the conversation. Instead, I get your behavior of old.

        The way I see it, is when someone finally decides to have an actual debate with you and doesn’t just give up out of frustration, you can’t handle it. I see Martin has had to edit your last comment. I think this is the third time you have begged me to leave you alone – well, this is a public forum and anything anyone says is open for query or criticism.

        Once again, if you don’t want to be “annoyed by Pants”, then don’t post incendiary or silly comments at Pants. It’s your choice.

        https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/02/protect-yourself-against-a-pure-css-data-stealing-attack-called-exfil/#comment-4406904

        Wow. You went back over a year. Now put it all in context and read what I said **in full**, and read what others said. I don’t have to justify or explain myself to you – but there was a reason it was strongly worded at the start, so people would pay attention

        https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/17/mozilla-adds-dynamic-first-party-isolation-option-to-firefox-77/#comments

        Everything I said in that thread was to effectively return like with like in order to nudge Martin’s hand, and to showcase your behavior. I wasn’t even the first of many to complain about you in that article’s comments. It wasn’t my decision to block your comments and issue you a warning. That’s your own fault.

        Other than that I have been civil and polite – you’re the one making personal attacks (e.g. about things that have nothing to do with ghacks.net or the article or what is being discussed), whereas I am only sticking to about what is happening here including your behavior to me. I’m not bringing up and guessing your skill set, or comparing you to other people’s skills or what they have done, or denigrating any of your work, or calling you names. If you can’t see those as personal attacks that are completely irrelevant and off-topic, then you have a perception problem.

        I’m actually surprised Martin hasn’t banned you yet for a cooling off period

  5. 931988 said on June 2, 2020 at 11:13 am

    “Mozilla introduces optional permissions in Firefox 77. These permissions won’t trigger a permissions prompt anymore during installation or upgrade. The following permissions may be declared as optional by the developer:”

    browsingData

    Does this mean this will not be prompted at all? If so, I don’t like this change one bit. In the browsingData API, browsing data is divided into types:

    browser cache
    cookies
    downloads
    history
    local storage
    plugin data
    saved form data
    saved passwords

    Unlike chromium browsers, Firefox doesn’t have any ways of restricting add-ons only to certain pages or stop them from running on certain pages. Right now the only way to achieve that is to disable problematic/not fully trusted add-ons in private browsing and use a private windows for banking, etc. This will make less advanced users less likely to realize that they should be more cautious with what they install.

    1. brendan said on June 2, 2020 at 3:00 pm

      Firefox stopped trying, theyve given up on privacy :(
      The telemetry schedule is still present, as are the trackers in the android browser.. yup time and donations are still spent on stuff like that.

      1. Iron Heart said on June 2, 2020 at 6:40 pm

        @brendan

        I agree, but take note of the fact that donations to the Mozilla Foundation are NOT used for Firefox development, as Firefox is fully developed by the Mozilla Corporation:

        https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_to_mozilla_foundation_are_not_used_for/

        Donations to the Mozilla Foundation are used for various virtue signaling nonsense projects you’ve likely never heard.

      2. brendan said on June 3, 2020 at 6:13 pm

        Good find, cheers. Strange anyone would want to donate there, instead to eff for example. Moz seems to be swimming in plenty of money anyway with the execs getting obscene bonuses.

  6. Deo et Patriae said on June 2, 2020 at 12:36 pm

    Martin, I’m really sorry for the off-topic, but please, can you remind which parameter to use in order to disable the big pop-up like address bar? Thank you in advance!

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on June 2, 2020 at 1:01 pm
      1. Deo et Patriae said on June 2, 2020 at 1:37 pm

        Thank you, again. But creating such a file is unfortunate. Guess I have to live with this.

      2. Deo et Patriae said on June 2, 2020 at 1:55 pm

        Meanwhile I have disabled all Urlbar’s features. Even Keyword.Disabled=True. Only this remains.

  7. Richard Allen said on June 2, 2020 at 2:22 pm

    After finally getting around to replacing my desktop a couple weeks ago I’m not surprised to see that FF is still performing very well.

    What does surprise me is that the WebRender rollout is still being pushed out to computers with discrete graphics. Seriously? I had been stuck in mobile web hell for about a year and was thinking that WebRender would be enabled for most everyone by now. Foolish me. This laptop I’m on now had WebRender enabled on FF v76 when it was installed and you can hardly get a smaller graphics card. ;)

    Just wondering if most of those on Win10 have WebRender enabled or is it still mostly just those with discrete graphics?

  8. Benjamin said on June 2, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    What i do not like at all is the interdependence of the stored logons and passwords i firefox, the new gui which is a pain to manage the logons and passwords and the windows logon to get to the stored information.

    I do not like this at all.

  9. Kubrick said on June 2, 2020 at 5:03 pm

    still the best browser for linux besides palemoon..

    1. Klaas Vaak said on June 2, 2020 at 5:11 pm

      @Kubrick: I removed FF last week from my Linux Mint set-up. Reading this article, I am happy I did.

      “Best browser” is of course a subjective statement. For you it may be the best browser.

    2. ULBoom said on June 3, 2020 at 12:04 am

      It’s part of the typical Linux bloatware along with T-Bird, Libre Office and other stuff. Some distros have minimal installs without bloat, not all.

      Don’t see how one browser would be better for Linux than another except some of them won’t work on Linux. Maybe FF is best, then.

      I just move my Windows FF profile to our Linux machines so they’re all the same. Works great, surprisingly, even between ESR and the Regular version.

      1. Klaas Vaak said on June 3, 2020 at 5:35 am

        @ULBoom:

        Don’t see how one browser would be better for Linux than another except some of them won’t work on Linux.

        I did not say one browser is better for Linux than another. FF is no good for me, whichever OS I use. I also removed FF from my Mac.

        I have not heard of any browser that won’t work on Linux.

  10. RejZoR said on June 2, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    Firefox 77 is the moment I dumped Firefox. Mozilla’s arrogance and ignorance to quality design and actually giving a F about user feedback enraged me so hard I threw it off all of my systems and looked for alternatives, probably settling up on Vivaldi and also trashing the idea to have my bookmarks synced on my iPhone until Vivaldi makes iOS browser too. Till then I’m just gonna use Safari and access my bookmarks via remote control to my home system. Firefox is dead to me. They let bunch of about:config tweaks from literally years ago, but they forcibly removed “browser.urlbar.update1” switch in just 2 versions, forcing us to deal with absolute trash new URL bar. And this really isn’t the first time they’ve done something dumb and just forced it on all of us whether we like it or not. And from what I’ve seen, literally no one liked the new ugly, out of place, flashing oversized URL bar introduced with Firefox 75.

    I’ve started developing Firefox Tweaker tool in order to make use of clumsy stock Firefox settings more bearable for me and other users and then they pull stunt like this, making tweaks irrelevant. F U Mozilla. This is the reason you’re losing market share. I didn’t dump Firefox because of speed, memory usage or whatever. I dumped it because of something as basic as annoying idiotic URL bar that servers no purpose in its new form other than look stupid and annoying.

    I also stopped caring whether browser runs Chromium engine or not and I always made big of a deal preferring anything but Chromium And it’s all Mozilla’s fault. You did this Mozilla. You and your clueless ignorant arrogance.

  11. Yuliya said on June 2, 2020 at 5:45 pm

    chromium81 vs firefox73
    https://i.imgur.com/YDpv8nl.png

    chromium83 vs firefox77
    https://i.imgur.com/5SdwAEL.png

    chromium85 vs firefox79
    https://i.imgur.com/MDxCrdw.png

    1. empirefall said on June 3, 2020 at 2:49 am

      based on these screenshot that you provided, the speed improvements of Firefox has been downright glacial compared to Chrome

  12. ULBoom said on June 3, 2020 at 12:10 am

    No idea what Mozilla is doing with FF, a bunch of silly changes for their own sake. MS clearly couldn’t care less about Windows and follows the same path to focus on cloud crap but what else is Mozilla doing that draws their attention away from FF? They have hundreds of employees, does anyone work?

    1. brendan said on June 3, 2020 at 7:51 pm

      I read that the url bar could be to do with nudging up google search use.
      A lot of other work seems to do with giving away or analysing user data. Natural evolution of a commercial browser i suppose. Advise keepnig as much data collateral off their services as they sink.

  13. Rikitikitak said on June 3, 2020 at 1:27 am

    Classic urlbar CSS for Firefox 77 (without any trash):

    #urlbar[breakout][breakout-extend] {
    top: 5px !important;
    left: 0px !important;
    width: 100% !important;
    padding: 0px !important;
    }
    #urlbar[breakout][breakout-extend] > #urlbar-input-container {
    height: var(–urlbar-height) !important;
    padding: 0 !important;
    }
    #urlbar[breakout][breakout-extend] > #urlbar-background {
    animation: none !important;;
    }
    #urlbar[breakout][breakout-extend] > #urlbar-background {
    box-shadow: none !important;
    }
    #urlbar-results {
    padding-top: 0 !important;
    padding-bottom: 0 !important;
    }
    .urlbarView-body-inner {
    border-top: 0px !important;
    }

  14. MartinFan said on June 3, 2020 at 5:04 am

    Woohoo Mozilla go on with your bad-self!!!

  15. Stephan said on June 3, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    Firefox 76.0.1 and NoScript 11.0.28 were both automatically updated here (June 3). NoScript site permissions can’t be changed anymore (greyed-out). Anyone else notice anything similar?
    macOS Mojave 10.14.6 with the LATEST !! security update (could be any of the three updates). Cheers, Stephan.

  16. ULBoom said on June 4, 2020 at 8:59 pm

    Updated and found media.autoplay.etc settings were reset. Glad I kept my old profile.