1 TOR BROWSER GETS A REDESIGN, SWITCHES TO NEW FIREFOX QUANTUM
4 Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)
5 from the for-the-record dept.
7 o Reference: 0102637536
8 o News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1651255/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine
9 o Source link: https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/
12 The Tor Browser has [1]rolled out a new interface with the
13 release of v8 . From a report:
15 > The Tor Browser has always been based on the Firefox
16 codebase, but it lagged behind a few releases. Mozilla rolled
17 out a major overhaul of the Firefox codebase in November 2017,
18 with the release of Firefox 57, [2]the first release in the
19 Firefox Quantum series . Firefox Quantum came with a new page
20 rendering engine, a new add-ons API, and a new user interface
21 called the Photon UI. Because these were major, code-breaking
22 changes, it took the smaller Tor team some time to integrate
23 all of them into the Tor Browser codebase and make sure
24 everything worked as intended. The new Tor Browser 8, released
25 yesterday, is now in sync with the most recent version of
26 Firefox, the Quantum release, and also supports all of its
27 features. This means the Tor Browser now uses the same modern
28 Photon UI that current Firefox versions use, it supports the
29 same speed-optimized page rendering engine and has also
30 dropped support for the old XUL-based add-ons system for the
31 new WebExtensions API system used by Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi,
32 Brave, and the rest of the Chromium browsers.
36 [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-
37 switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/
39 [2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/25/1938225/firefox-q-
40 uantum-is-better-faster-smarter-than-chrome-says-wired
45 ** Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for (Score:1)
49 Not when you have the assets already cached. Most people
50 donâ(TM)t just visit a site once. I was playing with it this
51 morning. Itâ(TM)s a decent speed improvement even within the
53 More impressively msmash posted an actual tech article not a
54 biasedpolitical article for a change. Losing too many readers
58 ** Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
59 (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))
62 > It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.
63 The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox codebase.
64 Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite
65 extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new
69 (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))
72 >> It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.
73 > The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox
74 > codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my
75 > favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about
76 > the new Webextensions API.
77 Why would anybody mod that comment troll?
82 (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))
85 It is FUD. Firefox's extension ecology is as vibrant
86 as ever, but far more secure. And if somebody
87 disagrees, they should do so instead of taking the
93 (by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 ))
96 You can use the built-in [1]Reader View
97 [mozilla.org] for a lot of pages, but it's not
98 available for all pages. It depends on the
105 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-r-
106 eader-view-clutter-free-web-pages
114 ** Tested today (Score:1)
115 (by Anonymous Coward)
118 First impression is I like it. Video playback seems sluggish but
119 overall positive. Hopefully any NSA addons did not make the cut.
121 ** Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4, Interesting)
122 (by dargaud ( 518470 ))
125 I really wonder that. I support tor. I've never actually used it
126 because I don't have much to hide, but I understand that other
127 do. So I ran a tor relay (not exit) as my way of supporting the
128 project for a while; from my home adsl. After a while I noticed
129 some weird stuff going on. Some websites (important ones)
130 wouldn't load properly. Emails sent would bounce or simply never
131 reach their destination. After looking at the problem I found
132 that my IP was on some minor blacklists. I stopped the relay and
133 after 2 days I was off the blacklists. Hence my question, if
134 running a simple relay gets you blacklisted, what does running
135 an exit point does to your other internet usage from that IP ?
136 Who can afford separate IPs besides institutions ? So who is
137 really really running them ? Certainly not private citizens...
140 (by ftobin ( 48814 ))
143 You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply
144 and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in
145 the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same
146 problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy.
147 My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS
148 feeds, which are blocking my host :-\
150 ** Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4,
152 (by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))
155 > You can run something like a Linode instance pretty
156 > cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted
157 > exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and
158 > I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my
159 > Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been
160 > with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my
162 And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,
163 idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor
164 exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular
165 website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and
166 auto-blacklist t hem.
167 It's why CDNs like CloudFlare block Tor - the abuse from
168 Tor exit nodes ensures that whatever trigger you use,
169 it'll be triggered and you'll end up blocking it. It's not
170 like it's done deliberately - you don't have to seek out
171 new Tor exit nodes. They just make themselves known.
172 I'd even venture to say if you want to allow Tor traffic,
173 you have to whitelist them specifically It's not that Tor
174 is bad, it's just that it's got a bunch of bad actors that
175 really do ruin it for those who need it.
178 (by ftobin ( 48814 ))
181 > And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,
182 > idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor
183 > exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular
184 > website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are
185 > and auto-blacklist t hem.
186 I should mention that I don't and never did allow
187 access on port 80 or 443, yet Shut up and Sit Down's
188 RSS feed blocks me. There is no way my host was causing
189 issues for their site, with the 20 KB/s of bandwidth I
190 allowed. Additionally, I only allowed ports like IRC,
197 (by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *)
200 Check out the Library Freedom Project.
204 (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))
213 (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))
216 NSA, CIA, GCHQ did not worry about anonymous communication.
217 Police with lots of cash per investigation at a national
218 level don't worry about anonymous communication anymore.