Does browser choice depend on it or is it separated from it?
browser-choice debian/control file currently Depends: on
tb-updater and tb-starter. Maybe not ideal.
The only caveat is if you like to have multiple Tor Browser instances there is no way to set the folder path to download it to other then
.tbfolder in home folder in regards totb-updater.
These variables are all configurable. If that interests you, please
create a separate forum thread for support.
You guys should see or get in contact with the devs of HydraVeil
Something like that could maybe be added to browser-choice for isolated fingerprints by altering the timezone and resolution using bwrap for browsers.
Noted are there any plans to add check mark options to browser-choice to install things like custom user.js or enterprise policies for included browsers like for example a user.js or policy to make Firefox configured to work with I2P?
This is out-of-scope for Kicksecure. As per:
This is also out-of-scope for browser-choice, which offers are selection of browsers based on criteria for inclusion into browser choice, but doesn’t modify browsers.
So for browsers to gain such features, these would need to be implemented in the browser itself.
This might be a suitable feature request for Whonix.
No, as per:
Ooooh yes! Yeah I heard about this, glad brave brave finally came to their senses and realized most of their users dont want or use that crap. Is Brave Origin installable in the Brave repo now?
the proprietary / not open source tag is the one thing i’d really push for. people dont need a paragraph of opinion per browser, they just need to see at a glance that the thing they are about to install is a closed binary. thats a fact, not a bias, so it dodges the whole “dont editorialize” problem.
on brave origin, its still the same chromium underneath minus the crypto junk, so nice cleanup but not really a security change. for the sketchy link case i just keep a second browser that isnt my main profile, been using browse.stealth.online for that, and the open-link-confirmation picker sam suggested would make that pattern way less manual.
One of the criteria for inclusion in browser-choice is:
- Open Source: Must be fully open-source.
So there isn’t any need to flag each entry as open-source / not open-source. No non-open-source browsers will ever be listed there.
Yeah browser choice helps with browser isolation/compartmentalization to an extent given how the user operates with them e.g (browser for VPN, browser for banking, browser for shopping and so on).
Isn’t that a mobile browser?
A post was split to a new topic: Does browser-choice include additional AppArmor profiles?
Moderation comment:
This thread is in the Development section of the forums. Therefore Kicksecure’s Development Discussion Policy applies. Discussion of “browser.stealth.online” and other specific web browsers or even web browsers in general is off-topic for this thread. Given how much off-topic discussion has been generated by requests for new browsers to be included, I also hereby declare that discussion of new browsers to add to browser-choice is off-topic. Furthermore, discussion of the use of browser-choice is off-topic. Discussion here should be specifically about the browser-choice application, and specifically about topics that directly relate to the development of browser-choice.
If you wish to discuss some non-development-related aspect of browser-choice (including suggesting the addition of a new web browser), please create a new post in the Support section. Thank you 