this extension could help me use extensions that I don't trust but need their funcitonality
Thank you so very much
is software sandbox and segmentation more supported on linux?
thank you you seem to understand very much about windows and computer. May I ask
How to run something you don't trust without performance lost?
How to restrict software permission with open source software?
If you don't want to type please provide videos and articles you read before that address my question
I'm keen to read
Thank you
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files? > > Dear all > > I have deleted Onedrive and disabled File system access in Privacy. > > 1. I would like to know, which other ways that my personal files could be uploaded in a non-malicious non-hacker way? > 2. Just by using Windows, Microsoft could upload all my personal files to themselves if they would? > 3. Does every installed App / software have full access to my whole drive? How can I found out, how much access it has? > > Thank you for your interest and reply > > Best regards > > --- > > @Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world > > Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. > > > > And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don’t contain your personal data, but system files). >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files? > > Dear all > > I have deleted Onedrive and disabled File system access in Privacy. > > 1. I would like to know, which other ways that my personal files could be uploaded in a non-malicious non-hacker way? > 2. Just by using Windows, Microsoft could upload all my personal files to themselves if they would? > 3. Does every installed App / software have full access to my whole drive? How can I found out, how much access it has? > > Thank you for your interest and reply > > Best regards > > --- > > @Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world > > Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. > > > > And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don’t contain your personal data, but system files). >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
thanks
does this mean software with admin privilege only have access to user folder not root folder of C drive?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter? > - Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer. > - JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing. > - Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware. > > JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information. > > To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js > > How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
thank you for your information, would you say JShelter does everything Chameleon do (including spoofing) so that if I use JShelter I don't have to use Chameleon?
trustworthy personal firewall
what do you use?
Programs can be restricted by filesystem permissions and the OS firewall, and not running them as admin
can you explain how to do this?
steam games for example are nearly impossible to run without admin, can I restrict filesystem permissions for these software?
I'm still bit confused. How rendering could result in fingerprinting? If canvas and other fingerprinting is disabled of course. how is ad render different from rendering other element on a webpage
this is absolutely horrorstruck
is there a way to prevent this?
for instance is there a way to run steam on windows without giving it access to any of access it shouldn't have?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files? > > Dear all > > I have deleted Onedrive and disabled File system access in Privacy. > > 1. I would like to know, which other ways that my personal files could be uploaded in a non-malicious non-hacker way? > 2. Just by using Windows, Microsoft could upload all my personal files to themselves if they would? > 3. Does every installed App / software have full access to my whole drive? How can I found out, how much access it has? > > Thank you for your interest and reply > > Best regards
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889457
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files?
Dear all
I have deleted Onedrive and disabled File system access in Privacy.
- I would like to know, which other ways that my personal files could be uploaded in a non-malicious non-hacker way?
- Just by using Windows, Microsoft could upload all my personal files to themselves if they would?
- Does every installed App / software have full access to my whole drive? How can I found out, how much access it has?
Thank you for your interest and reply
Best regards
---
@Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world > Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. > > And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don’t contain your personal data, but system files).
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Is there a firefox extension that disable the web connection of other extensions? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Is there a firefox extension that disable the web connection of other extensions? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Is there a firefox extension that disable the web connection of other extensions? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > Is there a firefox extension that disable the web connection of other extensions? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31889138
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
Is there a firefox extension that disable the web connection of other extensions?
I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding about what those permissions mean. The extensions just need to be able to "see" the contents of a web page in order to be able to hide ads, change font & background colors, edit URLs, or redirect resource requests. There is no other way for them to perform those functions unless they have permission to read the original data presented by websites you visit.
looks good, nice if someone could provide their stylus use experience
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter? > - Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer. > - JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing. > - Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware. > > JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information. > > To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js > > How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter? > - Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer. > - JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing. > - Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware. > > JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information. > > To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js > > How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter? > - Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer. > - JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing. > - Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware. > > JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information. > > To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js > > How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> > What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter? > - Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer. > - JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US) > - JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing. > - Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware. > > JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information. > > To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js > > How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently? >
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31887590
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
What is the difference between Chameleon and JShelter?
- Chameleon – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US)
- Chameleon is a WebExtension port of the popular Firefox addon Random Agent Spoofer.
- JShelter – Get this Extension for 🦊 Firefox Android (en-US)
- JShelter is a browser extension to give back control over what your browser is doing. A JavaScript-enabled web page can access much of the browser's functionality, with little control over this process available to the user: malicious websites can uniquely identify you through fingerprinting and use other tactics for tracking your activity. JShelter aims to improve the privacy and security of your web browsing.
- Like a firewall that controls network connections, JShelter controls the APIs provided by the browser, restricting the data that they gather and send out to websites. JShelter adds a safety layer that allows the user to choose if a certain action should be forbidden on a site, or if it should be allowed with restrictions, such as reducing the precision of geolocation to the city area. This layer can also aid as a countermeasure against attacks targeting the browser, operating system or hardware.
JShelter seems to spoof info by controls the APIs provided by the browser? and Chameleon spoofs user agent and many other information.
To me both seems to serves the same purpose of spoofing. Is Chameleon spoofing without interfering with js and JShelter spoofing with interfering with js the main difference between them? In addition JShelter seems to be able to block malicious js
How JShelter and Chameleon achieves spoofing differently?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31885153
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> https://sereneblue.github.io/chameleon/ > > strongly recommend
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31885153
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31885153
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> https://sereneblue.github.io/chameleon/ > > strongly recommend
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31885153
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
https://sereneblue.github.io/chameleon/
strongly recommend
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31884410
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
> How can a site see what extensions you have? > > One of the things I've seen mentioned before is that installing too many extensions can make you more unique, and thus have a negative influence on your fingerprint. This got me curious, how exactly do sites detect which extensions you have anyway? Can they outright read your list of extensions? > > Furthermore, do all extensions make you more unique? I guess the answer would depend on the answer to the first question (surely, if they can just outright see your list, then the answer would be yes), but lets say you install something that seems rather innocuous, like Transparent Standalone Images, for example. Can a site see that this is installed / does it make your fingerprint more unique? > > --- > > explanation > > > Web sites do not have any way to enumerate or query your installed extensions, and they cannot directly "see" the content scripts injected by extensions. However, some extensions do modify pages in a way that scripts in the page could recognize as being the work of a particular extension, assuming the owners of the site care to research and check for such things. > > > > One particular issue is that an extension may insert a path into the document to a page or image in the extension itself. Firefox assigns a randomized UUID to the extension at install time, and the path uses this UUID. On the plus side, this may prevent the site from associating the URL with a specific extension. On the minus side, at least in theory, a site could detect this weird URL in the page and use that for fingerprinting. See: How to prevent fingerprinting via Add-on UUID?. > > is there anything else that I should notice? > > > Thank you!
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31884410
Please see the cross-post as it is updated.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31884410
> How can a site see what extensions you have? > > One of the things I've seen mentioned before is that installing too many extensions can make you more unique, and thus have a negative influence on your fingerprint. This got me curious, how exactly do sites detect which extensions you have anyway? Can they outright read your list of extensions? > > Furthermore, do all extensions make you more unique? I guess the answer would depend on the answer to the first question (surely, if they can just outright see your list, then the answer would be yes), but lets say you install something that seems rather innocuous, like Transparent Standalone Images, for example. Can a site see that this is installed / does it make your fingerprint more unique? > > --- > > explanation > > > Web sites do not have any way to enumerate or query your installed extensions, and they cannot directly "see" the content scripts injected by extensions. However, some extensions do modify pages in a way that scripts in the page could recognize as being the work of a particular extension, assuming the owners of the site care to research and check for such things. > > > > One particular issue is that an extension may insert a path into the document to a page or image in the extension itself. Firefox assigns a randomized UUID to the extension at install time, and the path uses this UUID. On the plus side, this may prevent the site from associating the URL with a specific extension. On the minus side, at least in theory, a site could detect this weird URL in the page and use that for fingerprinting. See: How to prevent fingerprinting via Add-on UUID?. > > is there anything else that I should notice? > > > Thank you!