Mullvad Browser have 3 security levels: Standard, Safer, Safest
I use Safer, but obviously, JavaScript wasm(WebAssembly) will disable on safer level, which makes many websites unable to work properly, and Standard level is obviously not safe enough, and I don’t want to enable wasm for every websites on about:config
So, How can i customize security levels for specific websites? or add a exception for some websites to bypass security level/wasm limit?
This is not possible to do.
Where are you getting that from?
Tor and Mullvad Browser wouldn’t use the standard level by default if it wasn’t safe enough to use.
We configure NoScript to allow JavaScript by default in Tor Browser because many websites will not work with JavaScript disabled. Most users would give up on Tor entirely if we disabled JavaScript by default because it would cause so many problems for them. Ultimately, we want to make Tor Browser as secure as possible while also making it usable for the majority of people, so for now, that means leaving JavaScript enabled by default.
Why does Tor Browser ship with JavaScript enabled? | Tor Project | Support
Yes, this is also true but it doesn’t refute my point.
Ultimately this will depend on individual threat models.
If you have a very specific threat model, I think it’s safer to use different browsers for different uses. It can be multiple instances of the same browser.
If we take Mullvad Browser, then you could use several standalone installations in different folder, rename the folder/shortcut based on each use, and adjust the them of the browser to visually differentiate them.
(You can probably get away with doing this simply with profiles.)
The even better way to do that would be to use different environments altogether (for example using Qubes).
@ruihildt what concerns or unknowns cause you to add “probably” as a caveat. Are there specific concerns or risks of a profile based approach to compartmentalization of activities that you are aware of, or is your concern simply general caution and prudence?
I get a lot of value from profiles in Firefox (Arkenfox) and to a lesser extent Brave, If I could use profiles in Mullvad Browser in similar ways, that would be a very attractive feature to me, but only if it didn’t undermine the privacy model of Mullvad Browser.
I wrote that out of an abondance of caution. No specific concerns.