LibreWolf (Firefox-Based Browser)

[anonymous477]

@SYST3M_D3STR0YER

When you say, LibreWolf shouldn‘t be added to the browser recommendations because of a five day security fix delay, you should consequently also say, that MullvadBrowser shouldn‘t be recommended because it had also such a delay!

Note: I haven’t read the whole thread for this specific argument, so excuse me if I misunderstand some things.

The symmetry is between Mullvad Browser and Librewolf’s delay is not well founded. Mullvad Browser is recommended because it serves a particular purpose very well that the other browsers do not: it provides Tor-like fingerprinting protections but without its downsides, like lack of speed and website blocks. The fact that there is a delay is a concern, but it still provides the best service for that particular purpose discussed above. There are no alternatives to it.

The purpose that Librewolf serves is not the same as Mullvad Browser. It aims to serve the same purpose as that of Brave and Firefox. Therefore, we are comparing Librewolf to those two. What @any1 probably meant is that Librewolf has no additional value when compared to those two browsers. Comparing it to Mullvad Browser is ill-founded because it serves a different purpose.

[any1]

@anonymous477

What @any1 probably meant is that Librewolf has no additional value when compared to those two browsers. Comparing it to Mullvad Browser is ill-founded because it serves a different purpose.

Not probably, I said it multiple times

[SYST3M_D3STR0YER]

I agree, and I don‘t want(ed) to compare MullvadBrowser with LibreWolf in terms of the way you mentioned. I just wanted to compare it in terms of security fix delay to see which delay isn‘t so bad that it wouldn‘t be added to the browser recommendations. (I hope this sentence is understandable )

[anonymous477]

@any1

Not probably, I said it multiple times

Didn’t want to put words in your mouth, especially because I just skimmed through the arguments and didn’t read them in-depth.

@anonymous477

Note: I haven’t read the whole thread for this specific argument, so excuse me if I misunderstand some things.

[any1]

@anonymous477

Didn’t want to put words in your mouth, especially because I just skimmed through the arguments and didn’t read them in-depth.

It wasn’t meant in a negative way. Thats why I put the

[anonymous477]

Oh I see. I did not interpret it in a negative way, I just wanted to clarify. I also cannot react with emojis since I am an anonymous account, so I felt the need to reply.

[SYST3M_D3STR0YER]

@any1

LibreWolf would have to add value compared to Firefox + arkenfox to be considered

I think it does. I‘ve revised my reply to this objection. I’ve generalized the crucial part:

@SYST3M_D3STR0YER

LibreWolf doesn’t offer anything that Firefox can’t do.

That’s not correct. First, the most frequently mentioned and probably also most important point: you don’t have to configure and maintain (= checking each time whether ArkenFox has been updated and maybe updating it. You have to do that, otherwise there’s a risk that protection against a possible existing new tracking techniques isn‘t activated) FireFox with ArkenFox. Second, there’s an extra category under the settings that gives GUI access to settings that are only accessible in Firefox through about:config. Third, it’s significantly easier in LibreWolf to set/remove exceptions for cookie and website data deletion on close. You simply click on the lock in the URL bar and activate/deactivate the toggle “LibreWolf: Always store cookies/data for this site”. This toggle doesn’t exist in Firefox with “Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed” turned on (or off). Instead, you have to:

1. Option: Lock in the URL bar ➝ “Connection secure” ➝ “More information” ➝ “Permissions” ➝ Deactivate “Set Cookies Use Default” ➝ “Allow”
2. Option: Menu ➝ “Settings” ➝ “Privacy & Security” ➝ Scroll to “Cookies and Site Data” ➝ “Manage exceptions” ➝ Enter/paste URL ➝ Click Enter ➝ “Save Changes”.

[win11.shading291]

I’m glad there seem to be a consensus where delay in updates should not alone be a disqualifying factor, as it was clearly indicated earlier in this thread.

And as @SYST3M_D3STR0YER said, there is clearly huge benefits to Librewolf as compared to Firefox + Arkenfox.

I would also add that is saves a lot of time, which essential to have non tech people switch to privacy focused alternatives to the big giants.

[eylin]

When evaluating LibreWolf, it’s important to consider the perspective of someone who is new to privacy-related configurations.

For instance, after installing Firefox, simply instructing a user to install Arkenfox may not be straightforward for them. To us, it might seem as simple as downloading a file and placing it in the right directory, but to others, that process can feel overly complex or even burdensome. Additionally, Firefox doesn’t include an ad blocker by default, which means users must install one separately. While these steps may be second nature to many of us, there are plenty of people who prefer not to deal with such tasks. Another consideration is the need to regularly check the Arkenfox updates page to ensure the configuration remains current. LibreWolf handles these updates automatically.

LibreWolf also offers a more intuitive interface for enabling or disabling key privacy settings, making it easier for users to customize their experience without diving into complex configurations. For example, enabling and disabling resist fingerprinting, letterboxing, WebGL, etc. is very simple to do in case you run into issues. Going through about:config for Arkenfox is not as friendly (but yes, significantly more powerful).

As far as I know, the Mullvad Browser still clears all browsing history once a session ends. This is ideal for users accustomed to a Tor-like level of privacy, but it can be frustrating for those who want to retain access to their browsing history. While you could advise such users to adjust this setting manually, the reality is that many people aren’t willing to make these kinds of adjustments themselves.

@any1 I fully agree with your assessment that both the Mullvad Browser and Arkenfox offer superior privacy solutions; however, this is only true provided the user is willing and able to continually configure and maintain them.

From the standpoint of someone who doesn’t want to tinker with settings but still desires a reasonably secure, ready-to-use browser for everyday tasks, LibreWolf makes the most sense. The Mullvad Browser isn’t initially configured for daily driving, and combining Firefox with Arkenfox involves too much effort for many users. To offer an anecdote, if a relative who is not tech-savvy asked me which browser to choose if he were to switch away from Chrome, I know it would be much easier to install LibreWolf versus applying an Arkenfox configuration. He’d likely have no trouble installing LibreWolf on his own, but might struggle significantly with the latter option and give up and go back to something they are more comfortable with.

[ImTooPhaT (Anonymous)]

If the end user requires minimal configuration, we also recommend Brave. It has better ootb settings than Firefox, better website compatibility, built-in ad blocker and fingerprint randomization, can daily drive and probably easier for most people to switch since most people are using Chrome. For privacy, ephemeral browsers like Mullvad and Tor is better than Librewolf.

[any1]

@eylin

From the standpoint of someone who doesn’t want to tinker with settings but still desires a reasonably secure, ready-to-use browser for everyday tasks, LibreWolf makes the most sense.

I still don’t understand the use case people are presenting for when LibreWolf should be recommended.

On one hand, it’s supposed to be the “easier” alternative for less technical users who want privacy comparable to arkenfox without having to install or update it themselves. But looking at what LibreWolf actually provides, that suggestion becomes less convincing.

LibreWolf enables RFP by default (which breaks sites), disables WebGL (also breaks functionality for some sites), disables Safe Browsing (combined with the slower updates, terrible for less techncal users) and deletes cookies and site data on close, meaning no persistent logins.

It feels like LibreWolf has an identity crisis: it’s caught between being too disruptive for less-technical users who want privacy without constant breakage, and unnecessary for users experienced enough to run arkenfox themselves.

For less-technical users I recommend Brave: it “just works,” offers privacy benefits, fast updates, and being Chromium-based better web compatibility and security (Similar to what @ImTooPhaT says). At this point, the default arkenfox user.js (which uses FPP instead of RFP) is more user-friendly than LibreWolf because it causes less breakage.

If LibreWolf were simply arkenfox plus uBlock Origin on top of Firefox with custom branding and fast updates, it would be worth recommending, but it isn’t. In its current “Schrödinger’s Firefox” state I don’t feel comfortable recommending it, because for the use cases people describe there are better alternatives.

Edit: For anyone following this thread, Mullvad Browser 15.0.1 has been released now

[SYST3M_D3STR0YER]

I agree with the basis of your argument (identitfy crisis etc.), and I want to add two things:
First, I also wouldn’t recommend LibreWolf to people who are bad at tech. I would recommend it to people who are intermediate or anything above technical, because those people can deal with broken websites. I don’t think, LibreWolf is for less technical users, I think much more that it is for convenient intermediate and anything above technical users.

Second, your argument is the reason why I don’t had any kind of argument in my arguments for adding LibreWolf to the Privacy Guides Browser Recommendations that says “LibreWolf should be recommended because it’s easy to use for less technical users“. I don’t think, LibreWolf is easy to use for less technical users and should be recommend for less technical users, but LibreWolf is definetely more convenient than FireFox and ArkenFox, and since the security fix delay seems not to be relevant (that’s the decision of the Privacy Guides-Team, and not mine) - and please note, it’s about the average time of security fix delay, not about that one example that @any1 mentioned several times - it should be recommended.

[any1]

@SYST3M_D3STR0YER

First, I also wouldn’t recommend LibreWolf to people who are bad at tech. I would recommend it to people who are intermediate or anything above technical, because those people deal with broken websites. I don’t think, LibreWolf is for less technical users, I think much more that it is for convenient intermediate and anything above technical users.

Does this target audience even exist, people who can diagnose website breakage caused by LibreWolf and end up reading the LibreWolf wiki to work around it but cannot read the arkenfox wiki to install arkenfox themselves?

[SYST3M_D3STR0YER]

It’s not that they can’t install ArkenFox, it’s that

@SYST3M_D3STR0YER

LibreWolf is definetely more convenient than FireFox and ArkenFox, and since the security fix delay seems not to be relevant (that’s the decision of the Privacy Guides-Team, and not mine) - and please note, it’s about the average time of security fix delay, not about that one example that @any1 mentioned several times - it should be recommended.

[any1]

arkenfox has a handful of releases a year, and if including a third‑party is worth it, if you can’t be bothered to update, then be my guest.

[anonymous477]

Why don’t we all touch base to see where exactly we are now at, taking into account the past few discussions. It’s been a very messy thread. (I wish I could make this a wiki reply so that others can edit it accordingly. I may unfortunately get some things wrong.) I will use this reply from @SYST3M_D3STR0YER as a starting point. Here are the original objections they highlighted in that reply, which I will now characterize as discussion points taking into account what was previously discussed as best I can:

1. “LibreWolf receives security fixes slower than FireFox”
   • Discussion:
     • We’ve established earlier that comparing the rate of security fixes to that of Mullvad Browser’s was not well founded: Mullvad Browser being late on security fixes is an issue, but it serves a wholly different purpose from Librewolf and the value it brings to browsing (namely Tor-like fingerprinting protections but with better website compatibility) outweighs it
     • Librewolf, on the other hand, must be compared to Firefox and/or Brave, if anything; comparisons to Mullvad Browser are therefore off the agenda
     • The slow rate of security fixes that Librewolf has must be weighed with the value it brings compared to Firefox/Brave
     • If you want to discuss this point, you must explain why the late security patches are not an issue without appealing to that of Mullvad Browser’s
       • (Side note: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER said, “[T]he security fix delay seems not to be relevant (that’s the decision of the Privacy Guides-Team, and not mine”)
         • Can we link the reply/source to where the team says? I haven’t seen it.
2. “LibreWolf doesn’t offer anything that FireFox can’t do”
   • Discussion:
     • This is directly related to the discussion above: the value that Librewolf brings compared to Firefox/Brave is relevant precisely because it is necessary to outweigh the slow rate of security fixes Librewolf has
     • If you want to discuss this point, you therefore need to explain not just what Librewolf offers that Firefox/Brave does not, but also how their offerings directly outweigh their slow security updates
3. “LibreWolf doesn’t offer anything that MullvadBrowser can’t do / MullvadBrowser is LibreWolf, just better”
   • No longer on the discussion agenda:
     • Librewolf must be compared to Firefox and/or Brave, not Mullvad Browser
4. “LibreWolf doesn’t have automatic updates”
   • No longer on the discussion agenda:
     • There are now automatic updates
5. “LibreWolf has no use case, in either way you wouldn’t use LibreWolf”
   • Discussion:
     • This discussion point will be written differently from the 1 and 2, since it is still being discussed currently; I will therefore highlight the relevant points of that current discussion below:
       • Claim: @eylin says that Librewolf is more user-friendly and requires less technical know-how than Arkenfox. The intended audience for Librewolf is “less-technical” people.
         • Response: @ImTooPhaT and @any1 says that if being user-friendly is a factor, then Brave is the solution. It serves the same intended audience. Additionally, it is more user-friendly than Librewolf.
       • Claim: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER says that the intended audience is actually “technical” people who want convenience instead of maintaining Arkenfox.
         • Response: @any1 says that if the audience is for “technical” people, then that audience can and should go to Arkenfox. Convenience should not be a factor.

[any1]

@anonymous477

Can we link the reply/source to where the team says? I haven’t seen it.

This was never said. This is just what @SYST3M_D3STR0YER went with because of Mullvad Browser being recommended.

Very good summary!

[SYST3M_D3STR0YER]

I’ve concluded that because there isn’t even a tiny note at Privacy Respecting Web Browsers for PC and Mac - Privacy Guides that says MullvadBrowser has a security fix delay of ca. 1,5 days.

[xe3]

@anonymous477

Claim: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER says that the intended audience is actually “technical” people who want convenience instead of maintaining Arkenfox.

• Response: @any1 says that if the audience is for “technical” people, then that audience can and should go to Arkenfox. Convenience should not be a factor.

I’d strongly agree with @any1 and others on this point. There just isn’t much space left between just moderately technical users (who are more than capable of using any of PG’s current recommendations) and less technical users (who would be better served by Firefox or Brave, or if their threat model calls for it Mullvad Browser or Tor Browser). The defaults aren’t ideal for casual users, but the (perceived) convenience benefit is pretty much only relevant to casual users (for advanced users, the user.js approach can be a very convenient way to manage settins)

Admitteld this is probably be a bit reductive, but every time the case is made for the Librewolf, it always comes back to essentially “but I like the mild convenience of not configuring anything” (which can be a valid personal priority but isn’t a valid basis for a PG recommendation)

I get people having a personal preference for Librewolf, but it just doesn’t really have any compelling comparative advantages relative to the full set of current recommendations.

Particularly when Librewolf’s own remaining volunteer maintainers have described the state of the project as being ‘basically in maintenance mode’ and lacking the time and manpower to keep up with upstream changes (upstream being both Firefox and indirectly Arkenfox) as well as a lack of expertise in browser security and anti-fingerprinting.

As an aside, there are 526,000 minutes in year, I’d estimate I devote maybe 5 to 10 of those minutes to Arkenfox, it’s not nearly as burdensome as some imagine it to be (excluding an intial learning curve)