This should be seriously considered again, as it looks like Mozilla will just continue to add garbage to their browser with every release and most people can’t be bothered to manually check for updates and update arkenfox every time FF updates, and If you’re outside of Linux and have autoupdates enabled then you can’t even check for things before they shove it down your throat. Librewolf at least always ensures that the garbage is disabled.
6 Likes
While I disagree with your characterization (here’s why) I think what you are advocating has some validity, particularly for the subset of people who (1) want Firefox, but (2) don’t want to actively manage their browser / keep up with changes (3) choose to trust the people behind Librewolf more than (and in addition to) Firefox and (4) aren’t willing to use Mullvad Browser for whatever personal reasons.
But why recommend Librewolf in addition to Mullvad Browser, considering that Mullvad Browser is planning to implement a ‘Persistent Mode’. In light of that, is there a compelling reason to recommend Librewolf and not just stick with the current recommendations, and wait for that feature to land in MB?
(edit: not trying to be dismissive of the proposal btw, the question at the end of the last paragraph is earnest and open, not rhetorical)
2 Likes
I quite approve of what I read but I think everyone has “a few different reasons” for preferring LibreWolf to Mullvad. For example I care almost nothing about “Persistent Mode” but I miss two things for which I prefer LibreWolf:
- The ability to install extensions such as Proton Pass.
- the ability to enable Firefox Sync
Best alternative would be Brave but I prefer to use a non-Chromium engine.
3 Likes
While it’s a good browser, MB shares many of the usability drawbacks as the Tor Browser. It’s also important to have a browser that you can stay logged in on stuff that requires your identity, as logging to your bank or Google account through MB renders its privacy benefits moot because all your tabs share the same IP address. It’s also based on ESR so it doesn’t have all of the security fixes backported.
Tor Project gets access to all the security issues from Mozilla while they are embargoed and backports them as necessary.
no it does not.
It still prevents them from learning exactly what hardware you have or various other information.
4 Likes
Tor Project gets access to all the security issues from Mozilla while they are embargoed and backports them as necessary.
Thanks for the info
no it does not.
It still prevents them from learning exactly what hardware you have or various other information.
True, maybe it’s not completely moot then, but your activities can still be correlated and to prevent this you need another web browser.
I think that is what adding a “persistent mode” is intended to address.
MB renders its privacy benefits moot because all your tabs share the same IP address
I don’t agree that it ‘renders its privacy benefits moot’ but even if it did, that wouldn’t be any less true with Librewolf, FIrefox, or Brave and a VPN.
Also, you should know, if you use Mullvad VPN extension (with any Firefox based browser) you can set per site VPN connections, so in cases where you do want different websites to see different IP’s you can do this. It was one of my favorite features of the Mullvad browser extension when I used it.
Fair points. Not installing extensions is indeed a limiting factor. Though technically nothing stops you. You risk making yourself stand out, but then that would be the case with LW or other browsers also, its just talked about more with MB because MB is going for a higher standard of anti-FP protection than LW, Firefox, etc.
This gets at a question I’ve been mulling over for some time. Obviously it is best, and recommended to use Mullvad Browser the right way, (no extensions, no changes, etc), but is using Mullvad Brower the wrong way (e.g. installing an extension or two, maybe using a custom list in uBO) still as good or better, than using a lesser browser like LIbrewolf, FF+AF, or Brave? Using MB “the wrong way” undermines the strong anti-FP, but then LW and AF, and Brave, don’t really achieve strong anti-FP to start with, so idk. Thoughts?
I don’t agree that it ‘renders its privacy benefits moot’ but even if it did, that wouldn’t be any less true with Librewolf, FIrefox, or Brave and a VPN.
Yeah, but this is why you need more than one browser to properly isolate your activities.
you can set per site VPN connections, so in cases where you do want different websites to see different IP’s you can do this.
How..? I use their browser with their VPN, and I have the plugin.. It does have a proxying feature, but it says that it’s for all sites, so not domain specific like what Tor Browser does
I have been thinking about this. My thought is that using extensions or something else on Mullvad Browser is worse both because of the audience of users who use Mullvad (who will likely not use any extensions) and the fact that Mullvad Browser uses Firefox ESR.
I figured that using Firefox ESR with Mullvad Browser settings and one or more extensions is like having a beacon pointed at you 
In the end, Mullvad Browser and LibreWolf do not differ that much in my opinion to justify this “effort.” I refer for example to this table: https://privacytests.org/ where they are almost identical.
But if someone more experienced can answer this better than I can I look forward to other opinions!
I am tempted to re-evaluate Librewolf. Wonder if @dngray thinks it’s worth it?
I’m not aware of a reason it’d be worse, outside of being on ESR.
2 Likes
Just a quick FYI, Librewolf doesn’t currently fulfill the following minimum requirement on the Desktop Browsers page:
- Must receive engine updates in 0-1 days from upstream release.
The first version 128 release for Librewolf was released on July 12th, 3 days after Firefox 128.0 was released.
This may or may not be a symptom of some of the concerns expressed here (informally and a little abrasively)
4 Likes
Why? Why not just recommend the best of the best, which is currently the case for desktop browsers?
There is little benefit of Librewolf in comparison to the already recommended Mullvad Browser.
4 Likes
Yeah, I’ve spent some time tonight looking at Librewolf and it is (still) not good. Seeing a lot of other bad experiences from people on Mastodon who are switching because of Mozilla news too.
I don’t think they do any testing for their builds either, as far as I can tell. So, nothing has changed 
1 Like
4 posts were split to a new topic: Why can my operating system be detected with Mullvad/Tor Browser?
14 posts were split to a new topic: LibreWolf: A Secure, Privacy-Focused Firefox Alternative
Hello everyone, I’m back.
I want to say two things:
First, that after two years of disappearing from this forum, I can’t believe my pride when I see that even today this thread I created is still being discussed and commented.
And second, that after two years of using and monitoring the Librewolf project, I do not change my mind that, at least, it should be mentioned in some way in PrivacyGuides.
What can I say: I enter PrivacyGuides, in the browsers section, and instead of finding Librewolf, a project that has demonstrated over the years not to vary in its eagerness to fight for the privacy of its users; I find Firefox, a project with many years behind it and that has demonstrated more than enough that its interest in the privacy of its users is pure propaganda. I do not deny that Firefox can be private. I am simply stating a fact: By itself, it is not.
Librewolf does everything Firefox should do, by default, as do Mullvad, Brave and Tor. Today Librewolf meets practically all the minimum (and many of the “Best Case”) criteria PG sets for recommending a browser.
Anyway, glad to be back on this forum and, @jonah, please reconsider even a small mention of Librewolf.
Best regards to all.
4 Likes
If this were actually true (it isn’t), then Librewolf would be a horrible choice for privacy (considering that every single Privacy feature Librewolf has comes directly from upstream Firefox).
If every Firefox Privacy feature was “pure propaganda” then Librewolf would be without privacy features.
The time money and work developing and implementing the privacy features you seem to like in Librewolf happens upstream at Firefox (and some cases Tor Project), and Librewolf gets to freely benefit as well.
7 Likes
So I understand that, based on your reasoning, Brave should not be recommended because it is based on a browser that does not pretend to protect the privacy of its users, right? Let’s not commit logical fallacies, please (Fallacy of the consequent).
I repeat what I have already said: It is not a question of how private Firefox can become thanks to the features they have developed for the browser, but how much it IS by itself, by default. I am not questioning its capabilities, but its standards.
You won’t find any serious privacy enhancement scripting projects for Brave, Mullvad or Tor on the internet, because they don’t need it, because by default they have their various privacy features enabled and/or accessible. For Firefox, they had to create Arkenfox. If the privacy standards in Firefox were as great as Mozilla claims, there would be no need for non-Mozilla projects based on Firefox like Arkenfox or Librewolf to exist. That’s what I’m saying, and nothing else.
Is it so hard to recognize that the average user should be given things chewed and prepared from the beginning? That not everyone, not even the majority, are “privacy geeks” like us, please, that Privacy Guides exist for a reason. I just propose to add alternative mentions for those users seriously concerned about their privacy who, in turn, have difficulties or find it too complex to thoroughly configure the programs they use.
Best regards.