Is there a way to clear all the cookies in the browser except for specific ones? I’d like to be able to clear everything on close except for a few accounts that I want to keep signed in like google/youtube, github, and stack. On a chrome based browser like brave, or possibly firefox. I’ve looked into a few extensions but haven’t found anything that works. Shouldn’t this be a widespread feature that everyone wants and uses? Yet it doesn’t appear to be easy to implement. Is there a known way to do this easily?
Related
Community, Firefox has a new function . Called fingerprinter (settings under privacy).
I know what fingerprinting means. What I like to ask you is: what is Firefox doing exactly when this feature is activated, what data is being changed by this setting?
Because when you do a test on panopticlick.eff.org, in both cases, active/inactive fingerprinter setting, you still get a unique html canvas hash assigned to you.
So, what is firefox exactly "preventing" or "changing" by this fingerprinter setting then?
And can you give your short opinion: is it better to activate this new fingerprint setting, or not? If you like to be "less" easier identifiable during web surfing? I have read differing opinions. There are those who say if you block fingerprinting you look more "unique", and those who say, If you allow fingerprint, you "less unique" in the masses...
Thanks all!
Browser finger printers are a subset of trackers that allow sites to gather a certain amount of information about a visitor’s browser and device, even without the use of a cookies.
Firefox new feature can help you block fingerprinting coming from many ad trackers.
Keep in mind blocking fingerprinting may cause some sites to break or make them look strange, or the layout will be different. It can also slow down your online experience.
This question already exists:
how to hide chrome extension apps in "chrome://extensions/"?
Closed 8 years ago.
Basically this question for chrome,
"How to create hidden Firefox Extension?".
Thanks
First off, it sounds like you're trying to build malware. If that's not the case, I'd suggest you clarify your intent.
However, it sounds like the closest thing to what you're looking for is Chrome's "Enterprise Policy" system. It's meant for use by large organizations to centrally manage hundreds of Chrome installations remotely, but it's also popular among malware developers (for the same reason). Your extension won't be "hidden," since Chrome doesn't allow for hidden extensions, but the user won't be able to uninstall it through chrome://extensions.
I've never worked with it before, so I can't give much more detail, but here's a link to a Google page that explains it a bit.
Again, you should really reconsider whatever it is that you're doing. If you need your code to be invisible to its user, you're probably doing something you shouldn't be.
Make a chrome app instead of an extension. It will appear in the apps window but not in the extensions window. I don't know of any other way. Chrome is fairly locked down.
I just noticed that the look of the form elements in Chrome has changed. I couldn't find any explanation with a quick search. Even the official Chrome's blog doesn't mention anything. I must say, the new look feels a bit foreign.
I would like to find out the reason behind the change. My guess would be that it has something to do with rendering speed. Is there the official benchmarks of the old look vs new look.
The speed might not be the reason. Does anyone know the official reason?
I didn't look into the official reason, but I noticed that checkbox elements are now vector graphics so they can scale/resize (like in the newer Internet Explorer).
The Chrome changelog probably has the answers you seek, but I'm guessing they wanted them with more consistent usability/presentation across platforms instead of using the OS' native look and feel.
I know it's not exactly the use for a browser one could expect, but it would be useful it there was a way to explore the DOM of a page (read/set values) and send commands (clicks, for example) with automation, not manually.
It could be with C, C#, even VBScript, for what I care, or DDE (but this seems to be a no), or using a third party extension... Anything could do.
The fact is that this way could be difficult, but precise. I could use AutoIt, for example, but it would blindly execute the script without really having the possibility of managing problems.
The browser has to be chrome. I don't have much hope, but I can still ask...
The obvious answer would be "make your own extension", but I'm trying to avoid that.
UPDATE
The "headless browser" thing seems nice, but in effect I need to use the interface by hand before leaving it to the automation, it should remain visible.
...Essentially because I need to activate an app, and I do it by hand, but I'm searching if there's another way.
EDIT
Yeah, it seems they are 'explorable' by url, so this shouldn't be a problem.
Not sure how helpful this may be but...
You could investigate Selenium, I am not sure as to how well Chrome is supported, according to the docs it is at least partially supported. You could perhaps use FireFox for full support...
The favorite seems to be Watir, then Selenium, then Watin.
Possibly I may need some other tool, but this part shoul be covered.
Thanks to Automating Chrome, Automating Firefox and Chrome browsers, and lee.
I'm working on browser automation tools (working at the JS level). It's pretty clear that loading external script can be considered an XSS attack. A few months ago I was able to run my scripts on Github.com so long as I served my js resources over HTTPS.
But this is no longer the case, i.e. Github has implemented an elegant standards-compliant barrier to this:
This is a great step forward I think: we can specify to the clients that we want them to put a more secure perimeter around our site's sandbox.
On the other hand it is making the options more limited on mobile platforms, though that's not entirely true because it's entirely possible to produce a standalone browser app which has these extension features built-in. Not exactly gonna be easy to accomplish compared to a browser extension, though.
Is it still possible to work around this with a (codesigned and reviewed) browser extension? What sort of user experience impact might this have? My hope is that it will be possible to set this up so that end-users only have to go through a short one-time setup. It's apparent to me that at least Google is making it so that Extensions published through their portal is distributed at least "reasonably" securely, and I imagine Apple (and eventually Microsoft) would be following suit for Safari and IE. I am only interested in Chrome and Safari for now (primarily Chrome for now).
If it turns out that somehow even extensions are subject to the content security policy, how might I write an extension that can reliably manipulate a page for me? I'm fairly sure this can't be the case as it would be the death of something like Tampermonkey.
Oh I just needed to read a little further (oh Github, you're awesome):
https://github.com/blog/1477-content-security-policy
The answer is yes! User configured scripts should always be granted clearance! (but we are off to a rocky start it seems)
I actually think there's significant opportunity for social engineering happening here; "Install this bookmark in your browser to use our cute emoticons in forums!" "oh bookmarks can't be viruses, right?"
As a workaround, you can tell your bookmarklet to load an external CSS stylesheet with your JS code injected. This bypasses CSP. Have a look at my answer to a similar question.