Not to mention we need better and finer grained permissions for extensions in general, now that we use so many web apps with crucial data.
Not to mention we need better and finer grained permissions for extensions in general, now that we use so many web apps with crucial data.
My second user account is logged into basic services like HN, reddit, amazon and has only adblock and disconnect installed.
A third user is not logged in anywhere and has adblock and a half-dozen other extensions installed including UA switcher. No plugins installed and cookies + cache cleared every day.
4th user has all the anonimity extensions installed and has privoxy + tor set as the proxy
I use Facebook in a completely different browser again, YouTube and video watching in yet another and development in chromium.
7 or 8 different cookie stores, and a throwaway temp email account associated with the 3rd and 4th user for signing up to services.
Start out by creating a separate user for browsing sites and eventually develop your own way to split up your web browsing profiles.
This can get a bit messy when you try and access from tablet or mobikle , but I'd rather not have a single large profile and a huge exploit surface and sacrifice browsing history and remembering passwords.
Once you get used to it you instinctively switch without thinking about it
I also created an app for OS X that creates temporary throwaway browser sessions for any supported browser you have installed:
https://github.com/nikcub/tmpbrowser
Makes it easier than using command line options and creating users
A simple way to do this is to use different brands of browser, e.g. Gmail in Chrome and everything else in Firefox. But... if you really prefer one browser over another, for all use, then the separate profiles thing works.
Note that in Chrome, this is now confused by the ability to change Google account log-ins. That is not a separate, browser-level profile with separate configuration.
Instead, you are looking for the command line invocation argument --user-data-dir (in *NIX, at least; IIRC the flag name may differ slightly in the Windows version).
For Firefox, there is the -p flag. IIRC, you have to combine it with another flag in order to ensure both that the profiles are running in separate invocations and that you can be prompted to choose what profile to use when you invoke Firefox.
Of course, you can create menu items / icons for these invocations to make them "clicky" and avoid having to go to the command line and enter them each time, if you prefer.
P.S. Yes, this will help you less if you insist upon clicking directly on/through links that are are e.g. mailed to you or, if you have Facebook in its own "box", posted on Facebook.
From that perspective, having per site browser extension variability might still be useful. But then, you're still looking at also controlling referer passing, cookies and other local data, etc., etc.
The separate browser solution does protect from tracking, but with the security threats of today, like these malicious extensions with access to all your data, I've become desensitized to mere tracking.
An extra cue, when the border background, tabs, etc. look different in one versus the other. Still hardly foolproof...
firefox -no-remote -ProfileManager
It's always handy to have a "vanilla" profile, to compare how much the extensions tuned down the browser or try to understand if the error that you're seeing is caused by an extension. Having a "privacy" profile with some ad-hoc extensions helps too.It's also a good idea to use different themes per profile (and I see you suggested it too).
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Command_Lin...
(I use FF.)
> Because Google Chrome does not control how extensions handle your personal data, all extensions have been disabled for incognito windows. You can reenable them individually in the extensions manager.
Keeping your gmail tab in an incognito window might be a good approach.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghost-incognito/ge...
Don't you mean a PR on the Chromium project?