No ideas. What are .cap files?
BTW check the Firefox bug thread. The developers have replied.
.cap = package captures on your network, to see where FF or the other browsers get in touch with (by just starting an empty tab, did that in the past, outcome is not really what makes you sleep good at night. Therefore my working machines have no browsers at all, the FF is on a different computer, in a different network, connected only via VNC).
The reply of the FF people does not really increase my trust (besides the Burda deal, pocket, etc. pp.). They are totally on the wrong track, re privacy. But on the other hand: Who cares (besides you and me)? Is there a “market” for privacy products? Look at all the Android and Apple zombies running arround with 24/7 surveillance as a business model.
Even my TW installs try to ping an opensuse/Microthingy domain via NetworkManager whole day, a Microsoft-like counter for active installs or the like.
We’ll have to face it: Privacy is simply not there on the internet.
Doesn’t Tor work for you?
As for .cap - it would be interesting to see your findings. Perhaps you can upload the file somewhere and paste a link? And of course - some help about how to read it?
The reply of the FF people does not really increase my trust (besides the Burda deal, pocket, etc. pp.). They are totally on the wrong track, re privacy. But on the other hand: Who cares (besides you and me)? Is there a “market” for privacy products? Look at all the Android and Apple zombies running arround with 24/7 surveillance as a business model.
Their reply sounds honest as they suggest ways to verify but I haven’t touched C code for 20 years, so I can’t really dig into that. Perhaps monitoring network packets is easier.
Who cares? - Well, I care. That’s a good enough reason, not because I am egocentric but because I am just like everyone else and nobody likes people with a telescope looking through his window, even if it is for statistical purposes.
Even my TW installs try to ping an opensuse/Microthingy domain via NetworkManager whole day, a Microsoft-like counter for active installs or the like.
Wow… Is it the same with other distros?
We’ll have to face it: Privacy is simply not there on the internet.
I refuse to put up with that. 
Hi
Be careful, that’s FUD. The connectivity check (esp captive portal use) can be disabled via the config, it’s been discussed on the forum a few times on what to do and it doesn’t involve tin foil.
Firefox has moved to rust as well… or has it gone to rust…
What do you mean?
Hi
Quantum is now built on rust…
https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/
Runs like Lightning McQueen since it involves rust-eze 
Oh that Well, considering the latest reply I received in the Mozilla bug thread, I will seriously be looking for another browser which truly respects privacy and freedom. FF is obviously not that.
As for Waterfox…
https://ultraimg.com/images/2017/12/15/nJbf.png
and just like Firefox upon startup it connects to the same mozilla hosts (seen in tcpdump)
Perhaps this thread might be now more suited to “Soapbox”…
It’s something one wants to laugh at… but it’s not particularly funny.
No need to worry though, from the horses mouth: ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424781#c4 ) “You can trust us to do the right thing. We’re Mozilla.” :X
As an aside, somebody needs to “do the right thing” on the AMO site…
did you see this? https://www.ghacks.net/2017/12/13/mozillas-extensions-store-has-a-spam-infestation/
Sigh. Had this discussion elsewhere too. Particpants in the thread used emailaddresses from gmail.com, aol.com, yahoo.com, hotmail.com …
“Particpants in the thread used emailaddresses from gmail.com, aol.com, yahoo.com, hotmail.com …”
For dirt I use dirt email addresses…suum quique… 
I also use Google Apps but I am planning to end this, hopefully soon (it’s a process). FWIW one may use a gmail address via IMAP/SMTP and never enter one’s Google credentials in a browser, never accept a single cookie from Google etc. Does that mean one should disregard privacy issues of browsers and/or never talk about what one has found?
I am not sure I follow the logic.
OK, as a starter I downloaded the recent gecko linux rolling (as I can’t mess with any settings there in the live system ) and booted it.
The usual chatter (even before the login screen appears) with “conncheck.opensuse.org”, which gets blocked by my router.
I start the built-in FF and it connects to:
34.210.49.185 services.addons.mozilla.org
93.184.220.29 ocsp.digicert.com
52.10.50.117 tiles.services.mozilla.com
52.31.122.196 location.services.mozilla.com
13.33.21.232 tiles-cloudfront.cdn.mozilla.net
52.26.179.183 shavar.services.mozilla.com
13.33.21.56 tracking-protection.cdn.mozilla.net
54.69.184.117 self-repair.mozilla.org
64.233.161.91 safebrowsing.google.com
216.58.209.110 clients1.google.com, safebrowsing-cache.google.com
80.239.137.72 ciscobinary.openh264.org (a19.dsc910.akamai.net via http)
80.239.137.33 ("get openh264-linux64-.....zip" via http)
What is in my opinion a little disturbing is the download of a .zip file (the cisco h264 thingy, at least they propose…) via http. So my fresh browser automagically draws in an executable from the internet via an unsafe channel (http).
Please don’t tell me I need some medication to find this disturbing…:shame:
Wow…
Please don’t tell me I need some medication to find this disturbing…:shame:
I suggest two of us share a room in the mental hospital and welcome everyone else.
Can’t recall if it was bugzilla or the Factory list, but there was some mention a while back the openSUSE provided firefox shouldn’t be pulling in that blob, don’t know what the outcome was.
On 12/15/2017 12:56 PM, heyjoe wrote:
>
> suse_rasputin;2848152 Wrote:
>> …
> Wow…
>> Please don’t tell me I need some medication to find this
>> disturbing…:shame:
> I suggest two of us share a room in the mental hospital and welcome
> everyone else.
>
>
Can you pick me up on the way there? LOL
–
Ken
linux since 1984
S.u.S.E./openSUSE since 1996
This is NOT funny.
Sorry, the 3 buses are already full
suse_rasputin - could you share your exact testing procedure? Also what are your findings about Chromium? (with settings as explained in the OP) Interesting also to see about Tor…
@heyjoe: Chromium I never used. I will definitely try FF directly downloaded from Mozilla as well as Pale Moon (as I have it on various machines and it still runns with the old NoScript and uMatrix, which is much more reliable in my opinion. Every morning the first start of FF57 brings in content which should normally be blocked. I think the current versions of uMatrix and NoScript don’t work correctly…). Tor is not an option, the IDS/IPS of my router will kill any try to connect to Tor
Setup is easy:
Hardware
I have an old Dell Latitude E6230 without any HDD/SDD. The LAN port is connected to my routers service network (no other clients in this net). In-line for this RJ45 cable there is a Raspberry 3 with two additional RJ45-to-USB interfaces, which are bridged. The Raspberry 3 runs TW JeOS with Enlightenment desktop and Wireshark installed. Wireshark does the package capture on the bridge for the two RJ45-to-USB interfaces. I have some of those “sniffers” in my networks to control some clients (my own computers, not other peoples machines, of course ).
Software
I downloaded the Gecko rolling image and burned it to an USB stick with susestudio imagewriter. Booted the Latitude E6230 from this USB-stick while the Wireshark on the Raspberry listens. You see the packages pop up in Wireshark, starting with DNS (port 53) and subsequently a lot of https or http (Cisco stuff) packages.
Thanks for explaining. I need to learn how to use wireshark. What filters are appropriate for what we are testing?
FWIW I reported the issue about IceCat directly to gnu.org and FSF
As for Chromium here is my report too:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=795526