Comparing Firefox and Waterfox

Applications
1

I have been watching how Firefox and Waterfox display sites.
They seem identical on itsFOSS.community site
but they differ on other sites… eg Researchgate.
I think the Firefox layout is superior.

I went through the default settings in both Waterfox and Firefox. … they seem much the same.

One thing I discovered was the setting

Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed

They both have it unticked. If I tick it, there are enormous difficultires with having to login to itsFOSS every time I start the browser. If it is unticked, the browser saves the login even if I quit and rerun.

Both Waterfox and Firefox can run the Ublock-Origin extension.

One thing I am looking at is cookies. To see what cookies a site is running in your browser environment do

More Tools -> Web Developer Tools -> Storage -> Cookies

Here is what runs with the forum site

cookies
cookies1112×196 45.9 KB

Waterfox is the same as Firefox with cookies.
They both prevent cross-site tracking cookies and isolate other cross-site cookies.
You can set a stricter level, but some sites may refuse to work.

The purpose of this comparison was to try and decide if the better setup for banking and other secure activities was

  • firefox in firejail, or
  • waterfox in firejail.

As far as I can see , there would be no difference, unless I were to configure Waterfox with stricter cookie rules just for banking use in firejail, and leave Firefox as my default browser with the default cookie rules.

That seems the best option. I really want there to be no cookies, and certainly no persistent cookies in using banking sites. Firejail looks after persistent cookies, but still allows cookies while running. To control that I need stricter browser settings which would be a nuisance for general use… so using a separate browser seems a good idea.

Will give it a try.
Can anyone see holes in this?

5 Likes
2

Or are you just used to Firefox?

I don’t really have an opinion. I’ve used Firefox a lot. I used Waterfox just to test it out in the past, but wasn’t looking for differences and didn’t notice any.

3 Likes
3

That could be it.
Waterfox certainly does not mis-render or omit anything.
It is just a different layout on some sites.

I dont really care about layout, I am interested in security for banking use.

4 Likes
4

That maybe up to the site. Sometimes the website sniffs the user agent string, and passes content according to what it thinks it’s approriate.
Some time ago Disney+ refused to work on Linux, but changing user agent string to a Windows based browsers allowed the content to be played.
This is the most agressive thing done based on user agent string, but I remember I had some problems with Palemoon years ago: few sites identified it as a mobile browser, so needed to fiddle with UA string.
Try changing user agent in Waterfox (to lie to the site, that it’s Firefox), and see if that helps those misrenderings.

4 Likes
5

My bank has an Android/iOS app for 2FA. I need to unlock my phone and then confirm the login and transactions when I’m logged in to my bank. The bank has also an app for banking but it also works with any browser.

Before the 2FA app there was a list of one time passwords printed on paper which they sent you to verify payments etc.

So even if someone would have my bank online credentials they need also my phone’s pin code and screen lock code and the app’s password.

1 Like
6

Yes 2FA helps with security.
One of my banks has it.
They all have both a website login and an Android app.
It is the website login that I wish to protect with a browser in firejail.

2 Likes
7

Ok, I don’t care about the website login because there is no password in that. It’s just a 6 figure number and login happens with the phone.

2 Likes
8

What do you think about protecting the browser after you are logged in? Should it be in a container? Should it be a fresh browser instance with no hangover cookies?

2 Likes
9

You can use banking tab in Firefox if you like. I don’t bother. I use only one computer or my phone to log in to my bank.

1 Like
10

It seems to be already set to Firefox

wfoxua

Wfox uses WebRender compositor, so does Ffox.

I found this
“It look different because each browser has his own CSS style defined. This styles apply to the HTML markup when no other CSS is defined inline or comes from an external CSS file. That’s the reason why a lot of websites using a “Reset.css”.”

Wfox seems to have an entirely different set of css rules to Ffox.
This is Wfox

wfoxcss
wfoxcss704×263 31.7 KB

This is Ffox

ffoxcss
ffoxcss886×254 36 KB

This difference may be a version thing.
OK, that is it, I am not going to try and make them the same.

Here is the feature comparison

wfoxfeatures
wfoxfeatures928×652 63.1 KB

Of course it is biased… it comes from the Wfox webpage

3 Likes