Waterfox Browser Portable Download ((BETTER))

<div>so, after another update in which a bunch of settings have either changed or broken (the most persistent, and probably least annoying, is that I have to reload my theme on every application restart), and also realizing that Waterfox Classic is dead... I'm considering just using Firefox as my daily browser again.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>waterfox browser portable download</div><div></div><div>Download Zip &#9658;&#9658;&#9658; https://t.co/DuatR3UyL0</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Waterfox is a free and open-source web browser and fork of Firefox. It claims to be ethical and user-centric, emphasizing performance and privacy.[2] There are official Waterfox releases for Windows, macOS, and Linux.[3] It was initially created to provide official 64-bit support, back when Firefox was only available for 32-bit systems.[4]</div><div></div><div></div><div>Waterfox shares core features and technologies like the Gecko browser engine[5] and support for Firefox Add-ons[6] with Firefox. It is also compatible with Google Chrome and Opera extensions.[2] It disables telemetry and Pocket by default, which are present in Firefox builds. However, it collects technical information about the user's device to update properly.[4]</div><div></div><div></div><div>Waterfox Classic is a version of the browser based on an older version of the Gecko engine that supports legacy XUL and XPCOM add-on capabilities that Firefox removed in version 57.[7][8] It is still partially maintained with fixes and patches from Waterfox and Firefox ESR releases. However, its development has been separated due to several changes from Waterfox that are otherwise unapplicable.[9]</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Hello, I'm not an advanced user or deployer but I don't know where else to ask this question. My workplace is using Netskope. Can anyone tell me why only the Waterfox browser is blocking most websites? Even ahdictionary.com is blocked as a security risk. It's a little rough as this is our required dictionary.</div><div></div><div></div><div>At a guess I would say your administrator has created a policy based on the browser; waterfox is not a listed browser. Hence, you are getting blocked. This also suggests that the policy is not applied to all traffic, otherwise you would be blocked completely.</div><div></div><div></div><div>yeah so this is pretty much what i thought. Waterfox isn't trusting the netskope root CA so it all looks like a big old man in the middle attack. I had similar issues when I was a Blue Coat Admin back in the day. If you get a copy of the root CA you should be able to import it in trusted CA's within the browser. I never used waterfox but here's an article for doing it in firefox. Hopefully it's similar. -US/kb/setting-certificate-authorities-firefox</div><div></div><div></div><div>without seeing the security risk error i'd say the browser probably has it's own cert repository and doesn't trust the Netskope certificates when it does it's ssl interception. Can you post a screenshot of the security risk message?</div><div></div><div></div><div>I install Waterfox browser solely because I've come to know and love the FireFTP add-on, for uploading web content to a web-server.(Formally, I used FireFTP addon under FireFox browser, but approx a year ago, due to revised architecture of Firefox, the FireFTP addon no longer is compatible with Firefox, and the suggested fix/workaround is to use the Waterfox browser, since Waterfox IS compatible with Waterfox.)</div><div></div><div></div><div>But, on the new laptop, for some unknown reason, I can get FireFTP addon downloaded, and installed upon Waterfox browser, but I canNOT get FireFTP to create the account needed to connect to my(same) web-server. The exact symptom is that the dropdown in upper left corner of the FireFTP tab says: "(Choose an account)", but clicking on that does nothing. I see no way to specify/configure a (new) account, with the connection-info to communicate with a web-server.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Hello,</div><div></div><div>I just switched from Firefox to Waterfox today, but it seems the browser extension doesn't want to work, it stays disabled and gray. I don't even have the "browser not signed" warning.</div><div></div><div>Of course I tried to remove the extension and install it again several times.</div><div></div><div>I had 1Password 6.8.1 installed, but I rolled back to 6.8 because 6.8.1 removes the browser code signature checkbox (which is unchecked now).</div><div></div><div>Works on Firefox 55.0.2, not on Waterfox 55.0.2.</div><div></div><div>I really hope this can be solved.</div><div></div><div>Thanks.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Hi  __Greg - my own installation of Waterfox is currently not playing nice with the 1Password extension as well, so I suspect this is something that's not just you. In the switch-over from web sockets to native messaging although it provides far greater stability and reliability of the extension for filling successfully with signed browsers, it's also tightened up interfacing with unsigned ones. This appears to have affected Waterfox. I can't say when or even whether 1Password extension functionality will be restored in Waterfox, as we're still rolling this out -- and we've never promised compatibility with less well-known browsers (though many have worked and continue to work, on a case-by-case basis). If you're able, I'd stick with Firefox for now, and keep an eye on our updates or check back with us in the future regarding Waterfox.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Hey  __Greg - I had a brief chat with one of our extension developers, and apparently the problem for the moment is that the bundle ID has changed, which is along the lines of what I suspected (tightened security around which browsers to "talk" to). Its on our punch list of things to change, but at present we've got more urgent things consuming developers' time. The best I can do for you is to say we'll get to it as quickly as possible, so keep an eye on the updates. Thanks, and sorry I don't have a better answer for you right now.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Like many others I suspect this is going to be increasingly common an issue - Tab Mix Plus is an absolute must for me, and it's being locked out for the foreseeable future by the move in FF to Web Extensions. That makes Waterfox my main browser. And I'm doing a lot of copy/paste to mimic what the 1Password extension used to just do.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I'm not saying it's easy. It wasn't for us. But WebExtensions is an open standard that anyone can use. Since both Firefox and Chrome are using it, it seems like that's the way forward. We don't currently have plans to support Waterfox, as our focus is on the major browsers. But it's something we can consider. Thanks for your feedback on this!</div><div></div><div></div><div>Let me start by saying I understand that you only support the major browsers, but (saw that coming, right) it is still a bit disappointing especially as Waterfox is close to Firefox and supports most Firefox extensions. Also, as far as I can tell Waterfox supports WebExtensions, and recently the 1Password icon in Waterfox sometimes goes from being 'grayed out' to 'normal' which seem would suggest it could work on Waterfox.</div><div></div><div></div><div>While we don't have any reason to distrust Waterfox in particular there is the strong possibility that if this were more open an attacker could take advantage of that by releasing an app that is less worthy of trust. We certainly want to pay attention to the needs of the more technical crowd who might be inclined to use somewhat obscure browsers, but we also always have the fact that we're responsible for the security of everyone's data in the forefront of our minds.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Waterfox is (in my experience and opinion) a massively superior browser to Firefox, especially now as Firefox is dropping support for a number of older incredibly useful extensions (which, in some cases, are simply no longer being developed and thus will never be replaced). It uses less memory, it crashes less often, it runs faster, and it's just generally better.</div><div></div><div></div><div>"Sticking to Firefox for now" isn't an option. Prior to Mozilla's changes in 55.0, FF and WF shared profile information & could be swapped between at will. The FF55.0 changes forced a profile fork, so switching back to vanilla Firefox at this stage is a tedious & painful process leaving me with a browser that uses more resources, crashes more often, and removes features I value.</div><div></div><div></div><div>With the inability to disable the signing check, users of non-mainline browsers are effectively forced to either return to using several complex but not unique passwords, or store copies of their 1Password passwords in Waterfox's password vault. Either option defeats the entire purpose of using 1Password or its' competitors; if the pure manual copy-and-paste option was practical, the browser extension wouldn't need to exist.</div><div></div><div></div><div>My personal browser preference aside, the inability to disable this check doesn't seem to result in a real improvement in security. What makes Mozilla trustworthy? Firefox is fully open-source, but we can't be certain that the public binaries Mozilla provide are unmodified from the public code. If I'm concerned enough about security that this might be a problem, as with Waterfox I can build my own copy of FF from the public source tree - Mozilla even provide a handy-dandy compilation guide.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Say I follow this process and build my own copy of FF; the binaries produced at the end won't be signed by Mozilla and will fail your code signing check. Despite being arguably more trustworthy than Mozilla's published binaries, 1Password will not work with this browser; I will once again be left storing my 1Password passwords outside of 1Password, or returning to insecure/nonunique passwords, if I want to be certain that I am running trustworthy browser code.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Can the ability to disable the signing check be exposed via these methods rather than a checkbox in the application UI? Better yet, a mechanism by which we could add code signatures to 1Password's trusted list... Best of both worlds, code signing verification without preventing users from creating their own browsers...</div><div></div><div> df19127ead</div>