Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's 2012 Annual Report: 90% of Revenue Came From Google
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today released its annual financial report for 2012, and while revenue is up quite substantially, the organization's reliance on Google continues to grow. In 2011, 85 percent of Mozilla's revenue came from Google. In 2012, the figure increased to 90 percent."
It's because instead of listening to what the users want, they plow ahead with stupid UI-redesigns to make Firefox a slower, buggier Chrome clone. I mean sure, the new UI is spiffy, but they can't fix a nearly ten year old bug with find.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
... And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track, why plugins are no longer being vetted to ensure they're actually doing what they say, etc. Guys... How much more evidence do you need that Google is evil -- they're sending vans in your neighborhood, taking pictures of your houses, collecting your wifi network names, OTA traffic, embedding realtime tracking into your phones, and the list goes on. We piss ourselves like excited dogs at the prospect of the NSA spying on us (Sorry but you just aren't that interesting), but when Google does ten times that and is whoring out your personal data like it has a crack addiction, we find people saying "Ah, well, it's a convenience, and how else do you expect us to get all these nifty apps if we don't surrender all our privacy and have advertisements shoved down our throats?"
And now they've infected the only major open source software browser out there. And it's just a matter of time before they pull the rug out from under the organization and it implodes. But it's cool... you can always upgrade to Chrome. And as a bonus... it'll happily store every interaction you make with your browser on Google's servers. Isn't that... convenient?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What a stupid comment. Everyone has to have revenue of some kind. What were they going to do? Operate off of donations? They provide a class browser for free. Next best free alternative? Chrome browser. Guess who makes that?
Despite engineers from high traffic websites such as Facebook begging Mozilla to implement it in the hopes of saving bandwidth costs, and despite plenty of success stories for those who implemented it only for Chrome, they still continue do deny the format a chance..
Meanwhile, the internet still lacks a lossy compression image format that supports alpha transparency... Thank you Mozilla!
As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:
(1) The obvious - that Google will have undue influence over Mozilla's design decisions. Some will argue that is impossible, etc. Maybe so, but money talks.
(2) The less obvious - that Google will fall on hard times and Mozilla will find themselves high and dry. Some people argue that Bing and other search engines also bid to be default search engine in Firefox so Mozilla could just switch to one of them for a nearly equivalent revenue stream. But the main reason there were other bids is because Google is so dominate. If Google tanks, then the other search engines will be in a stronger position and won't need Mozilla as much as they do today. So the money they are likely to offer will also be reduced.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Another, perhaps more likely possibility, is that Google is worrying about what could happen if they didn't fund Mozilla:
1) a direct competitor like Amazon or Microsoft might step in to take their place
-or-
2) FF could move in a direction of privacy advocacy, and set up defaults that would defeat the tracking and content-pushing policies of big sites like Google and Macromedia
"They sold out a long time ago"
In what way? They're the only major "independent" browser. They're the browser that has led the field in personal privacy, security, and blocking trackers. They're the ones who put out a mobile phone OS that doesn't try to lock you in to one company's services.
I'd like to know how you think any of that is "selling out".
You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.
Want tabs on the side? Good luck with Chrome. Good luck with alternate Webkit browsers with not enough marketshare to attract extensions.
Simple things like holding control (and optionally shift!) to select cell values or entire columns in a table are what set Firefox apart from other browsers.
Why doesn't firefox block 3rd party cookies by default? Safari blocks 3rd party cookies by default.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Every November, Mozilla releases its financial report for the previous year.
FTFA.
Safari also sucks, by default.
Mozilla is like a small business with 1 huge client. The client leaves and there goes the business. Regardless of internal politics within Mozilla, Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it.
Mozilla are the only ones actively trying to solve that problem, and yet the only thing your kind can see and say is "they haven't fixed it yet!" If you feel that god damn strongly about it, because part of the solution.
It's easy to wag fingers at the smallest guy in the ring for not doing all the work, but it doesn't make you right. It makes you sound like a boorish oaf who can't be bothered to use RequestPolicy and would rather someone else solve the problem for them YESTERDAY, conveniently without even paying them for the work.
What a position to be in: you give away all your products but are well funded by a wealthy patron. Yet the patron gives away a product comparable to your primary product, and gives away a service that provides many of the features of your secondary product.
Wealthy patrons are nothing new, and those who rely on patronage have always been in a precarious position. But rarely have they been in direct competition with their patrons.
90% funded by Google doesn't really scream "independant" to me.
Personally, I think Google keeps the money flowing out of fear that if the Mozilla Foundation shuts down, somebody with a clue might turn Firefox into a competitive browser again.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
What were they going to do? Operate off of donations?
Aside from you ignoring the giant white elephant in the room, which is that Google is increasingly encompassing or influencing every aspect of the internet it possibly can, which is NOT HEALTHY...Why not operate off donations? They're not a for-profit corporation, they don't have investors or shareholders, etc.
There was ZERO need for growing Mozilla into the monster it is today with a finger in everything. What the fuck is Mozilla doing promoting a surfing competition? Why the fuck is Mozilla making an OS and trying to sell cell phones?(Did all the OpenMoko failures start squatting at Mozilla HQ or something?) Why does the Mozilla website design change every month?
While I'm ranting: nobody was clamoring for the moron-ization of Firefox's controls (some privacy-related, like the stripping-out of the ability to expire history+cache+cookie data older than a certain time period. Want to only keep the last 7 days of history? Too fuckin' bad! Gee, who has an interest in that? Advertisers like GOOGLE) or the butchering of Thunderbird at the hands of some 20-year old self-proclaimed UX expert.
About the only thing I see Mozilla doing well these days is pissing people off with every application update, something Google excels at, as well.
And by the way, get off my lawn.
Please help metamoderate.
Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it.
Out of the goodness of their heart. It obviously has nothing to do with 3rd party cookies being used for tracking and generating ad revenue.
No, you don't need 3rd party cookies. The benign use of those is almost non-existing, and the only "breakage" are sites that deliberately won't work unless they can track you. If you're fine with that, there's a Chrome for you.
They spent $150 million in a year on software development. Really, for a browser and not a whole lot else? That's certainly not "free, like beer." Someone is making money, without the results to show for it.
Their problem isn't revenue, it's expenses.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
(2) Google isn't breaking anyone's door down with a well armed friends.
They don't need to. You give them everything they ask for.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Obviously make it a voluntary option, but I would think they could squeeze out a lot of revenue just taking any unreferred link and turning it into a referral. I suppose Amazon might not love this, but it is not that different than what forum operators do when they add referrals to every outgoing amazon link.
Bottles.
You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.
Want tabs on the side? Good luck with Chrome. Good luck with alternate Webkit browsers with not enough marketshare to attract extensions.
You obviously haven't tried the new "Australis" version of Firefox. It's stupid and dumbed down and in a few months it will be your only choice unless you stay with an older version of Firefox forever...
The one thing that that has always made Firefox better than all the other browsers is the ability to do extensive customizing. But they are hard at work fixing that. The new "Australis" build removes an enormous amount of customizability and is nothing but one giant Fuck You to users.
Tabs On Top -- No thanks, I want my tabs below the URL bar, where God intended them to be. Well, Australis says Fuck You, you're getting Tabs On Top whether you like it or not. And just removing the menu item and burying the setting in about:config isn't good enough. Even if you go into about:config and change the setting, it does nothing. Don't like Tabs On Top? Australis says: Fuck You.
There are only 2 toolbars -- Menu bar and Bookmarks toolbar. No more Add-On Bar, which means the Status Bar Extension (among others) doesn't work because THERE'S NO FUCKING PLACE TO PUT IT. It's bad enough they removed a feature and forced people to rely on an extension, but now, Australis says: You want a Status Bar? Fuck You.
The Back and Forward buttons are now welded to the left side of the URL Bar and can't be moved. The Reload Button has been replaced with a swirly arrow that is welded to the far right side of the URL Bar and can't be moved. And the Stop Button is gone completely. Want to arrange your buttons the same way you've had for years? Australis says: Fuck you.
Want text labels with your buttons? Australis says: Fuck you.
I could go on and on but fuck it I give up. If I want a browser with a shitty UI that can't be changed I'll use Internet Explorer or Chrome.
So, 85% to 90% in one year. Must be reporting revenues using Firefox/Google version numbers.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Look, if you're unwilling to actually read the Bugzilla and forum threads about this, don't get on your high horse. Any user who WANTS third party cookies off can easily do so. This is about the users who don't realize they want third party cookies off, and Mozilla has to step far more lightly with them because it DOES break the web. Lots of sites will break if you don't also see their ads or allow their trackers to work. And that's just advertising. Lots of other sites use third-party cookies not for ad-tracking, and they can break too.
I find it interesting that Google effectively sponsors competition to their Chrome browser. I wonder if it's to keep pressure up against Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Wow, that sounds incredibly horrendous.
Hopefully just like Gnome2 -> 3, there will be a large community supported fork to maintain a customizable browser.
How about:
- TabKit (tabs on the side, how does anyone browse without this?!!)
- FoxyProxy
- NoScript (it's not the same on Chrome)
- Redirector
- Screen Capture Elite
- HTML Validator
- Refcontrol (blocks/fakes referrer header)
- Better Privacy (flash cookie blocker/sanitizer)
The list goes on...
"Because it breaks the fucking web."
Utter nonsense. It breaks nothing to disable third party cookies. Absolutely nothing. It merely pisses of those people who are capitalizing on the web. Anyone who makes money by tracking me is irritated when they can't track me. Nothing is broken. It poisons parasites, but poisoning parasites makes the host stronger and healthier.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This is FUD. Please demonstrate any problems with default 3rd party blocking, other than advertising and tracking. Specific sites and examples. If you're right, it shouldn't be hard.
No need to abandon ship or to hang on to an older version. Pale Moon has been fixing Firefox's stupidity for quite a while now. Give it a try.
Repeat: they are not "funded" by Google. They have a business deal, for some ads and for a Google search bar in their browser. Big deal.
Google isn't "giving" them money, or "hiring" them in any way. And the search bar takes all of 3 seconds (I checked) to get rid of.
I'll repeat what I said above - disabling 3rd party cookies does not break the web. The fact is, those sites you mention intentionally break the web, then tell you that if you want to see the web, you have to enable their cookies. The web is there, with or without the cookies. Holding the web hostage, and telling users that they aren't permitted to see the web unless you can track them is evil. I don't do 3rd party cookies. Occasionally, some weird thing happens, and I can't see what I thought I wanted to see. I say, "Big deal - I didn't need that anyway!" I go on, and find the content that I was looking for through some other provider.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it."
It does absolutely nothing of the sort. It breaks some companies' business models on the web. Those are not even remotely the same things.
If those companies disappeared tomorrow, the web would remain. Hell, it might even be a better place.
Their expenses for branding and marketing were almost $30,000,000.
This. This is the problem right here. Why does an open-source project need to spend thirty million dollars promoting a "brand" most people are already fully aware of? Firefox already has a healthy enough market share; there's no NEED for it to have more.
And why does it cost $150M/year to work on a browser, email client, and some dev tools? They have 650 or so employees - assuming every single one was a developer, they're spending $230,000 on each one.
If it truly costs $150M/year to work on the "products" Mozilla produces, that's absurdly inefficient.
Please help metamoderate.
They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google.
What obligations that funding puts them under is a separate question. There may be no strings attached to that money, but even so, it gives Google leverage, even if that leverage isn't utilised. The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It's disturbing that you haven't figured out how to change your default search engine.
This space intentionally left blank
A browser shouldn't need extensions to be useful.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
you keep saying that and people who know better are going to mod you down, down, down.
they DO get direct non-ad money from google. either you are blind or stupid. or both.
but they DO get money from google. enough people have posted links to prove it in this very thread.
stop being a google supporter. this is not the thread for that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If they break... Fuck em, they weren't worth visiting anyway
Seriously, it would be to their benefit to invest this into companies so that they can pull dividends over a long period of time. And it should ones that are OSS friendly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I almost wish the Google contribution were 0% so they'd stop adding god damned useless "features" to what should be elegant and simple: A browser and an email package.
I don't want built-in PDF readers and video codecs and all that other crap their shovelling into it lately. If I want that functionality I'll install it. Don't shove it down my throat!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
22 employees get an average of $188,000, 3000 volunteers get zero.
https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2012_Mozilla_Form_990-Public_Disclosure.pdf
> They also support -- and highly recommend -- a plugin
> that lets you see ALL the "3rd parties" who are tracking you
Which plugin is that? And is it free software?
Thanks,
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Look, it doesn't matter what YOU think or say. YOU already know how to turn off 3rd party cookies anyway. But the bulk of web users won't see a site loading improperly and think "oh, that's just the site being a jerk-ass" they'll think "why isn't this site that was working before the new Firefox working anymore?"
Mozilla is trying to find a way out of this that will help even the least of us. Which is more than I can say for all the people saying "just flip the switch!" because that will just lose Firefox even more users, who won't hesitate to jump ship to Chrome or Internet Explorer.
And in case you're wondering, yes there are a lot of non-technical people who use Firefox. The rest of them should have no problem whatsoever disabling third-party cookies on their own.
Hell, if Mozilla just did what you're saying, we'd have another round of jerks whining that Mozilla was "forcing" things on them, like all the whiners about Australis who think it's the end of the world because THEY finally have to install an addon to get Firefox to act the way they want it to.
Mozilla's CTO, Brendan Eich, gets $652,194.
This is an organization that takes years to fix bugs and has a huge legacy code base they can barely manage. (There's still a lot of Netscape stuff in there.)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/
So long as the addon interface remains as powerful as it is, you can have any browser you want. Running FF28 with Australis now, and it's not far from FF27. I'm sure more changes could be done.
?
Chrome allows you to block third-party cookies as well.
I like to use Opera for that exact reason.
If some private company has its nose in my browser, a small one, who doesn't already have code in almost every website I visit, is quite appealing.
It breaks comment sign-in on all Blogger/Blogspot blogs, and anything that uses Disqus. Also Engadget's current system (Livefyre?)
Its called Lightbeam.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/
Yes, its free, for certain definitions of free.
They DO sell merchandise, and I imagine they get donations.
This is FUD. Please demonstrate any problems with default 3rd party blocking, other than advertising and tracking.
Inability to comment on YouTube after the switch to Google+.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Utter nonsense. It breaks nothing to disable third party cookies. Absolutely nothing.
It broke YouTube commenting.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Most of the contributions are not financial in an open-source project. So if you focus on money only, you can only get irrelevant results.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
It breaks my single sign-on solution for my opensource project.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
"They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google."
No, there are many reasonable definitions of "funded" that have little if any resemblance to this.
Venture capitalists "fund" a company (invest in it). That makes them part owners.
Donations to Kickstarter "fund" the projects. Again, in a way it is an investment, or sometimes just a plain donation. (You might get something back from your investment but it isn't always true and you aren't "buying" anything from Kickstarter projects.)
Donations "fund" political campaigns.
Most uses of the word "fund" involve either donations or investments. Customers do not "fund" grocery stores, and advertisers do not "fund" newspapers.
"The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you."
I'll repeat the question I asked elsewhere: what leverage? If anything, FIREFOX is "funding" Google, via revenue from the search box placement. They just get a royalty back from that operation. Big deal. That doesn't give Google leverage over how Firefox does their business. They didn't always get so much revenue from Google, either. If Google disappeared tomorrow, that doesn't mean Firefox would be in the red for the next fiscal year; they'd simply have to offer the deal to somebody else.
"you keep saying that and people who know better are going to mod you down, down, down."
Out of the 5 comments I made in this thread before your reply, I got two 5s for "insightful" and two 3s. No downs.
"they DO get direct non-ad money from google. either you are blind or stupid. or both."
Really? That isn't what TFA says. Google is paying Firefox royalties for ads and/or the searchbar. No mention was made of anything else.
"but they DO get money from google. enough people have posted links to prove it in this very thread."
Of course they do. That's what this whole thread is about.
"stop being a google supporter. this is not the thread for that."
I'm not a "Google supporter", and I've written nothing here that should cause a reasonable person to think I am. Google has done little but piss me off for years. Some of their recent antics have caused me to stop using many of their services.
I am and have been, however, a Firefox supporter.
It breaks single sign-on support on my opensource project that doesn't capitalize anything from the web, this pisses me off. Your argument is invalid.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
> Its called Lightbeam.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/ [mozilla.org]
> Yes, its free, for certain definitions of free.
I can't find a licence statement. Some source files say it's under Mozilla Public Licence v2.0, which means those files are free software, but other files don't have any licence info at all. Maybe the author just forgot, but if there's no licence then they're not free by any sense of the word. I'll look for an email address to contact them.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
You are right! Most users are not even aware that they are being tracked or that they have the ability to disable it. But whatever, they are just naive/ignorant right? Big brother knows best.
Where is moderation: -1 False?
The point is that they effectively made firefox from a very functional and clearly differentiated power user browser into an inferior chrome clone ever since 3.6.x batch. That is indeed selling out.
No one is arguing about whether they need the money or not. The argument is that they sold out for that money.
This shows that they are in fact completely "dependent" on google.
Biggest "independent" (of major multinationals) browser right now is probably opera.
For quite a long while the only reason to use FF has been extensions. Even IE is better in vanilla state.
Utter nonsense. It breaks nothing to disable third party cookies. Absolutely nothing.
It broke YouTube commenting.
Are you sure that isn't a feature?
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
If all you're doing is browsing, that's the reason. Some of us actually do more than simply browse on the web.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.
Yes, and no...
Thing flip side of the coin is that as long as Firefox has any significant share of the market, Google can't take the risk of dropping Mozilla.
Sure if Mozilla did a deal with bing, many users would change back or drop Firefox in favor of Chrome to get Google.
The keyword here is many, that could be anywhere from all Firefox users to none. But Google can't take that risk, not when they already have a good business.
20% marked share (hence, extra data) might just be what bing needs to take off.
Not paying Mozilla is a huge risk for Google, and a risk without significant rewards.
Are you missing the point or what? Any business that gets 90% of its revenue from one place is going to fail. That's WAY too fragile. Also, their #1 sponsor makes a competing product with theirs. Firefox is screwed.
Single sign-on support? Interesting - maybe you need to whitelist a site or sites where you actually WANT that feature. That would be kinda like using AdBlock Plus, but white listing a small group of sites that you actually want to support. Think that would work?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
A long long time ago, when IE 6 was king, it allowed blocking 3rd-party cookies and had an icon on the status-bar that, when clicked, showed you which cookies were blocked and let you whitelist them on a case-by-case basis. This used to take care of all the "breakages".
Is there an extension to do that in FF?
examples! real examples that apply to the world, not just your private project. otherwise apologize!
cool, that's a good one. any others? i think it will be really helpful to compile a list. i haven't had any problems before. it seems like half the people here use adblock and ghostery, which must do the same things. what are we missing?
I like because I own my email mail, instead of borrowing it from someone. As a user Thunderbird, I am saddened that development energy for great program is being has diminished. Perhaps popmail conflicts with Google's wants and needs.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You have it reversed... Blocking 3rd party cookies is a feature, not 'not blocking 3rd party cookies'.
No, because that would require me to manage a whitelist, develop an extension and other non-sense just to get people to get a working federated single sign-on login system in a browser. And it's not only developers using this system, but users of the software, whom some of which may not be very technically literate.
Additional steps isn't really acceptable for sign on. Using a non-federated system is not acceptable from a security stand point either (such as getting the website to do authentication with LDAP backend instead of using our OpenID variant).
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yet if they added all those features, people would complain of bloat.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Organisations that use single sign on solutions like: https://www.atlassian.com/software/crowd/overview
My project isn't private, I'm just not mentioning the name because Slashdotters frown upon advertising.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
but if there's no licence then they're not free by any sense of the word.
Except for the most common usage of the word, which is to say free as in beer.
It sounds like a very small minority would get into trouble with this. they can turn it off. everyone else benefits from advanced protection. sounds like a huge win. Safari does it right; this is why google had to hack the browsers.
Is the implication that Google gave them the money and said "Make a browser just like Chrome"? That doesn't make any sense. What happened was that Chrome changed users' expectations about browser behavior and Mozilla adapted their product to the marketplace. The differentiating feature of Firefox is its extensibility, and, AFAIK, that hasn't changed at all...it's still the most powerful browser platform for extension by a long shot.
"You're right, your statements put you clearly in the shill camp."
What part of "Google pisses me off" do you not understand?
Your comment puts you in the "I don't know how to read" camp.
Is that like the bug reports asking why the prompt for closing multiple tabs comes up when users have already told firefox not to warn when closing multiple tabs? Those go nowhere because some UX nazi cares so much about a user fat fingering the Right-Click-Close-Other tabs button. But hey, please now go read the bugzilla thread because its so informative!? Oh wait, its fixed since there is a second option in about:config, that kiss on our boo-boo makes it all better right?! Firefox UX design is basically: take options away, be more like chrome, put it all into about:config. Boring.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Odd, my post here disappeared... I'll just rewrite it.
You never even bothered verifying that this software has this issue, if you even bothered, you would realize that a lot of other sign on solutions are at risk too. Instead you waste everyone's time, noh8rz10. You even wasted the reader's time by not bothering to verify anything here.
I'm having to add to my examples because you changed the requirements, I felt something that really personally effects me was sufficient because you didn't bother posting your requirement where this is meant to effect some wide spread amount of users. So fine, I will humour you and tell you one more but this is the last time I accept your moving of goal posts in this conversation. But you have wasted my time too, noh8rz10.
Posting YouTube comments will not work without 3rd party cookies and you can bet there are plenty of other websites that have similar issues.
As I see it now, I have now fulfilled your prerequisite of:
Ta da.
This is not advanced protection, this is a very simple protection, something that even existed in the 90s. In fact, it was disabled by default because it broke single sign on systems from Yahoo and broke certain embedding of content. You're claims are just going to lead people into a false sense of security. The reality is that someone whom wants to be nefarious can still track people using other methods, off the top of my head... Storing identifiers in RGB values through HTML5 canvas, storing identifiers through HTML5 session storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 local storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 global storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 database storage, storing identifiers through userData storage, storing identifiers through window.name caching, soring idenfitiers through Local Shared Objects, storing identifiers through isolated storage, storing identifiers through web history, storing identifiers through etags, storing identifiers through web cache, storing identifiers throughg HTTP authentication caching, verifying identity through font availability and plugin setup. And that's just the stuff I remember off the top of my head to track someone through webbrowsers using more nefarious methods.
Safari does this right.. By setting a false sense of security and then adding a feature where website owners can override the setting by telling the browser "yeah, you can trust me"... Yeah, no.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Because not using the same login to access webmail, web storage, bug report facilities from the same organisation is 'fucking stupid'? Sorry, I disagree.
That's more insecure than federated single sign on. If a specific system is compromised, the credentials are not in a federated single sign on solution. It also means that when you revoke a single user's access, all their access is removed in a federated single sign on solution. If you give a user access, their access is automatically available at all the systems they're meant to have access to in a federated single sign on solution. If you want to have auditing of access, a federated single sign on solution makes this very simple, while trying to audit across many systems with different user databases can be quite difficult etc.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Which makes it a problem with cookies.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Only one I've found since blocking third-party cookies (though I may not have connected other issues to it). Google need to take a lot of the blame for not making it fail gracefully. You'd click to comment, it'd ask you to update to Google+ or something, and then the next box would just stay blank.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Organisations that use single sign on solutions like: https://www.atlassian.com/software/crowd/overview
Using the SSO solution outside the SSO domain is not supported, and if you need to do that, you would generally place a reverse proxy in front of the servers not part of the domain.
Depending on clients compromising their security in order for you to get less work does not instill a lot of confidence in your single sign-on solution and by extension, how safe it is.
This is not possible for me, so this will break the web for people who use my stuff. I expect it will also break others who also have the situation where they make use of certain cloud services that rely on certain federated SSO solutions similar to openid for login integration.
I also wouldn't be very happy about login URLs not using the same domain always, from a security point of view, a user would become used to the idea that there is a separate login prompt for every domain, making the problem of phishing larger.
For some reason you think this actually prevents the nefarious tracking that users don't want. I already included more than enough examples on another post that shows this is not the case.
You are misleading people into a false sense of security, you're making users think that everything is fine, when in reality it is going to break things and the nefarious ones are still going to be able to do what the users think they aren't doing.
To put it in other words, the so called advantages of this solution you are claiming is more secure is an illusion and only serves to break legitimate systems that aren't intended to be nefarious in nature.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
why are you being mean to me? I wasn't mean to you. That makes me feel bad.
I'm not mean, I'm special.
Here, take this, it might make you feel better.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
why would you send me that? what a horrible horrible woman
While it's true if you know the specific credentials, you can get into the account, single sign on solutions also give the ability to effortlessly include two-factor authentication without needing the application to specifically support it and having to manually setup a whole bunch of tokens for each users.
That said, because on a federated single sign on system, you have to compromise the the login system rather than the application in order to it. The only way a login can be compromised in this scenario is if you get into the federated single sign on solution, getting into any other system that uses it won't help you in this regard because they don't handle or store logins from a federated single sign on solution. Additionally, you have completely ignored all the other statements regarding auditing capabilities, revocation of access etc.
You also forget that single sign on also means, one sign in and you are logged into everything at the same time. You don't get this with multiple login systems.
So no, this is not the same at all.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.