Tor Browser Gets a Redesign, Switches To New Firefox Quantum Engine (zdnet.com)

The Tor Browser has rolled out a new interface with the release of v8. From a report: The Tor Browser has always been based on the Firefox codebase, but it lagged behind a few releases. Mozilla rolled out a major overhaul of the Firefox codebase in November 2017, with the release of Firefox 57, the first release in the Firefox Quantum series. Firefox Quantum came with a new page rendering engine, a new add-ons API, and a new user interface called the Photon UI. Because these were major, code-breaking changes, it took the smaller Tor team some time to integrate all of them into the Tor Browser codebase and make sure everything worked as intended. The new Tor Browser 8, released yesterday, is now in sync with the most recent version of Firefox, the Quantum release, and also supports all of its features. This means the Tor Browser now uses the same modern Photon UI that current Firefox versions use, it supports the same speed-optimized page rendering engine and has also dropped support for the old XUL-based add-ons system for the new WebExtensions API system used by Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, and the rest of the Chromium browsers.

Comments

Tested today

[Anonymous Coward]

First impression is I like it. Video playback seems sluggish but overall positive. Hopefully any NSA addons did not make the cut.

Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when you have the assets already cached. Most people donâ(TM)t just visit a site once. I was playing with it this morning. Itâ(TM)s a decent speed improvement even within the restraints of tor

More impressively msmash posted an actual tech article not a biasedpolitical article for a change. Losing too many readers now I suspect

Re:Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for T

[Tough Love]

It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.

The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new Webextensions API.

Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[dargaud]

I really wonder that. I support tor. I've never actually used it because I don't have much to hide, but I understand that other do. So I ran a tor relay (not exit) as my way of supporting the project for a while; from my home adsl. After a while I noticed some weird stuff going on. Some websites (important ones) wouldn't load properly. Emails sent would bounce or simply never reach their destination. After looking at the problem I found that my IP was on some minor blacklists. I stopped the relay and after 2 days I was off the blacklists. Hence my question, if running a simple relay gets you blacklisted, what does running an exit point does to your other internet usage from that IP ? Who can afford separate IPs besides institutions ? So who is really really running them ? Certainly not private citizens...

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[Anonymous Coward]

>So who is really really running them ? Certainly not private >citizens...

Probably the same government entity that funded the development of TOR.

I have a similar story with a VPN - connected to a VPN called "Big Ass Networks" with an exit node in Jacksonville, FL. Advertised "unlimited bandwidth, privacy, no restrictions" etc - I looked up the address of the "data center" and its inside the Jacksonville FL Federal Reserve Building. No joke. I noped the fuck right out of that trial offer and moved to another VPN provider.

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[ftobin]

You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my host :-\

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[tlhIngan]

You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my host :-\

And that's just because no matter how noble the cause, idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and auto-blacklist t hem.

It's why CDNs like CloudFlare block Tor - the abuse from Tor exit nodes ensures that whatever trigger you use, it'll be triggered and you'll end up blocking it. It's not like it's done deliberately - you don't have to seek out new Tor exit nodes. They just make themselves known.

I'd even venture to say if you want to allow Tor traffic, you have to whitelist them specifically It's not that Tor is bad, it's just that it's got a bunch of bad actors that really do ruin it for those who need it.

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[ftobin]

And that's just because no matter how noble the cause, idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and auto-blacklist t hem.

I should mention that I don't and never did allow access on port 80 or 443, yet Shut up and Sit Down's RSS feed blocks me. There is no way my host was causing issues for their site, with the 20 KB/s of bandwidth I allowed. Additionally, I only allowed ports like IRC, DNS, and SMTP (+ ssl versions).

Same with Steam community forums -- my host was blocked there too (and might still be).

Don't forget that the GGP said he had a non-exit relay and was getting blocked.

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Check out the Library Freedom Project.

Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ?

[AHuxley]

Governments.

Re:Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for T

[Tough Love]

It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.

The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new Webextensions API.

Why would anybody mod that comment troll?

Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your last line. It isn't FUD. Some extensions stopped working. Just because all yours work doesn't mean they all do.

Re: Tor is for criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the Gov't said after the Gulf War broke out that there was a high demand for people that can speak Arabic languages and then turned around and put people on a watch-list for taking Arabic language classes. You just can't win.

Re:Brave

[AHuxley]

NSA, CIA, GCHQ did not worry about anonymous communication.
Police with lots of cash per investigation at a national level don't worry about anonymous communication anymore.

Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for

[theweatherelectric]

You can use the built-in Reader View for a lot of pages, but it's not available for all pages. It depends on the page structure.

Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they took away the API to do what the extension did and it can't work.

Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for

[Tough Love]

It is FUD. Firefox's extension ecology is as vibrant as ever, but far more secure. And if somebody disagrees, they should do so instead of taking the belly slither route.

I can't imagine anyone other than a Google employee modding that down. Sad to say, I can easily imagine a Google employee modding that down. How far they have fallen.