Pale Moon forum

Heated discussion here in regard to basilsik which i thought i would bring to the attention of the forum.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... code_from/

Moonraker wrote:Heated discussion here in regard to basilsik which i thought i would bring to the attention of the forum.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... code_from/

A response from a redditor on /r/palemoon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/palemoon/comme ... k/dzmi0t7/

"Considering that e10s was never officially supported by Basilisk and sandboxing doesn't work without e10s, it's only a logical continuation of the chosen path of development."

But, I hope MC would confirm what that redditor says about the removal of sandboxing security feature.

Always fun to see the wanna-be-Chrome-clone fandom over at Reddit rant and spit poison.

Firefox has become a simple browser without reason to use it as there is no longer much customization and Pale Moon still has features. Clear case where my decision of usage is going

And also a perfect example why Mozilla is such a toxic developer today. The users, the developers/representatives - just a big joke

I will not involve myself with external discussions on reddit in the firefox board there.
If people have questions about Basilisk or its features, they are welcome to register on this forum and ask their questions.

It's been a mostly boring read of always the same strategy of complaints that Pale Moon doesn't have exactly those features new Firefox has. Even the ghacks discussions were more interesting.
Other claims like "Pale Moon is the new IE",etc. are poor trolling and not worth a waste *of* time.

To answer the most pertinent question in this topic:

The Mozilla "content process sandbox" is an approach that only applies to having multiple processes where communication with a content process must be sanitized. It is as much about the inter-process communication involved as it is about isolation. That does not inherently mean that anything not using that particular approach is somehow "less secure" because it isn't -- it only means that using a multi-process approach apparently requires extra security measures despite it supposedly being "safer by design" (it's a "package deal"). It can in fact be argued that needing such a sandbox with IPC highlights a fundamental flaw of e10s and IPC that asks for something like that to be implemented (because low-integrity process isolation is clearly not enough...?).

For our development, since we will not be using the multi-process approach at all, the entire content process sandbox code is dead code, and as such removed.