Stored passwords are encrypted. All stored passwords are supposed to be encrypted - that is a common sense.
But because this bug/feature gmail passwords are not effectively encrypted it is like they are stored in plain text.
Maybe it is not such a big deal but it is still a weakness.
Now that some water has passed under the bridge:
What are Vivaldi's plans regarding this - to put it mildly - desastrously looking developments for the users of all the Chrome/Chromium based browsers, one of which is Vivaldi (whose functionality I truly love and value)?
But as much as I love it, if things get bent too far they tend to break. Looking at the
and the ongoing heated debate by developers regarding ad-blocking https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!msg/chromium-extensions/veJy9uAwS00/9iKaX5giAQAJ
or rather the very likely soon to be expected lack thereof, respectively uber-limited capabilities, it would leave those users who want to stay in control of what is being thrown at their retinas little alternatives but to turn their backs to all Chrome/Chromium based browsers.
And that's just what is visible on the surface and doesn't even cover what this means for tracking and profiling.
That'd be it for 'remaining in control' and 'protecting privacy' or 'Take control with Vivaldi.'.
The removed 'disable hyperlink auditing' (click tracking) flag was apparently just the beginning.
Yes, I am aware of uBlock Origin - for now - being able to intercept those.
So yeah, what are Vivaldi's plans for these challenges and how does the company intend to keep users, in the light of such gloomy and grim prospects?
Thanks in advance.
@QuHno said in How does Vivaldi's privacy compare with ungoogled chromium browser:
Even if you enable some of the Google services like Phishing and Malware protection, Vivaldi sends only as much data as absolutely needed
To expand a bit on this: It sends parts of a hash of the URL to Google, and Google responds with a list of blocked URLs that have that same hash part. So Google doesn't even receive any useful information in that case. 🙂
@gwen-dragon I can confirm this bug on Linux too.
SO: Archlinux 64 bits
Vivaldi 1.15.1147.52 (Stable channel) (64 bits)
Operative System: Linux
Flash: 999.999.999.999 /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.183 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.96.1147.52
Command line: /usr/bin/vivaldi-stable --new-window --flag-switches-begin --flag-switches-end
Path to exec: /opt/vivaldi/vivaldi
All defaults config on vivaldi flags config.
@hadden89 I think this is a non-starter. If anyone wishes to stick with an old Final or Snapshot version that works better for them they can.
The decision when to release a new Stable version is made by the developers, i.e. whether the bugs fixed are more important than those not fixed and regressions caused by the Chromium update.
Releasing multiple versions just makes more work with no benefits. It will confuse users, and make more work for bug reporting.
@ayespy said in Just dumped Vivaldi:
The chronic problem that Vivaldi faces is that, first, for security's sake if nothing else, it simply must keep pace in new releases with its Chromium engine, insofar as possible. This means a new stable release every six weeks or so, whether Vivaldi wants to do it or not. It means, second, that it has to face the fact that every new version of Chromium (on top of which Vivaldi is built) breaks numerous things in Vivaldi, which worked fine on top of the prior version of Chromium. Then half or more of development time is spent leading up to the next Stable release, just fixing things the new Chromium version broke. If Vivaldi waits until the devs can make everything stable and clean on top of each new Chromium version before updating, it will fall farther and farther and farther behind Chromium, and have more and more and more security holes all the time. This must not happen.
Chromium's blog publicly announced the Chrome app deprecation timeframe back in August 2016 with a completion around early 2018... but my guess is that it was almost certainly being discussed amongst chromium developers before August. While the timeframe is not "sudden", it does appear rather short for the rework into whatever form it seems would now be required for a complex 'app' like Vivaldi. I really, really hope Vivaldi's devs can pull off this transition without a lot of grief or functionality loss.
@izacks It may claim to be rejecting 3rd party cookies but under the current schema it's not, unless you are accessing EVERYTHING currently on vivaldi.net and none on vivaldi.com (which I think may now be possible.) It is not, or should not be, possible to log in on two linked domains unless cookies from both are accepted. It is a security vulnerability to do so. It is just possible, I suppose, that firefox is treating them as un-connected domains, which it should not - as they cross-reference each other.