
Firefox for iOS now available - jlongster
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/11/firefox-users-can-now-choose-their-favorite-browser-on-ios/
======
biot
I'm going to have to try this to see if Firefox's privacy is better. I
currently use Chrome on iOS and was very disappointed to discover that it
remembers Google searches that you do within incognito mode, completely
breaking all expectations on what incognito is for.

Apparently this is a two year old bug:
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4797968/chrome-for-ios-
inc...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4797968/chrome-for-ios-incognito-
mode-not-private-bug)

Long story short, Google saves all searches in HTML5 local storage and this is
shared between regular and incognito windows. Perhaps DuckDuckGo is a
configurable Firefox option. (EDIT: yes, it is. Goodbye, Chrome.)

~~~
holygoat
We use a totally separate WKWebView process pool and WKWebViewConfiguration
for Private Browsing.

From the perspective of the underlying web engine, we're two separate
browsers.

~~~
anon1mous
But on IOS you're not a real browser, are you?

In my humble understanding Firefox is just a Safari skin, crippled by the lack
of JIT.

~~~
st3fan
We are a real and unique browser. Not a Safari skin.

There is no such thing as a Safari skin. Instead we use a low level component
called the WKWebView, which is a bare-bones minimal API to 'show web pages'.
On top of that we have built a browser.

This is exactly what Apple has done with Safari.

The only common component between Firefox and Safari is the WKWebView.
Everything on top of that, like the UI, bookmark management, history, sync is
unique and implement in different ways by each browser.

Regarding JIT .. the WKWebView exposes the same fast JIT as Safari uses. Run a
benchmark. We are as fast as Safari or any other app that uses the WKWebView
underneath.

~~~
ploxiln
Yes as of a few releases ago (but not originally) iOS allows JIT for
WKWebView.

But no, the result of a bit of chrome (historical name for browser controls)
around a WKWebView is indeed just a Safari skin. The renderer is not some
minor detail like how tcp connections are made, it's practically the whole
thing! It handles the http/https/websocket connections, the html, css, js,
html5 video and audio, canvas, webgl, webrtc (or lack thereof), pointer
events, everything that matters.

\- user of firefox on linux and on android, who never "signs in" to his
browser chrome, or saves passwords in the browser, or other ill-advised but
marketer-loved things

\- also developer working on a webrtc application, who has had to explain to
users "Chrome on iOS isn't actually Chrome, sorry"

~~~
calsy
WKWebView != Safari. Safari is built on top of WKWebView. Likewise, Firefox is
build on top of WKWebView. Firefox is not built on top of Safari, so your
Safari skin statement is incorrect. Its called mobile app development, you
work with the APIs provided to you by the OS. Attempting to write your own low
level networking and rendering libraries that bypass those provided by OS will
simply mean your app is not released on the app store. Should Mozilla not
release a browser on mobile cause as its not 'true' to your definition?

~~~
ploxiln
Indeed, just own up to the fact that Apple does not allow any other browsers
on iOS. (nor f.lux nor game emulators etc. Apple sucks.)

Mozilla Corp. has become increasingly frantic these days, trying to maintain
market share by making all the compromises it can on its ideals. Is it
working? Doesn't look like it to me. I'm the only one I know personally who
still uses Firefox instead of Chrome (on Windows/OSX) or Safari (on iOS).
Notably, I know a number of web developers (though I'm a systems software
engineer).

~~~
calsy
There are very good reasons for Apple to sandbox apps in this way. It provides
a controlled, consistent experience for users.

~~~
aianus
A controlled, consistently awful experience IMO.

~~~
acdha
When hundreds of millions of people keep buying things you believe are awful,
perhaps it's time to ask how broadly shared your views are.

For every nerd who complains about not being able to root their iPhone, there
are probably a hundred people who think “I/my kids/my parents won't get
mal/ransom-ware”. Repeat for almost every other security or reliability issue.

I'm not entirely in love with the effects but I'm not going to say those
people are wrong because they value stability and lack the extremely high
level of skill needed to operate a general purpose computer safely.

~~~
aianus
> When hundreds of millions of people keep buying things you believe are
> awful, perhaps it's time to ask how broadly shared your views are.

It's irrelevant how many people believe in something if they're wrong. A
billion people believe the Earth is 60,000 years old and was created in a week
by an all-powerful bearded deity. That doesn't make it true and doesn't mean
we should throw our hands up and reinforce those beliefs instead of improving
education and displacing them.

~~~
acdha
> It's irrelevant how many people believe in something if they're wrong.

“Wrong” asserts a level of objectivity which has not been established.

My argument is simple: the computer industry has failed to produce general-
purpose devices which non-specialists can safely operate. That's security
threats like phishing, but also just the ever present fear almost all computer
users have of installing something which will break or degrade their computer.

When a high percentage of people choose to buy devices which are more
restricted – and thus safer to use – the correct response is not to crank up
the smugness and say that they need better education but rather to ask what we
should change to make a general purpose computer safer without going all of
the way to the app store model. As the most obvious example, strong mandatory
sandboxing could be a big improvement while still allowing a knowledgeable
user to adjust the sandbox policies or develop their own.

> A billion people believe the Earth is 60,000 years old and was created in a
> week by an all-powerful bearded deity

I find this comparison apt, but presumably not in the direction which you
intended:

We have a preponderance of evidence that people cannot operate computers
safely, ranging from the billions of dollars spent on support and data
recovery services to e.g. ransomware being an industry with at least 8 figures
of annual revenue.

Smugly asserting that people buying safer alternatives is due to poor
education seems rather close to the creationists who assert that every hole in
their theory is caused by insufficient faith. If that was ever going to work,
it would have done so already.

------
crabasa
This is a sad but expected capitulation on Mozilla's part. They weren't
succeeding in their efforts to ship Firefox devices and they were blocked from
shipping Firefox proper on iOS devices. If they didn't ship something, an
entire generation of web users wouldn't even know what Firefox was.

Webkit browsers currently account for a 91.6% share [1] of mobile
(phone/tablet) browsing. Ironic as it sounds, the only hope right now for
mobile web standards is Microsoft. They're the only vendor that stands in the
way of the idea that Webkit should simply become the de-facto standard for the
web, in place of specs worked out in collaboration with other browser vendors
through the W3C.

[1]: [https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-
share.aspx?qpr...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-
share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=1)

 _Correction: Firefox on Android ships with Gecko, my mistake._

~~~
SpaceCadetJones
What about Servo?

~~~
scott_karana
My understanding is that Apple blocks the usage of other rendering engines, so
both Chrome and Firefox for iOS are essentially skins over top of Safari.

Servo and Gecko are both blocked.

~~~
jd3
really makes my blood boil. straight up anti-competitive.

~~~
acdha
Kind of – they ban everything which does runtime code generation for security
reasons. That has some nasty side-effects but it's at least consistent and
more defensible than “no competing browsers”.

I would love it if the FTC, etc. made them open up with, say, the ability to
set the security requirements they use and accept anything from companies
which make similar commitments.

~~~
bzbarsky
It's not just runtime code generation. If it were just that, you could have a
browser without a JIT.

But they also forbid execution of code that doesn't ship with the app itself.
So you can't have a JIT-less browser that runs any JS at all.

But for Servo none of that would matter anyway, because it's written in Rust.
And Apple's policies only allow binaries whose source code is C, C++,
Objective-C or Swift, last I checked. So Servo, and any other program written
in Rust, is not allowed in the app store period, no matter whether it's a web
browser or not and what it does with JS.

~~~
pjmlp
You can use whatever language you want provided you can AOT to native code.

That ban only lasted a few months, then their allowed everyone again.

~~~
bzbarsky
Ah, thanks! I hadn't realized they had rescinded that particular daft
restriction.

------
AdmiralAsshat
The lack of extensions (switch from Gecko -> Webkit means none of the pre-
existing extensions will work, but looking at the product page I'm not seeing
extensions _at all_ as an option) sorta kills the prime draw of Firefox for
me. I mean, the only reason I use it on Android over Chrome is so that I can
have uBlock Origin on it.

~~~
soapdog
Apple doesn't allow an app to "download code that alters the application inner
workings" so extensions are a not possible.

This can be seen on the following shot:
[http://i.imgur.com/faxbdBK.png](http://i.imgur.com/faxbdBK.png) from the iOS
Review Guidelines located at: [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

This is Apple with its silly policies preventing competition again. I have no
idea how a lawsuit against these practices has not happened. In the meanwhile
you can vote with your wallet and use some other operating system and/or
donate to efforts that fight against such practices such as EFF, Mozilla and
others.

We can have a better mobile internet than what Apple offers...

~~~
dijit
you both have good points, but I disagree with the tone of yours.

Apple has a policy that prevents things 'becoming' malware later in life.

There is a fairly rigorous review board (at least for initial application
submissions) which check the quality of code but also it's intent. It would
undermine that whole process if Apple just allowed you to alter the function
of an application after it had been installed by the end user.

Personally, I have used iOS and Android, and I find the play store to be
riddled with the CNET/Softpedia style applications that look dubious even if
they're not. And as much as I hate online ads I'm definitely not willing to
allow laxer rules on my phone than it currently has.

I'm not saying that android can't be secure, I'm just pointing out that
because "Android does it" in regards to security, is not a valid reason to go
ahead.

My phone runs my life, I don't care if it's a walled garden, just that it's a
secure walled garden.

~~~
nobleach
While the OP's tone may have been a bit brash, it is true that this policy
smacks of anti-competitive practice. Recall the (often quoted) Ma Bell
rhetoric: "You may have any color you like... as long as it's black". The same
applies to browsers on iOS: "You may use any browser you want... as long as
it's WebkitWebView". When Microsoft did this same exact thing; building IE
into the OS, people freaked! And I believe they used the same "It's to protect
you" line. You may not care, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have a "run
untrusted browser" option.

~~~
7Z7
People freaked at Microsoft because at the time they were essentially a
monopoly. Apple has nothing like a monopoly. Do we need to go through this
every time someone tries to make this broken comparison?

~~~
Zachery
And Apple doesn't have a monopoly on iOS?

~~~
admiralpumpkin
With this (uncommon) usage of the word "monopoly", all companies of course
have monopolies on their own products. Honda: monopoly on Accord, etc.

This isn't what monopoly means in normal legal usage.

edit: typo

------
keehun
Is this using the Safari view? It doesn't mention anything about using another
renderer than the one Apple allows.

~~~
Igglyboo
Are other browsers not allowed to implement their own rendering engines or is
their some other reason that Chrome and Firefox both use the web view?

~~~
pjmlp
Only the iOS webview is allowed to render web content.

Additionally only Apple's JavaScript engine is allowed to use a JIT compiler.

The only benefit is whatever extra features they might offer, like bookmark
synchronization.

~~~
twa927
> Only the iOS webview is allowed to render web content.

This is quite shocking. I wonder how a platform with such policies could be
universally accepted and praised by the tech community. Microsoft didn't
achieve this level of closedness but become universally hated.

~~~
coldpie
There is actually a fair amount of people who do not accept such a policy and
use Android instead. Apple's super locked-down ecosystem is why I use Android,
despite iOS being (imo) a better OS. You tend not to hear from us because...
we don't use iOS.

~~~
7Z7
>You tend not to hear from us because... we don't use iOS.

Seriously? we hear from the non-iOS tech crowd all the time about how locked
down iOS is.

------
aaronbrethorst
And here's the source code: [https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-
ios/](https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-ios/), which is licensed under MPL
v2.0

~~~
rwl4
And here's the relevant snippet from Client/Frontend/Browser/Browser.swift:

    
    
        func createWebview() {
            if webView == nil {
                assert(configuration != nil, "Create webview can only be called once")
                configuration!.userContentController = WKUserContentController()
                configuration!.preferences = WKPreferences()
                configuration!.preferences.javaScriptCanOpenWindowsAutomatically = false
                let webView = WKWebView(frame: CGRectZero, configuration: configuration!)
    

...

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I forget where I read it, but someone from Mozilla stated somewhat recently(?)
that, ultimately, Firefox is about a set of services shared across platforms,
an experience, and a pledge to user privacy. It's not about a specific
rendering engine.

~~~
rockdoe
So much for open web standards? (Which definitely requires multiple
implementations, that is to say competing rendering engines)

~~~
reubenmorais
That message is more for the Mozilla community than for the outside world. If
Firefox for iOS implements WebRTC on top of Webkit, for example, that's a
clear win for users. So Mozilla (the company) decided it's worth their money
to make a Webkit browser and try to improve the situation on iOS little by
little. But Mozilla (the community) is full of people with very strong ideas
of the direction they want the organization to take, so the immediate reaction
is for them to reject the idea – even core contributors. "Firefox without
Gecko is not Firefox!". Instead of arguing whether branding a Webkit shell as
Firefox is too big of a compromise, Mozilla (the leaders) redefines what the
brand is about.

This might seem silly, but it has a big impact on the community, by making it
clear what the goals of the project are, and hopefully eliminating all the
bikeshedding on what is and isn't Firefox.

EDIT: I guess I never answered your question: open Web standards are still a
priority for Mozilla, it's just that we've decided the little benefit for the
user we can create by writing Firefox for iOS is also a priority.

~~~
arm
“ _If Firefox for iOS implements WebRTC on top of Webkit, for example, that 's
a clear win for users._”

In its current state, at least, I wouldn’t call it a ‘clear’ win for users:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9893561)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9960504](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9960504)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9112717)

------
ihuman
I wonder if this app will last longer Mozilla's last iOS effort.

[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/07/15/get-firefox-home-
on...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/07/15/get-firefox-home-on-your-
iphone/)

[https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-
firefo...](https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefox-
home/)

~~~
jlongster
Home was always weird. It wasn't actually a browser but sitll tried to sync
your bookmarks, opening up Safari to view them. It was an experimental
project, and it was no surprise that it ended.

Firefox for iOS is not just an experimental project. It's part of our core
products now.

------
keehun
Here's the browser agent (iPhone 6, iOS 9.1):

Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 9_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/601.1.46
(KHTML, like Gecko) FxiOS/1.1 Mobile/13B143 Safari/601.1.46

Default search is Yahoo

~~~
chrstphrhrt
I get KHTML (WebKit ancestor from KDE browser), but what does "like Gecko"
mean? Do they add some compatibility layer to render like Gecko does?

~~~
bsimpson
It's part of the WebKit UA. It harkens from the days when IE and Netscape were
the only browsers developers thought about when UA sniffing. It made sure
WebKit got the Netscape version (which was closer to the standards), not the
IE version.

It's the same reason all browser UAs start with "Mozilla" even though only one
is actually made by Mozilla.

------
vive-la-liberte
Mozilla disallows others from using the Firefox trademark for custom compiled
versions, which is understandable and agreeable. What I don't get is how
they're then willing to put their name on something where they are forced to
use webkit. Fear of losing market share? Hope that Apple will allow them to
use Gecko or Servo in the future?

~~~
holygoat
There's a lot more to being a browser -- and being Firefox -- than the web
rendering engine. We're able to deliver the kinds of Sync features, private
browsing, and so on that we think are important.

(I work on Firefox for Android and iOS, and even _I_ don't really care which
rendering engine it uses. I care that I can trust it, that the UX is
excellent, and that I have my data.)

~~~
vive-la-liberte
That is a good point. To me, however, an important part of the appeal of
Firefox has always been a belief that having multiple competing rendering
engines is fundamentaly good for the open web -- that it keeps the HTML and
CSS standards from growing in too much of an implementation specific
direction. I had thought, perhaps without grounds, that this view was shared
by Mozilla.

~~~
bzbarsky
This view is shared by many people at Mozilla (but not all, I expect; it's
hard to find anything 1000+ people will agree on) and I believe shared by
Mozilla overall. I mean, we're not just continuing to develop the rendering
engine we already have (Gecko), we're creating another one as well (Servo)...

------
shmerl
And I assume it's not using Gecko because of Apple's anti-competitive ban on
non Apple browser engines? Apple aren't supposed to get away with such
nonsense.

------
sosuke
I couldn't find it in the App Store on my first few tries.

"Firefox", "Mozilla Firefox", "Firefox for ios", and finally it came up 2nd
for "Firefox web browser"

~~~
st3fan
Give it some time. After a few more download we will bubble up the search
results.

------
peter303
Great. iOS9 Safari is pretty crappy. It crashes on htmil5 inserts. It
rerenders whole offscreen page when reloaded. It laks a search text function.

~~~
JoshGlazebrook
There actually is a search text feature, it's just not that easy to find. Type
the text into the url bar, and then scroll down all the way to the bottom
after the auto complete suggestions and it will let you view matches on the
page. (really shitty location for it)

------
oblio
As far as I can see it doesn't have "find in page". Killer feature for me :(

~~~
AaronMT
Turns out there's no good public API from Webkit that can let us do that
easily.

We're working on an alternative here
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164067](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164067)

~~~
biot
Also, please don't hide the page contents when I edit the URL. I'm sometimes
modifying the URL based on what I see on the page.

------
diegoloop
I'm missing a good reason to drop safari and start using Firefox.

\- private browsing \- tabs management \- search suggestions

Apparently all what this version can offers is already available in Safari.

I wish they could sell me Firefox better

~~~
greyman
I use Safari on iPad, but on iPhone it is unusable for many websites, since it
doesn't support text reflow (my opinion). So on iPhone I use Mercury, but
sometimes it is a bit slow. So on iPhone there is still a room for a better
browser, imho.

~~~
randcraw
Agree, a better iOS browser is indeed needed. I tried Mercury, which does what
I want (esp. ad blocking), but does it too slowly.

After 2+ years, I'm still using Atomic Browser on iPhone + iPad, even though
it hasn't been updated in years and now triggers some websites' warning, "You
appear to be using an old unsupported version of Firefox".

~~~
arm
You should absolutely try iCab Mobile. See my post here¹.

iCab has been around for a really long time on desktops. Seriously, it existed
before even Mac OS X², so it’s no surprise that the dev would carry all that
experience over to the iOS version.

――――――

¹ —
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10554192](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10554192)

² — [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICab)

------
tdkl
Did they manage to implement folders for bookmarks in iOS version ? The
Android is lacking it, which makes the bookmarks useless if you have some kind
of folder management in place.

~~~
kuschku
Eh, what? The Android version perfectly supports bookmarks in folders. Yes, by
default your bookmarks end up in ~/Mobile Bookmarks/, but you can change that,
too

~~~
tdkl
Here I tried saving a bookmark on FF 43 Beta :
[https://imgur.com/FqcpNIE](https://imgur.com/FqcpNIE)

Where can I select the desired folder or create one ? If I import the Chrome
exported bookmarks, all 900 of them are in one list.

------
ris
This is a sad sad day that just collaborates in providing the illusion to iOS
users that they have choice.

No, I've never met an iOS user that knew that Chrome isn't "Chrome".

~~~
dymk
And I've never met an iOS (or Android for that matter) user that could name if
their game was built on top of Unity or Unreal, but what difference does that
make to the end user?

The difference between these browsers is not the renderer (which should,
ideally, be rendering the same content the same way anyways), but the features
on top of the webview. The UI, Password, bookmarks, autofill, and history
sync.

~~~
ris
Cool, choice is about the shell, not the renderer, right.

So, when are we going to see some progress on web features on iOS then?
WebRTC- oh, not allowed. WebP? Nope, not allowed...

------
graeme
So, nothing like leechblock on this then, correct?

I try to use my phone as little as possible because I can't block distractor
sites. Currently I default to Safari off using parental restrictions, then I
turn it on when I _need_ to search for something, and then turn it off.

But those restrictions won't work for firefox, so it would be in full
distraction mode, unless I'm missing a workaround.

(This isn't as restrictive as it sounds. It just makes the web use more
conscious and intended)

------
mback00
When will we get plugins (Adblock)?

------
JustSomeNobody
What's the point if it still has to use the same parts as other browsers on
iOS?

~~~
rockdoe
Bookmark and history sync I presume, as well as any other features they come
up with. I'd guess Tracking Protection will come at some point?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Heh, wow. I should turn my brain on. Yeah, those would be good reasons.

------
tosseraccount
Is Tor browser available on iPhone yet? Can you use Ghostery on Firefox on
iOS?

~~~
lukewrites
I have found a couple of tor browsers on the App Store: [Red
Onion]([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/red-onion-tor-powered-
web/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/red-onion-tor-powered-
web/id829739720?mt=8)) and [Onion
Browser]([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/onion-
browser/id519296448?mt...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/onion-
browser/id519296448?mt=8)). I haven't used either, but would love to hear some
informed opinions about them.

------
tannerj
Is there a reason neither Chrome, Safari, and now Firefox for iOS have a
qrcode reader built in? It seems like to me that would be a no brainer. Is
there something technical I'm missing?

~~~
dspillett
What would be the point? There are a great many QR apps out there that can
call your configured preferred browser when appropriate (assuming Apple allows
you to set a preferred browser that isn't their's - I don't have nay iDevices
so can't test this personally). QR codes can contain data other than URLs for
browsers to follow (though you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise given
that in the vast majority of cases this is what they are used to transmit) so
it makes more sense to have a QR app that deals with QR codes generally and
defers to a browser when a relevant URI is detected.

~~~
rplnt
It should be a camera feature if anything. Just show a small pop-up when
camera detects some kind of code in the picture. I don't see why I would need
a separate app for that.

------
kitsunesoba
Another thing to consider in regards to Apple allowing third-party web
rendering engines on iOS, aside from somebody needing to take responsibility
for the litany of vulnerabilities such a thing would introduce is the sheer
size of these things. They’re huge. The Mac version of Firefox is 185MB while
Chrome is a whopping 250MB.

Apps start getting annoying to download+install at about the 50MB mark… and
are people really going to want ~200MB of their device taken up by something
as elementary as a web browser? Don’t forget that a large majority of iOS
devices in use today are 16GB models.

~~~
holygoat
Firefox for Android, which ships Gecko, is about 35MB.

~~~
holygoat
And that includes something like 50 locales, which is a big chunk of the size
(7MB?).

------
rhgb
"Firefox for iOS is now available in the App Store worldwide." I wonder why
this "worldwide" doesn't include China

------
dheera
I wonder if the Apple Store will permit embedding Firefox (and/or other
JavaScript-capable engines) instead of UIWebView now?

~~~
dorward
Firefox/iOS embeds UIWebView (or uses some other mechanism to get Mobile
Webkit). Apple still won't let Mozilla use their own engine.

~~~
arm
Yeah, it’s using WKWebView:

[https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-
ios/search?utf8=&q=WKWebV...](https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-
ios/search?utf8=&q=WKWebView&type=Code)

------
chris_wot
Great! I'll use this for commenting on the Guardian website as when I use
italic markup on that site Chrome crashes on me.

------
free2rhyme214
Has anyone noticed how fast Firefox is compared to Safari?

------
thescorer
I'd like to see Firefox for AppleTV

~~~
AaronMT
As soon as Webkit/WebViews are available on AppleTV

------
dkra
Guys, is there any debugging tool allow us to inpsect webpage on iphone
firefox?

------
ejcx
Downloaded it. Hopefully being a new browser it might be minimal on power
gobbling?

Interesting to note. I downloaded it and checked it for SRI, sub-resource
integrity, and it isn't supported. I used my tester
[https://ejj.io/sri](https://ejj.io/sri) .

It's interesting because no mobile browsers support it yet.. Mobile browsers
drag far behind their desktop friends when it comes to security features.

~~~
rockdoe
Does it work in Firefox for Android? It has the same engine as Desktop
Firefox.

Firefox on iOS can't due to Apple limitations.

~~~
soylentcola
Just tested on latest Android and Windows versions. At least according to that
test page, it is not supported.

~~~
rockdoe
Are you sure? This is with Nightly:

Your browser SUPPORTS Sub-Resource Integrity

~~~
soylentcola
Must be in nightly then. I'm just on the current stable/mainstream channel.
Thanks for the clarification.

------
Grue3
This useless crap gets developed, and Tab Groups get removed. You have to
wonder about Mozilla's priorities sometimes.

------
ommunist
OMG. One more browser to test your RWDs for. Why, why on Earth Apple allowed
that creepy intrusion.

------
zeveb
Of note, Firefox accounts are _not_ secure, because one way to log in using
them relies on JavaScript served by Mozilla, which means that one's password
(which is used to encrypt the keys encrypting all 'secure' data) is
potentially exposed to Mozilla.

I can't recommend using a Firefox account to store any private information, to
include passwords and browsing history.

~~~
Someone1234
By that logic all cloud synced password managers are insecure. They could,
after all, just update the software and steal your password(s).

JavaScript or not, you either trust the browser vendor, or you do not. If you
do not then you shouldn't be using them regardless of the technologic stack.

~~~
rockdoe
This reasoning just doesn't apply at all to open source software like Firefox.

I think the reason OP points this out is because the old Sync system that
Firefox had was much more secure (but unusable by the general public). We know
this because we could see how it worked!

~~~
Someone1234
> This reasoning just doesn't apply at all to open source software like
> Firefox.

If you're using the automatic updating functionality (which the majority of
people are) then it absolutely applies. Firefox's source code is available,
but if you aren't verifying the source upon each update then that fact is
largely irrelevant.

The whole point of OSS is to allow YOU to verify the software, and only then
to build it when you're comfortable. If you are skipping the verify step and
definitely if you're skipping the build step then the fact that it is OSS adds
little to nothing security wise (since the vendor can splice in anything they
want).

So even with OSS you often either trust the vendor or you do not.

> I think the reason OP points this out is because the old Sync system that
> Firefox had was much more secure (but unusable by the general public). We
> know this because we could see how it worked!

I suspect we're having this discussion simply because people don't equate the
automatic updater with JavaScript in their own mind. The reality is that if
you trust Mozilla to provide software updates then you can trust them to
provide Javascript, after all the software brought down by the updater has far
greater system access and can do far greater damage than JS.

~~~
zeveb
> If you're using the automatic updating functionality (which the majority of
> people are) then it absolutely applies.

Which is why I don't get my updates via an automatic Mozilla updater, but
rather via my distribution.

> The reality is that if you trust Mozilla to provide software updates then
> you can trust them to provide Javascript

As I indicate above, I don't trust them that much. You're right that the
update problem and the JavaScript problem are identical.

Allowing pushed updates makes individual targeting far too easy for an
adversary.

