Re:First-party isolation in Firefox: what breaks if you enab...
by tomrittervg on Monday September 10, 2018 @10:01AM
(#17951833)
Thanks for diagnosing that for me, you're right blocking third party cookies does cause it to fail.
Both tests are equally valid. I just gave one because trying to be exhaustive about testing it would be mind-numbing. The test I provded only does localstorage, but FPI also isolates DNS cache, H2, image cache, favicons, cookies, localstorage, indexdb, etc etc
You can do yours by visiting https://anonymity.is/misc/ff/fpi-iframe.html first; then visit the ritter.vg and rittervg.com links.
Re:First-party isolation in Firefox: what breaks if you enab...
by user812 on Monday September 10, 2018 @10:35AM
(#17952091)
Thanks for the clarification.
What surprises me the most is that not only Firefox but also my Safari Browser passes all those tests when ITP is enabled.
Re:First-party isolation in Firefox: what breaks if you enab...
by tomrittervg on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @03:30PM
(#17962552)
Safari by default has a stricter storage access policy by default for all third-party domains, which requires you to visit the domain as a first party first. So it's probably that rather than ITP.
Re:First-party isolation in Firefox: what breaks if you enab...
by user812 on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @04:36PM
(#17973018)
I have a general question if you don't mind. I use Firefox Beta. Why is Firefox going the route of a manual blacklist (disconnect) instead of working on some kind of programmatic machine-learning/somewhat intelligent third-party storage blocking by default that doesn't discriminate known against unnkwon trackers?
So wouldn't a better test be about a third party that was used in a first party context before? Since FPI goes beyond third party cookies.