Firefox Multi-Account Containers 的评价
Firefox Multi-Account Containers 作者: Mozilla Firefox
Amazing Mr. X 的评价
评分 2 / 5
来自 Amazing Mr. X,3 年前This has a lot of potential, but it's not quite ready for prime time. There's a few specific problems here:
Firstly, add-ons can't communicate with the content of containers. This breaks functionality in most add-ons in really weird and unexpected ways. It'd be nice if we could whitelist add-ons to have access to relevant containers, but most users would probably want all of their add-ons to have full access to all of their containers by default and wouldn't expect them to be functionally blocked as they are.
Secondly, containers don't nicely handle redirects. A lot of sites, especially corporate ones, will redirect through several different domains and subdomains when performing the login process. Containers set to "Limit to Designated Sites" won't operate correctly with these redirects as the redirect pages are not true web pages and don't allow you to sit on them long enough to click the address bar button to always open them in the specified container. This cannot currently be remedied by having foreknowledge of the complete list of redirect sites, as the "Limit to Designated Sites" list cannot be manually edited or appended outside of the limited address bar button method.
Thirdly, The VPN integration isn't particularly secure in premise. Being a per-container opt-in means that entities snooping on the line will immediately see that there's something suspiciously different in the data packets coming from your protected containers compared to the rest of your typical https encrypted traffic. This makes isolating these packets, on the fly, infuriatingly trivial. Making this a per-container opt-out would all but eliminate this problem, as attackers would have to have foreknowledge of the originating container to do this effectively in all circumstances. It'd also be great to see connection protocol options ( OpenVPN, WireGuard, etc. ) as well as other VPN provider options as that'd make it that much harder to try and figure out what's going on in the encrypted container traffic and would better protect Mozilla VPN itself. Right now it's technically more secure to not use the VPN feature at all.
I think the basic idea here is really excellent, but these problems really do drag it down. Something made and maintained by Mozilla shouldn't have this many problems. I still think this is potentially useful to certain technical professionals trying to isolate their sensitive internal sites from other web apps, but the average user is going to have too many headaches to be able to use this effectively.
If you know what you're doing, keep the above points in-mind and go ahead and give it a try.
Anyone else? Hope Mozilla addresses some of these issues in a future release. I'll update my review if they do.
Firstly, add-ons can't communicate with the content of containers. This breaks functionality in most add-ons in really weird and unexpected ways. It'd be nice if we could whitelist add-ons to have access to relevant containers, but most users would probably want all of their add-ons to have full access to all of their containers by default and wouldn't expect them to be functionally blocked as they are.
Secondly, containers don't nicely handle redirects. A lot of sites, especially corporate ones, will redirect through several different domains and subdomains when performing the login process. Containers set to "Limit to Designated Sites" won't operate correctly with these redirects as the redirect pages are not true web pages and don't allow you to sit on them long enough to click the address bar button to always open them in the specified container. This cannot currently be remedied by having foreknowledge of the complete list of redirect sites, as the "Limit to Designated Sites" list cannot be manually edited or appended outside of the limited address bar button method.
Thirdly, The VPN integration isn't particularly secure in premise. Being a per-container opt-in means that entities snooping on the line will immediately see that there's something suspiciously different in the data packets coming from your protected containers compared to the rest of your typical https encrypted traffic. This makes isolating these packets, on the fly, infuriatingly trivial. Making this a per-container opt-out would all but eliminate this problem, as attackers would have to have foreknowledge of the originating container to do this effectively in all circumstances. It'd also be great to see connection protocol options ( OpenVPN, WireGuard, etc. ) as well as other VPN provider options as that'd make it that much harder to try and figure out what's going on in the encrypted container traffic and would better protect Mozilla VPN itself. Right now it's technically more secure to not use the VPN feature at all.
I think the basic idea here is really excellent, but these problems really do drag it down. Something made and maintained by Mozilla shouldn't have this many problems. I still think this is potentially useful to certain technical professionals trying to isolate their sensitive internal sites from other web apps, but the average user is going to have too many headaches to be able to use this effectively.
If you know what you're doing, keep the above points in-mind and go ahead and give it a try.
Anyone else? Hope Mozilla addresses some of these issues in a future release. I'll update my review if they do.
7,369 条评价
- 评分 2 / 5来自 aba,13 小时前A good idea but completely unfinished.
Sync to a new browser always merges the default configuration without asking. The Sync does not sync the 'limit to designated sites' option, so you have to manually apply that to all the categories (while you clean out the merged in default configuration).
Management of the categories is woefully sub-par; how is there no way to manually add domains or wildcard domains to a category? Try keeping a service like Google in a 'limited' category and watch the SSO explode every time you go to maps dot google dot com because the browser doesn't stay on the auth redirect long enough to add it to the container though the UI.
It also breaks the firefox profiler, as the profiler can't load profiles from outside the category.
None of this bothered me when this feature was new, but it's been years. I wish I could recommend this and use it in earnest. - 评分 5 / 5来自 Kemal,1 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 ScrumDevil,3 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Malo Lesbros-Duvauchelle,4 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 bajrSerg,4 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18447184,5 天前
- 评分 3 / 5来自 Philip,5 天前Offers to sync with android, but the extension is not available for android (doesn't appear in search results) therefore impossible to sync with multi account containers on Pixel 7a. Don't know how this will work with multi account containers on my laptop not syncing with my phone
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18766064,5 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 12245859,7 天前As it says it in the description, it lets you keep different profiles for different use-cases. And helps avoid the cross-site cookies from tracking your activities across multilple sites. e.g. allows you to keep your shopping and social media browsing separated.
While you could do this yourself by managing multiple profiles, this extension simplifies the process and makes it easier to do so. - 评分 1 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 15144451,10 天前Add-on is in Russian and it is NOT the language of my OS nor FF. I don't see the option to change the language. It doesn't spark confidence in this add-on in current geopolitical situation.
开发者回应
发布于 10 天前Sorry that's not working for you. The add-on should match the language of your Firefox browser. I checked the source files and everything should be in English. Can you check https://support.mozilla.org/kb/containers and file a support request? - 评分 5 / 5来自 WRX384150,11 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 16238919,11 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 wlad,12 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Danton Medrado,13 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 maliaris,13 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Mauricio Bejota,14 天前Una extensión muy útil que me permite usar diferentes cuentas bajo la misma ventana y navegador de manera muy cómoda. Es una de las ventajas de Firefox 🦊🙌
- 评分 2 / 5来自 gpsarathy,14 天前Its good, but half baked. Instead of using profiles, we should be able to isolate history within each container and have default container option. Thats the only basic expectation for this extension
- 评分 1 / 5来自 walkemdown,15 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Eggzilla,15 天前Such an amazing feature. I doubt I even know fully the benefits this provides, but it is a cool feature that has kept me from choosing other browsers that lack it.
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Javier E,17 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 FFReviewAccount,17 天前Does exactly what it's meant to do. Great addon for protection against cross site tracking.
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Illia,19 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Eugenio,20 天前Using this plugin is much better and easier than creating profiles in Firefox manually, because instead of having to open a new window for each profile, with this plugin you can view different profiles in a single window.
This greatly minimizes memory usage (up to 5 times less).
Browsing between profiles is much more intuitive and organized, as you can distinguish each profile by the color of the tab and identify the name of the profile that is displayed in the navigation bar.
This plugin is without a doubt the best profile manager currently available in all browsers I have used.