Firefox Multi-Account Containers 的评价
Firefox Multi-Account Containers 作者: 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.
7,459 条评价
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18881113,10 小时前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Michael,1 天前Excelente extensão.
Agora consigo abrir mais de uma conta do Whatsapp ou outros sites ao mesmo tempo.
Com essa extensão, não é necessário abrir um outro navegador ou aba anônima.
Parabéns ao Firefox. - 评分 1 / 5来自 Chris,2 天前This is technically useless. I have the joice between the plague or cholera.
Lemme explain why.
If i want every website seperated i have to setup everything manually.
i dont want an addon becomes part of my bucketlist. - 评分 5 / 5来自 FFuser23,2 天前Been using multi-account containers for a few years now. Don't know what I'd do without it now.
One feature I wish they would add is to be able to delete cookies, etc. by container leaving other containers alone. - 评分 4 / 5来自 Tohid,2 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 13834058,4 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 ramiel,4 天前
- 评分 3 / 5来自 stormgame3421,4 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Isreli Reichman,5 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 shzk,5 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 sayimburak,6 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 pnhan,6 天前Useful and needed in modern web browsing to separate your personal data out of big brothers.
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18844687,6 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18868398,7 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18867053,8 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18865301,9 天前
- 评分 4 / 5来自 Edwin,9 天前Works great in general. If you are using containers combined with proxies or VPN, be advised that Service Workers ignore container settings. Hence, you might be generating traffice outside of the proxy/VPN you think you are using.
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Shashank G,10 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Sadolight,11 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 12481988,12 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 J3ubbleboy,13 天前
- 评分 4 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 14668856,13 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18857129,14 天前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18855894,14 天前