Tor Browser 4.0 is released

Remarks on :

- Torbrowser 4 functionality
.

Final extended feedback-remarks on :

- Dropping Mac support !!
- Bringing back separate tor network connection bundle

.

1) Torbrowser 4.0 browser feedback

- Media tab is still missing in page information while this tab is available in firefox ESR versions and torbrower 3.6.5 and before.

- Security tab, Technical details is still empty.

- Port management function tab is just deleted, missing

- Alternative connections, config bridge questions
a) Some bridges need Python application to connect internet.
Why is python needed, what are the extra security risks when python versions are not the latest.

b) Alternative to not using python connections is using meek-Google, meek-amazon, what about these companies using behavior analytics, device profiling in return?
What about user privacy?

c) Custom bridges, gives opportunity to manage ports but is absolutely non friendly in distributing system when people are looking for certain ports.

see remarks down

.

Quoted :

"Note to MacOS users: We intend to deprecate 32bit OSX bundles very soon. If you are still using 32bit OSX 10.6, you soon will need to either update your OS to a later version, or begin using the Tails (https://tails.boum.org/) live operating system."

.

2) Mac dropping - regarding this remarkable decision

- It seems a developer only decision that is taken by bypassing users in a sort of developer background discussion for which people had to register to take part!
Registering to take part in a discussion about a anonymous browser?
That wass not a really user friendly option, it's more a way to threshold user feedback.
.

A reason to give a final feedback on this now and here.
.

- It seems a decision that seems not to be taken on a fact basis.
About specific user usage facts per country for example to actually serve the Torbrowser user group.
Just mentioning a world wide average number does not make sense in any way at all. You cannot compare the countries you are serving in many ways an therefore not use one general statistical number.
.

- It just could be that the target group of the Torbrowser users are not all capable to buy new and fast computers.
Forcing users to buy new, newer or computers with an other os does not have anything to do with working on a realistic solution and will lead as usual to a common user solution for which some developers will not understand nor see nor recognize, working with unsupported versions of software because the user cannot upgrade anymore and does not feel the urge to throw away working hardware.
.

- Did the developers actually seriously try out their own suggested OS X solutions working with tails?
I don't believe so, take a bunch of 2006/2007 Macs and try in yourself.
Then, just invite a average computer user and ask them to do it.
Will they succeed? In how many day's?

Impression, Tails is not actually such a lightweight distro and seems not to be mend for 2006 computers to run.

Suggesting that making a bootable OS X tails usb is not so easy, or, but preferred tot do is far from every reasonable OS X user reality.
Besides, it will probably not work anyhow what makes this more like a 9th circle area exercise. Not the kind of energy people are looking for.
A exercise that OS X users are not used to, will not seriously consider, maybe also not in the least because it's far too difficult, beside pgp check troubles, and leads them to a complete change of operating system to just make one browser work?
What do you think?

The result will be in advance or again that people stay using old unsupported Torbrowser versions because they have no choice.

A supported 32 version would maybe not 99.99% secure but more secure and far more wanted than a unsupported Torbrowser.
Give people the opportunity to decide and don't push them to more insecure behavior.

.

3) 100% security dream - back to reality - real OS X threads

Dropping support arguments against real threads, what is actually the problem ?

The perception that some things in the Torbrowser are not safe?
It is a good thing to recognize, to look for and work on solving that.
So, although it seems a good idea to work on extra security it seems that the argument department is not really clear nor convincing, seems at least not in a realistic balance.

To put in in another way, there seems to be some misbalance between high advanced possibly possible risks and threads that are used as arguments to drop down support while the easier solutions or threads are still unsolved.
Why not begin with and first finish all the issues that all could be solved within the existing Torbrowser, they still had not in 3.6.6. as reported by user feedback over here and in the Torbrowser security analysis report.

.

Some examples
.

- Why taking the possible ASLR exploits as an Mac dropping support argument while not having solved the most easy basic and essential solutions in the Torbrowser and addons itself as mentioned in the report.
Javascript technique is commonly used in infection routines, could affect lots of people, and should have had more priority than this sudden sophisticated possible exploit argument which is fare more rare.
Remarkable Security risk balance.
.

- Some time ago the Torbrowser team had having a big report written about security threads for OS X and the Torbrowser.

But not having investigated the basic issue of one very uncommon Torbrowser solution in OS X that maybe could lead to bad permission privilege escalation.
Privilege escalation possibly served by placing the Torbrowser in the general applications folder, which is normal, but not really normal with a direct write permission to that environment because it is continually storing it's temporary files inside the bundle instead in a local user library like all other apps usually used to do.

It's clear why everything is in one bundle, it's not clear if placing the Torbrowserbundle in the application directory is actually really safe.
This is a big security related decision that has effects for all OS X versions and is not investigated while the security of the browser and Os X was analyzed by a security research company?

Bit remarkable to only focus on the 64 bit discussion and take Chrome as a example for 64 bit security while they even only had a beta version at that time. Firefox ESR is 64 bit and is even working on 32 bit Mac's without a problem.
Possible Privilege escalation Security risk related for all OS X versions.
.

- More security thread misbalance?
In what way is the Torbrowser protected when running from an usb stick?
It seems that any malware can change the browser files because the usb stick is running in the same local user permission area.
USB infection Security risk related for all OS X versions.
.

- In which way the Torbrowser is getting safer by enlarging the attack surface in the usage of extra processes that need internet connection?

This new Torbrowser 4.0 version even needs a python application to make access to the internet?
That makes two, or three applications connecting to the internet for the usage of one browser.
Users have to monitor the security status of their Python application as an extra, manually updating python in OS X is not a easy thing to do for average users and Apple security updates for python are not that common or taking place that often.

Besides, the big malware outbreak in 2012 with the flashback malware used Java and python functionality. The difference is that in Mac OS X there is no option to monitor the Python application or even a preferences pane like Java has.
Python and internet usage, security risk?
Anyhow related to all OS X versions, but especially for the not the newest versions.
.

- Degrading security by deleting port config options.

Why is the managing ports security option totally removed?
That was actually not a bug but a security feature.

Some people want to manage their computer ports instead of leaving them all open. So, removing a security option because some users did not understand the way it worked?
What is the balance here in the whole security discussion perspective?

To manage ports, there is a one very non practical option left.
This option is to enter custom bridges and look for addresses connected to certain ports? Thats is a lot of manual work! Especially if one wants to change the addresses once in a while.

Remarkable is that people can ask a list of bridges by email and the suggestion to use a gmail account.
Gmail? Google? Privacy?
.

- More about privacy.
What does the usage of amazon and Google Meek with the privacy of Torbrowser users?
Another new profiling addition to Google analytics, exitnode analytics, system profiling analytics?

Torbrowser seems to have a very dualistic moral and practical relationship with Google on privacy matters and actual cooperation, Google search is still asking for captcha's in return for usage for example.

.

4) Security arguments and Security threads for Mac OS X

Slightly rhetorical question, could the security researchers and developers please tell the Torbrowser Mac users what the actual realistic malware threads are for OS X an the way targeted attacks take place?
Could they please give some figures and examples in which way the threads will be much higher for the older 32 bit Mac systems compared to 64 bit and newest Mac OS X'es?

Please show these big differences with figures about infected Mac's divided in older and newer OS X'es.
One should convince the users by comparing facts and arguments, right?

You will probably not find these figures or have these available because there is probably not such a big difference in infection rates by OS X version.
And when you even would find figures about older infected compromised Mac's even then the compromising reason is usually not the older OS X version itself.

For what I see, read and know, which is maybe not enough, is that far most malware and even targeted attacks are using methods which don't actually need the safer 64 bit browser functionality that hard.
Not a reason to not work on it.

By the way the original Firefox ESR is already a 64 bit browser is there for years and also runs on 32 bit systems by the way, so why cant the Torbrowser be?

.

General, most seen, more common, simple attack surface for Mac
.

a) Social engineering

- A user has to actively install a malware application with the help of giving admin permissions, ignoring warnings and active further cooperation.
Or even like just installing a normal application.
Working all day within a admin account helps malware developers a lot, a lot of people do and it's not smart. A safer browser won't help against this.
.

b) Internet browser

- The usage of javascripts which you can manage with noscript also in Torbrowser
- The misusage of browser plugins like flash and java, which are managed already in de config of Torbrowser
- The usage of feedback information the browser is giving, which are managed in the config settings of Torbrowser.
So a Mac Torbrowser is actually telling that it is a windows system which reduces the attack surface already. Most malware attacks are based on user agent strings. Windows malware does not work on OS X.

Although it seems that there is one hidden setting that can tell the outside world that it is a Mac Torbrowser!?
One will notice when there is a update available and get a specific Mac redirect.
Wouldn't it be safer to remove that option as well before it will be misused?
People are probably smart enough to choose between the Windows, Mac and Linux download button on that same download page.
.

c) Non apple non up to date software

- adobe flashplayer plugin
- java and java plugin
- ms office for Mac, 2004 for example
- adobe reader
- fake video codec's and misusage of non up to date video players like vlc player.
.

d) Non up to date apple software

- Safari browser, take Torbrowser as long as they are supporting it, otherwise 64 bit firefox
- Java Mac versions 6 is 1.6 and earlier

.

All these threads above do not really primarily have to do with the arguments to drop support for certain Mac's or older OS X'es.
.

With one exception,
(e) that people could simply avoid because it is not necessary!
Running Mac OS X 10.5 or 10.4 on a Mac with a intel processor. Just take at least OS X 10.6 on that intel Mac.
.

(f) Learning from out of support site threads !

When not having facts and figures available about OS X versions related to malware and targeted attacks, one could also learn from Mac malware in another way.
When malware seems to have another motive than a criminal motivation and targets specific groups or organizations, the malware is especially, almost always targeting and written for older Mac's with older unpatched program's.
Mac's Torbrowser even missed to support.

It is very easy to conclude from there that there especially is a possible need for Torbrowser support on older Mac's and also direct proof of the fact that older Mac's are still in more than main average figures used by people that especially can use that extra security too.

In plain english, the customer group Torbrowser is talking about and heading for.
The group that will not have support anymore, or even did not have at all because they use even older Mac's.
The group that, according to Torbrowser team, should buy newer, other computers or just go to Windows or Linux?

Maybe they do,
a lot of them probably won't, it's just the way things will not work. Something with everlasting gap between user behavior and developers future possible functions perception.

.

5) Smart behavior before even upgrading

Mainly all above threads are to stop by good and smart behavior within every OS X and using options that are already in the Torbrowser itself.

When using the possibilities that noscript will give a user or with the built in possibilities of changing some about config settings.
You do not need the latest OS X for that,
You do not need to upgrade you OS X for that,
although it is a very good idea to do if to can on that system.

One should be prepared to other attacks an make a safe browser and that is a good goal.
.

In this specific already former dropping Mac discussion I get the impression that it's not the arguments that are counting but possibly more other wishes like having less work, don't like a fat application to distribute.
While a lot of other developers made universal applications for OS X or just served two. But Torbrowser cannot?

Further on, one can understand that it is more trendy to market and to show having a 64 bit browser available. Does not count for the ones who will be abandoned by Torbrowser.
.

This discussion is more than a slightly different argument perspective and accent.
Something that is missing everywhere in the general developer progress arguments end wishes usually ending in fat system requirements.
That is probably why we also have to buy new computers again with more heavy specs to still do the same simple things we do the most, browsing, mailing, writing, watching some fotos and video.

.

6) What is actually wrong by offering two versions, 64 bit 32 bit?

Even offering a stripped 32 bit version with higher more strict security settings and less functionality if it could have security implications.
Strong example : Browsing with no javascript activated is always better than no opportunity to browse at all!

When offering a separate version, then you can also measure the need for the 32 bit browser and make a decision, at least based on facts by usage numbers.
Which is still not a guarantee for a acceptable moral decision, but it's a far better start then just dropping without knowledge.
Better than privacy and safety for the upperclass, rich and the west. Did not get the impression that is the main goal for offering tor.

Question,
When dropping support, please do so with fair arguments and listen to your users, next time give them a real anonymous opportunity to give feedback on important anonymous browser issues.

Unfortunately a long story, just the other side in this not so open browser discussion that I wanted to point at.
I agree on working at a good security product and I do appreciate the effort of all the people who did work on that a lot, no misunderstanding for that.

.

7) Food for thought

When supporting older systems or browser versions is not an option for the tor developers anymore.
Maybe it would be an idea to give users the option back to distribute a separate app again to separately connect with the Tor network.
Vidalia download option?

In this case, the abandoned users and even users with older Mac's could use another still supported mozilla fork browser in combination with the Tor functionality.

The Torbrowser developers that are dropping support could leave the possibility open for others to create some sort of a torbrowsing fork experience by using another combination with browsers that still are supported by other enthusiastic developers for even older OS X versions and a lot of even older Macs that are in business and used in other parts of the world.

.
If this long feedback on dropping Mac support contribution is placed, I hope so, Thank you very much for placing this user feedback.
Hopefully helping anyone with it,
especially the Torbrowser developer team.

All the best,