✨ Feature Suggestion | disable sensor in firefox #2084
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#2084
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
search device.sensors in about:config , turn all "enable" flags to false, can be used to prevent websites from use accelerometer to record audio indirectly
Seems like a reasonable addition, @Thorin-Oakenpants what do you think?
ignore it, close with prejudice
Any elaboration?
@Thorin-Oakenpants
sorry, i'm not a native speaker of english, and i can't understand what means of "prejudice" here, could you please explain it ?
if you think i have some prejudice in what i said before, i apologize to you here
It seems like a good addition, if it does what you say it does, for laptop users or people who have a microphone plugged in all day on their desktop machines.
@LongJohn-Silver
I think you may misunderstand, this flag is more target to mobile platform which have accelerometer. if you want to prevent website access microphone, you can deny "microphone" permission
edit:
you're all good: no need to apologize - I was implying (to blacklight) that this ticket is useless "as is": requests should provide sources, proofs, analysis etc.. at least something - and I already know the answers (I think) and I'm 99% sure that it won't be actioned for PTIO's website: I just can't be bothered a lot of time to have to explain everything: it gets really repetitive and annoying and time wasting - so "useless" tickets in my own repos I just close them as invalid (which can seem a bit rude at times)
so if anything, I apologize to you
I commented at tor project - typically this is something that should get handled upstream under RFP: most likely under bugzilla 1562290
here is the source and paper (maybe)
thanks - i'll add that to the tor ticket notes
IMO, you can close this. My source tells me it looks like this attack is impractical from a webpage. Also note the default settings: ambientLight and proximity aren't exposed. Orientation doesn't matter (except allow you to change orientation: big deal) and the master switch .enabled is immaterial, as is the .test.events
Which only leaves motion. I didn't read the paper in detail. But this is a very niche attack, if even at all possible/practical within Fenix
device.sensors.*
I knew I was missing something: it's already covered by RFP: 1369319