Tails

#2 Updated by sajolida 2014-08-12 11:48:30

Renaming it might reduce a bit the user support overhead, so why not.

But still, regardless of how this piece of software is called, people will continue using it as an unsafe browser if they can and want, be it “supported” use case or not.

If we really want Tails to stop having an Unsafe Browser (something that “browses”), then maybe it would be worth investigating if it is possible to actually limit the possibilities of that piece of software to log in into captive portals and not actually be able to browse anything useful.

#3 Updated by Anonymous 2014-08-15 16:22:12

I like sajolida’s idea: maybe we could research if it is possible to make a first request to a captive portal without even having needing to use a browser?

#4 Updated by sajolida 2014-08-16 10:45:51

My idea was more about having a browser that would not be usable apart for logging to a captive portal.

I don’t really know how this could be achieved. Maybe it could block itself or close down and restart automatically after five minutes, be limited to contact a limited number of IPs do a limited number of DNS requests, or TCP connections, blacklist most popular websites, be limited to having one tab, not displaying CSS.

I’m not convince that we will be able to find a simple solution that works for every single captive portal, but if we don’t brainstorm about it we surely won’t :)

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2014-08-16 11:05:48

> Maybe it could block itself or close down and restart automatically after five minutes,

Can’t work, some captive portals require you to keep a specific web page open.

> be limited to contact a limited number of IPs do a limited number of DNS requests, or TCP connections, blacklist most popular websites, be limited to having one tab,

Could possibly work.

> not displaying CSS.

Will break many captive portals, I guess.

> I’m not convince that we will be able to find a simple solution that works for every single captive portal, but if we don’t brainstorm about it we surely won’t :)

:)

#10 Updated by sajolida 2015-03-03 12:43:11

Actually, now that we decided to move LAN access to the Tor Browser, this ticket is not blocked by Feature #7976 but should probably be done at the same time (or later).

#14 Updated by sajolida 2015-03-06 14:52:35

The original objective behind this ticket was to find a name that makes it more clear what this browser is for (wrt captive portals). But now we decided not to limit its use to captive portals but cover LAN access as well. So the original intent behind this discussion is quite outdated I think.

Regarding the notes from the November meeting, thanks from bringing them in, as this was obviously forgotten when writing them (probably by me). Still they say “maybe ‘Non-anonymous Browser’ if the two features are combined in one browser […] but those names would have to be refined”.

I’m now myself not convinced that “Non-anonymous Browser” is semantically very different from “Unsafe browser” (since “anonymous” = “safe” in the context of Tails browsers). While introducing a change and making it longer. So I’m not we should go this way. But I’ll check that with others…

#15 Updated by intrigeri 2015-03-06 19:15:30

> Still they say “maybe ‘Non-anonymous Browser’ if the two features are combined in one browser […] but those names would have to be refined”.

OK. Maybe this discussion (on -ux@) can be merged with the one about where exactly we should move the LAN browsing functionality, that you said you would start too (Feature #7976).

> I’m now myself not convinced that “Non-anonymous Browser” is semantically very different from “Unsafe browser” (since “anonymous” = “safe” in the context of Tails browsers).

Reading his makes me feel the need to remind us that the safety Tails provides is not only about being anonymous: it also includes being amnesic (which the Unsafe Browser is actually more than the Tor Browser, since it’s hard to move files out of its chroot to persistent storage). That’s why I still prefer the “non-anonymous” wording that conveys more clearly (IMO) what’s specific about this browser.

OTOH, of course I’ve been able to live with the “unsafe” wording too for years, and I can definitely go on living with it, especially since it implies less work. In any case, I don’t mean to argue endlessly to make the “non-anonymous” wording prevail :)

> But I’ll check that with others…

Yay! \o/

#16 Updated by sajolida 2015-03-10 08:49:30

What you said about “unsafe” vs “amnesic” is definitely interesting.

From a quick brainstorming we had we didn’t find anything that was obviously much better than what we have already. I’ll still dump some idea here for the record:

• Risky Browser
• Dangerous Browser
• Broadcast Browser
• Public Browser
• Regular Browser
• Visible Browser
• Be Careful Browser

#18 Updated by SpencerOne 2015-03-13 02:44:06

Currently, we have the browser titled ‘Unsafe Browser’, but this doesn’t explain why it is unsafe.

Then, we have the proposal for ‘Non-anonymous Browser’, which explains why the browser is unsafe, but this doesn’t explain the limitations that require it to lose its anonymity, such as its use to gain access to Captive Portals and LAN connections.

‘Limited Browser’ might be appropriate given its [preferred] limited functionality. This is expanded upon by “Show[ing] a dialog asking the user for verification, while also briefly explaining that the [limited] browser [sessions] won’t be anonymous, [and why]”.