Was anybody else just burned by the Tor Browser flatpak?
And by burned, I mean "realize they have been burning for over a year". I'm referring to a bug in the Tor Browser flatpak that prevented the launcher from updating the actual browser, despite the launcher itself updating every week or so. The fix requires manual intervention, and this was never communicated to users. The browser itself also doesn't alert the user that it is outdated. The only reason I found out today was because the NoScript extension broke due to the browser being so old.
To make matters worse, the outdated version of the browser that I had, differs from the outdated version reported in the Github thread. In other words, if you were hoping that at least everybody affected by the bug would be stuck at the same version (and thus have the same fingerprint), that doesn't seem to be the case.
This is an extreme fingerprinting vulnerability. In fact I checked my fingerprint on multiple websites, and I had a unique fingerprint even with javascript disabled. So in other words, despite following the best privacy and security advice of:
- using Tor Browser
- disabling javascript
- keeping software updated
My online habits have been tracked for over a year. Even if Duckduckgo or Startpage doesn't fingerprint users, Reddit sure does (to detect ban evasions, etc), and we all know 90% of searches lead to Reddit, and that Reddit sells data to Google. So I have been browsing the web for over a year with a false sense of security, all the while most of my browsing was linked to a single identity, and that much data is more than enough to link it to my real identity.
How was I supposed to catch this? Manually check the About page of my browser to make sure the number keeps incrementing? Browse the Github issue tracker before bed? Is all this privacy and security advice actually good, or does it just give people a false sense of security, when in reality the software isn't maintained enough for those recommendations to make a difference? Sorry for the rant, it's just all so tiring.
Edit: I want to clarify that this is not an attack on the lone dev maintaining the Tor Browser flatpak. They mention in the issue that they were fairly busy last year. I just wanted to know how other people handled this issue.
Update: I just noticed that based on this comment, the flatpak was only verified by Tor Project after this particular issue had been fixed. So perhaps I should have waited before installing the flatpak. Sigh...
Older Tor Browsers Breaking, Update Now! | Tor Project
The expiration on March 14 2025 of a root certificate can cause breakages Tor Browser version 13.0 and below. Users should updgrade immediately.blog.torproject.org
Otter
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •😬
Could be worth sharing this around so more people are aware of it. !privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !opensource@programming.dev maybe? I can cross post it myself, but I'm not as familiar with the topic to respond to comments/questions
like this
Inf_V likes this.
don't like this
catloaf doesn't like this.
nikqwxq550
in reply to Otter • • •Done, reposted to linux@lemmy.ml and privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com. Though maybe linux@lemmy.ml was unnecessary because this post is already on the lemmy.ml instance...
nikqwxq550
2025-03-15 08:14:19
Done, reposted to linux@lemmy.ml and privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com. Though maybe linux@lemmy.ml was unnecessary because this post is already on the lemmy.ml instance...
nikqwxq550
2025-03-15 08:14:19
Otter
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •Thanks!
I think it's still helpful for people that primarily use the subscribed feed, in case they are subscribed to !linux@lemmy.ml, but not !privacy@lemmy.ml
like this
catloaf likes this.
Inf_V
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •like this
Inf_V likes this.
anon
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •PullPantsUnsworn
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •9tr6gyp3
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •What are the benefits of flatpacks? Like why not just install the actual Tor browser on your system? The one that is released and maintained by The Tor Project?
[edit]Looks like the Tor Project does support this flatpack. Im a silly goose.
traches
in reply to 9tr6gyp3 • • •flatpaks are supposed to be cross-distro. Maintainers only have one package to look after instead of several
Edit: autocorrect got me
Fonzie!
in reply to traches • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to Fonzie! • • •* better isolation between apps, no dependency conflicts
* ability to rollback to previous versions
* easily set environment variables and other launch options persistently
* transactional updates so if something weird happens during an update, the flatpak won't be left in a corrupted state
like this
Inf_V likes this.
superglue
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •9tr6gyp3
in reply to superglue • • •There are quite a few reasons to avoid flatpaks tbh.
Flatpak Permissions on Upgrade, Unravelled | Eric Anderson
ejona.ersoft.orgsuperglue
in reply to 9tr6gyp3 • • •9tr6gyp3
in reply to superglue • • •JackbyDev
in reply to 9tr6gyp3 • • •9tr6gyp3
in reply to JackbyDev • • •JackbyDev
in reply to 9tr6gyp3 • • •9tr6gyp3
in reply to JackbyDev • • •Flatpak is not a Sandbox
hanako.codeberg.pageFonzie!
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •I think
apt
handles this, as well, no?All the other reasons are very valid, though!
Especially the transactional updates!
nikqwxq550
in reply to Fonzie! • • •Fonzie!
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •unskilled5117
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •like this
Inf_V likes this.
nikqwxq550
in reply to unskilled5117 • • •unskilled5117
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •fubbernuckin
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to fubbernuckin • • •Inf_V likes this.
fubbernuckin
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •Leraje
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to Leraje • • •Are you saying that this bug would have been reported there? I don't think I ever saw it, and I honestly doubt it was ever posted there. Unless you're talking about the browser update announcements, but I would still need to check the Help > About page of my browser to notice that it didn't match the latest version. As mentioned in my post, the Flatpak was updating like usual, the updates just weren't affecting the browser.
Really, the main reason I made the post was to see if anybody else was affected, and see how other people avoided the bug. And aside from one other user, it really seems like nobody else was affected, which is surprising to me. The only reasons I can come up with are:
Based on the comments I suspect #1 is the m
... show moreAre you saying that this bug would have been reported there? I don't think I ever saw it, and I honestly doubt it was ever posted there. Unless you're talking about the browser update announcements, but I would still need to check the Help > About page of my browser to notice that it didn't match the latest version. As mentioned in my post, the Flatpak was updating like usual, the updates just weren't affecting the browser.
Really, the main reason I made the post was to see if anybody else was affected, and see how other people avoided the bug. And aside from one other user, it really seems like nobody else was affected, which is surprising to me. The only reasons I can come up with are:
Based on the comments I suspect #1 is the main cause. Which makes me lose trust in Flatpaks quite a bit. After all, if nobody is using them, then maintainers have less incentive to maintain them, and the worse they get.
Vincent
2025-03-15 13:37:35
Leraje
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to Leraje • • •chunkystyles
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to chunkystyles • • •like this
Inf_V likes this.
conicalscientist
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to conicalscientist • • •conicalscientist
in reply to nikqwxq550 • • •nikqwxq550
in reply to conicalscientist • • •