Choose your browser carefully

msi · 2020-10-26 12:21:49

A nice review of how privacy-compromising a lot of web browsers actually are, including recommendations on what to do about that:

https://unixsheikh.com/articles/choose- … fully.html

I don't agree to some of what the author says, but it's still a really good read (tons of useful information).

brocashelm · 2020-10-26 13:03:32

Palemoon is also sometimes recommended by people as a privacy respecting browser, but Palemoon is not even promoted as a privacy respecting browser so I don't know where that comes from. Palemoon also "phones home" and it also connects to Google every time it is started up just like Chromium.

This mitigation guide resolves the above problems (i.e. "phoning home" and contacting Google). There's also a fork with placeholder title Web Browser that corrects much of Pale Moon's mistakes (e.g. automatic updates, add-on blacklists).

bgstack15 · 2020-10-26 16:03:57

I like Unixsheikh's site. I have come across it before.
I wish the fellow would also consider the Nuegia Web Browser mentioned above, and also IceWeasel-UXP from Hyperbola.

blackhole · 2020-10-27 08:12:43

There was a thread about Mozilla recently on LQ:

https://www.linuxquestions.org/question … 175682595/

The trouble is, that the alternatives to Firefox are worse. The 3rd party forks are what amounts to snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. I despise the UIs of both chromium anf Firefox, but just learned to live with them and disable the telemetry / data collection where possible.

chris2be8 · 2020-10-27 17:32:32

It sounds like it would be a good idea to disconnect from the Internet before starting Firefox for the first time. So you could configure it to disable telemetry etc without giving it a chance to phone home first.

But it's a bad sign if you need to do that. Ideally it should be shipped with telemetry etc disabled by default.

Chris

Ron · 2020-10-27 21:41:26

blackhole wrote:

There was a thread about Mozilla recently on LQ:
The trouble is, that the alternatives to Firefox are worse. The 3rd party forks are what amounts to snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. I despise the UIs of both chromium anf Firefox, but just learned to live with them and disable the telemetry / data collection where possible.

Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me. I can't speak to other FF forks, but your comments about them don't apply to Pale Moon.

zapper · 2020-10-27 22:27:00

Ron wrote:

blackhole wrote:
There was a thread about Mozilla recently on LQ:
The trouble is, that the alternatives to Firefox are worse. The 3rd party forks are what amounts to snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. I despise the UIs of both chromium anf Firefox, but just learned to live with them and disable the telemetry / data collection where possible.
Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me. I can't speak to other FF forks, but your comments about them don't apply to Pale Moon.

I trust palemoon, way more than the other browsers, Moonchild can be sometimes, a bit of a dick, but he means well. And he isn't in this for greed like mozilla, google, microsoft, etc... and also, he is the only one fighting the webkit/chromium empire.

Thus, I will always use palemoon or basilisk or iceweasel-uxp if possible.

That being said, yes it sounds like stockholm syndrome to me also.

zapper · 2020-10-27 22:29:27

brocashelm wrote:

Palemoon is also sometimes recommended by people as a privacy respecting browser, but Palemoon is not even promoted as a privacy respecting browser so I don't know where that comes from. Palemoon also "phones home" and it also connects to Google every time it is started up just like Chromium.
This mitigation guide resolves the above problems (i.e. "phoning home" and contacting Google). There's also a fork with placeholder title Web Browser that corrects much of Pale Moon's mistakes (e.g. automatic updates, add-on blacklists).

Palemoon does not phone home anymore if it ever did. That I don't know, but anything based on webkit or webextensions, you should look at from a distance if at all even.

remember, google made webextensions and as for webkit apple and google both must use it for a reason... Do not trust them for this and because google is google.

Which is to say, do plenty of evil.

Last edited by zapper (2020-10-27 22:30:09)

blackhole · 2020-10-28 17:56:01

zapper wrote:

Palemoon does not phone home anymore if it ever did. That I don't know[...]

I hope I'm not alone in seeing the fallacy there...

If data collection can be disabled, in firefox then I don't personally see the need for any of the current 3rd party forks or "based on" projects. With the exception of ungoogled chromium I can't see the benefits.

Of course the browsers, the web in fact has becone hugely complex and is largely under the control of several huge US corporations (including FAANGS). To build a new browser is beyond the resources of any individual, small project - beyond anyone lacking the support of those. Linux itsekf haa become largely developed and financed by fortune 500 companies. A web browser like chromium/blink is a larger codebase now than some entire OS'. If you have tried building firefox or chromium from source you will know what I mean.

From a security perspective, firefox has been catching with chromium in terms of multi process sandboxing and other security features, pale moon, a fork of a several years old firefox release, isnt even close.

Last edited by blackhole (2020-10-28 18:14:51)

zapper · 2020-10-28 19:16:25

blackhole wrote:

zapper wrote:
Palemoon does not phone home anymore if it ever did. That I don't know[...]
I hope I'm not alone in seeing the fallacy there...
If data collection can be disabled, in firefox then I don't personally see the need for any of the current 3rd party forks or "based on" projects. With the exception of ungoogled chromium I can't see the benefits.
Of course the browsers, the web in fact has becone hugely complex and is largely under the control of several huge US corporations (including FAANGS). To build a new browser is beyond the resources of any individual, small project - beyond anyone lacking the support of those. Linux itsekf haa become largely developed and financed by fortune 500 companies. A web browser like chromium/blink is a larger codebase now than some entire OS'. If you have tried building firefox or chromium from source you will know what I mean.
From a security perspective, firefox has been catching with chromium in terms of multi process sandboxing and other security features, pale moon, a fork of a several years old firefox release, isnt even close.

Nope, no yours is the fallacy, Seriously...

chrome and even chromium are spyware hell and is largely insecure due to this. As for, palemoon, they focus on stability and security primarily. Not new features like firefox does. Also, those new features of firefox and chromium are largely antifeatures. Remember pocket? that spys on you. They try to add stuff like that all the time...

So... yeah. I refuse to trust webextensions anything. Or google anything. By the way, palemoon is not built from scratch, its based on old firefox yes, but they have less vulnerabilities in their system, not more but less!

They also are making changes based on current firefox and they patch things quickly. By current firefox, I mean stuff that would affect palemoon too. Which by the way, there is alot less of that... Defense in depths and not applicable are alot more common though.

Adding that correction so you know what I mean. aka about defense in depht, etc...

Also, even if you disable data collection in options in firefox, it dials home a hell of a lot.

I have seen this a lot even in post webextensions icecat, let alone regular firefox. My cache by firefox was used twice as much even when i disabled all of their spyware defaults. I compared palemoon to firefox, both with noscript on default settings. I don't know why you would trust anything googleized, including firefox webextensions versions.

By the way, the larger the code base, the more time it takes to audit and fix problems.

This is the same issue as system dumb and arguably redhat's freedesktop.org crap in general. Bloated...

The more bloat, that harder to audit, the harder to fix.

Compare the vulnerabilities here: https://www.cvedetails.com/

You will find more critical bugs in firefox than palemoon.

I am kind of surprised someone who hates something as bloated as system dumb, would support something as bloated as firefox or chromium whether its ungoogled or not when there are clear alternatives... This puzzles me to no end.

Last edited by zapper (2020-10-28 19:19:27)

blackhole · 2020-10-29 18:03:10

I don't disagree with many of your points, but a largely unknown browser from a one man project forked from dead code which was previously developed by a large paid team of devs, cannot automatically be considered secure - especially as that generation of firefox/mozilla was never particularly secure to begin with. You seem to be missing the point the firefox cves will mostly apply to its forks as well... Check the dates of all of those exploitable and bear in mind that most of his security fixes are backports. I assune that the two cves, one severe and remote, are palemoon specific and that firefox was not affected as it was not based on the same obsolete code. .You're also skipping over the fact that modern browser have security features such as sandboxing. Despite the bundled data collection, chromium project is currently the most secure.

He also only dropped google's safebrowsing telemetry because the version in his fork was obsolete and unsupported by google. Not for any rationale relating to privacy. Same reason geo.ip was dropped - and for that he found a reolacement. Go to that site and see how precisley and efficiently it locates you.

I have nothing against palemoon, but agree with the author of the linked article that user spinning it as a privacy and/or security focused browser are doing so out based sone misunderstanding. Its pre australis firefox.

Pale moon amounts to a tiny fraction of a percent of browser marketshare, where firefox is more than a few percent and chromium is massive (a massive monopoly). These browsers have greater exposure, more eyeballs and are bigger and more attractive targets, so it stands to reason that move vulnerabilities are found and fixed.

Last edited by blackhole (2020-10-29 18:17:37)

msi · 2020-10-29 19:01:49

I've been using Badwolf for a bit now on Void Linux and am writing this post from it.

It still has some obvious shortcomings, especially in terms of configurability. But apart form that, it's pretty usable, even for Javascript-intensive things like GitLab.

Ron · 2020-10-30 02:34:09

There is some misinformation about Pale Moon in this thread, so at risk of being called a lackey, I'd like to correct the record. I'll just mention one inaccuracy.

blackhole wrote:

I don't disagree with many of your points, but a largely unknown browser from a one man project . . .

According to the developer,

Pale Moon is not "just me" and hasn't been for the majority of its life. There are some talented and dedicated people at work in our community to make Pale Moon what it is, and actually has seen support in many ways by many people over the years.

The above quote is from here. If you want the facts on Pale Moon, I suggest giving it a read.

zapper · 2020-10-30 05:04:25

blackhole wrote:

I don't disagree with many of your points, but a largely unknown browser from a one man project forked from dead code which was previously developed by a large paid team of devs, cannot automatically be considered secure - especially as that generation of firefox/mozilla was never particularly secure to begin with. You seem to be missing the point the firefox cves will mostly apply to its forks as well... Check the dates of all of those exploitable and bear in mind that most of his security fixes are backports. I assune that the two cves, one severe and remote, are palemoon specific and that firefox was not affected as it was not based on the same obsolete code. .You're also skipping over the fact that modern browser have security features such as sandboxing. Despite the bundled data collection, chromium project is currently the most secure.
He also only dropped google's safebrowsing telemetry because the version in his fork was obsolete and unsupported by google. Not for any rationale relating to privacy. Same reason geo.ip was dropped - and for that he found a reolacement. Go to that site and see how precisley and efficiently it locates you.
I have nothing against palemoon, but agree with the author of the linked article that user spinning it as a privacy and/or security focused browser are doing so out based sone misunderstanding. Its pre australis firefox.
Pale moon amounts to a tiny fraction of a percent of browser marketshare, where firefox is more than a few percent and chromium is massive (a massive monopoly). These browsers have greater exposure, more eyeballs and are bigger and more attractive targets, so it stands to reason that move vulnerabilities are found and fixed.

How can chromium be the most secure if its doing a massive amount of data collecting? That doesn't make sense. Also, they plan to make addons that block ads worthless, not sure if they have been doing that yet, but they planning to last I checked, plus its made by google. Don't trust google man, its bad...

If you want to make a case against palemoon, there is only one issue I have with them, they don't seem to be too fond of noscript. As for everything else you say, i kind of doubt sandboxing is enough to justify using a chrome based web browser. If there is another issue, its that not enough addons get updates.

Besides, more eyeballs doesn't work if they aren't razor focused on the real issues, such as blocking data collection and preventing malware. I am sure they are decent at preventing malware, but Palemoon focuses on stability, security and usability and nothing else.

Firefox has become like, hardly better than chromium. They are losing their individuality due to webextensions, which in itself, has a fingerprinting issue.

Greater exposure can be good, but only if the developers are serious about not allowing the phone home crap. Which btw, firefox isn't. So meh... I will keep using palemoon till something better shows up. Which I really doubt.

That all being said, the two issues gave are valid, the ones you gave, not so much.

Last edited by zapper (2020-10-30 05:05:12)

zapper · 2020-10-30 05:08:29

Ron wrote:

There is some misinformation about Pale Moon in this thread, so at risk of being called a lackey, I'd like to correct the record. I'll just mention one inaccuracy.
blackhole wrote:
I don't disagree with many of your points, but a largely unknown browser from a one man project . . .
According to the developer,
Pale Moon is not "just me" and hasn't been for the majority of its life. There are some talented and dedicated people at work in our community to make Pale Moon what it is, and actually has seen support in many ways by many people over the years.
The above quote is from here. If you want the facts on Pale Moon, I suggest giving it a read.

Yeah, I don't think your a lackey. I think people are either biased against palemoon or misinformed. Not sure which...

Also, webextensions vulnerabilities dont occur much on palemoon. XUL has a lot less vulnerabilities that I have seen so far compared to webextensions...

so yeah there is misinformation on this thread... not sure if its on purpose though.

blackhole · 2020-10-30 08:20:49

Ron, being a one man project with a few helpers is still to all intents and purposes a one man project - Slackware for example (and he hasn't released in 4 years), is still a one man project. Debian for example is not.

So no I'm not spreading "misinformation".

Zapper, a very secure piece of software can still be a data mining telemetry engine - but can do that securely (as paradoxical as that may seem). You're perhaps conflating security and privacy - a common fallacy. Using your logic, bug ridden code with multiple vulnerabilities could be considered "security focused", if it doesnt "phone home" [to google]?

"Webextensions vulnerabilities" won't occur "much" in pale moon, they won't occur at all, as it doesn't implement webextensions. So not sure what your point is there?

So thus far I remain unconvinced that pale moon, based on dead firefox code, is more secure by default on account of it not bundling the google spyware (which you can disable in firefox) and not using webextensions.

I'm not sure of the stance on noscript, I'm sceptical of add ons which come with a default whitelist which includes facebook, google, etc. It boils down to privacy not being something you can just install.

If you want further confirmation of which browser is the most secure, then I suggest you read this comment by Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD:

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152872551609819

Or is the lead developer of arguably the most secure FOSS OS also spreading misinformation?

To add: One can find plenty of vulnerabilities in webextensions. It looks shoddy, but sadly xulrunner (xul xpcom) was actually quite poor in terms of security and privacy and there were whole slews of vulnerabilities in that over the years, so its not a great choice. It calls the whole idea of "browser addons" into question. When you install any add on you essentially place trust in a 3rd party - who are then in a position to intercept all traffic.

A search of cvedetails.com for anything relating to xul xpcom or xulrunner gives over 800 results where a search for webextensions gives just over 250 or so. obviously as webextensions is still in its early years (it only completely replaced xul xpcom around 3 years ago) and due to much greater exposure and being a much bigger target (who is going to care about looking for vulnerabilities in dead and obsolete code used by <1% ?) it stands to reason there will be more cves there and more recent ones. Whether its privacy focused designed to be secure or part of a google plot is an entirely separate issue.

Last edited by blackhole (2020-10-30 10:23:11)

Ron · 2020-10-30 18:38:49

Twice you mentioned that Pale Moon is based on "dead code." That is a straw-man argument. Pale Moon uses code that is actively developed by Pale Moon. Therefore, it is not dead code. Pale Moon is updated whenever there are security issues that affect it, whether said issues affect Firefox or not. That is, any security issue that may not affect Firefox, but does Pale Moon, will be fixed in Pale Moon. So don't go around saying Pale Moon is based on "dead code." That IS misinformation.

zapper · 2020-10-31 00:18:38

blackhole wrote:

Ron, being a one man project with a few helpers is still to all intents and purposes a one man project - Slackware for example (and he hasn't released in 4 years), is still a one man project. Debian for example is not.
So no I'm not spreading "misinformation".
Zapper, a very secure piece of software can still be a data mining telemetry engine - but can do that securely (as paradoxical as that may seem). You're perhaps conflating security and privacy - a common fallacy. Using your logic, bug ridden code with multiple vulnerabilities could be considered "security focused", if it doesnt "phone home" [to google]?
"Webextensions vulnerabilities" won't occur "much" in pale moon, they won't occur at all, as it doesn't implement webextensions. So not sure what your point is there?
So thus far I remain unconvinced that pale moon, based on dead firefox code, is more secure by default on account of it not bundling the google spyware (which you can disable in firefox) and not using webextensions.
I'm not sure of the stance on noscript, I'm sceptical of add ons which come with a default whitelist which includes facebook, google, etc. It boils down to privacy not being something you can just install.
If you want further confirmation of which browser is the most secure, then I suggest you read this comment by Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152872551609819
Or is the lead developer of arguably the most secure FOSS OS also spreading misinformation?
To add: One can find plenty of vulnerabilities in webextensions. It looks shoddy, but sadly xulrunner (xul xpcom) was actually quite poor in terms of security and privacy and there were whole slews of vulnerabilities in that over the years, so its not a great choice. It calls the whole idea of "browser addons" into question. When you install any add on you essentially place trust in a 3rd party - who are then in a position to intercept all traffic.
A search of cvedetails.com for anything relating to xul xpcom or xulrunner gives over 800 results where a search for webextensions gives just over 250 or so. obviously as webextensions is still in its early years (it only completely replaced xul xpcom around 3 years ago) and due to much greater exposure and being a much bigger target (who is going to care about looking for vulnerabilities in dead and obsolete code used by <1% ?) it stands to reason there will be more cves there and more recent ones. Whether its privacy focused designed to be secure or part of a google plot is an entirely separate issue.

Yeah... you do realize palemoon is restricted in OpenBSD because of a feud between palemoon and OpenBSD right?

They are very easily ticked off, the people of OpenBSD,

That aside, stop saying its dead code, that is false, as he and his team of devs is working on it currently.

I should also mention, you would be correct in the assumption that I wrote that wrong, what I mean is this, privacy doesn't exist on firefox or chrome. You cannot have privacy without security true, but I don't think with all firefox's antifeatures that matters. Some may be hidden from even volunteers, aka, only the core developers know about it. Perhaps, even google only knows some of the worst webextension ones. Besides that though, Most of those XUL fixes I would be willing to bet if they are on the CVES list, they have mostly been patched by now.

I also though would like you to show me the scale of the threat. Like say, 1-10. 10 being really critical issues.

But why do you waste your breath on someone who sees through your bias. Sigh... its this kind of thinking thats given chrome so much of an empire on the web browser market. Firefox was way better off staying away from anything google.

By the way, maybe you should look at the motives of firefox, chrome and Palemoon and compare.

From what I remember, palemoon's motives are more or less, as a service for the community.

Firefox on the other hand is a friggin corporation, and they get donations from google lol! so yeah... no.

Google chromium... yeah... let's not even go there. its google!

You remind me of a user from a certain forum, I will leave his name hidden for now though. But he supports anything bloated, gnome 3, webextensions, redhat's system dumb, pulseshit, dumb-bus, etc... java and rust also... which are both crap. I prefer not to beat a dead horse though forever and ever, we will not see eye to eye, but stop misinforming people. You don't even know what you are talking about.

-_- ....

EDIT: Oh and also I should add, if the privacy issues include backdoors, you literally are reducing security.

So yeah... nope, not interested.

Last edited by zapper (2020-10-31 00:21:09)

Nili · 2020-10-31 07:02:19

zapper wrote:

You remind me of a user from a certain forum, I will leave his name hidden for now though. But he supports anything bloated, gnome 3, webextensions, redhat's system dumb, pulseshit, dumb-bus, etc... java and rust also... which are both crap.

I know that user, such as lazy individual have never installed a system from scratch imo. Maybe GNOME pays him to make the buzzer?

blackhole · 2020-11-01 09:44:34

zapper, there is no "feud". You are spreading misinformation and betraying your own ignorance. Please stop.

This a bad case of "the mote and the beam"... first exhibit is your trolling of the OpendBSD misc mailing list with misinformation:

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692336815902&w=2

Software like wine or palemoon belongs in "ports" in any of the BSD projects. They are not part of the base system. If you want an OpenBSD port of palemoon, you're free to contribute one.

Your embarassingly childish outburst again on the misc mailing list, only betrayed yout complete lack of knowledge of the project.

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692845817261&w=2

Because you cannot post snything factual or worth taking the time to read you are ignored.

@Ron, is "old and obsolete, though still actively developed, code" better?

Last edited by blackhole (2020-11-01 10:10:50)

zapper · 2020-11-01 19:45:19

blackhole wrote:

zapper, there is no "feud". You are spreading misinformation and betraying your own ignorance. Please stop.
This a bad case of "the mote and the beam"... first exhibit is your trolling of the OpendBSD misc mailing list with misinformation:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692336815902&w=2
Software like wine or palemoon belongs in "ports" in any of the BSD projects. They are not part of the base system. If you want an OpenBSD port of palemoon, you're free to contribute one.
Your embarassingly childish outburst again on the misc mailing list, only betrayed yout complete lack of knowledge of the project.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692845817261&w=2
Because you cannot post snything factual or worth taking the time to read you are ignored.
@Ron, is "old and obsolete, though still actively developed, code" better?

Blackhole, you are a troll and nothing more I have heard enough. Damn what an asshat you are. And the fact you plan to ignore me is further proof of your childishness.

You are "arrogant" Nice to see you still worship your magic banana ideology.

PS, I don't need to stop,

Also, they ARE ACTIVELY BLOCKING IT NOW!

Do you want to know the reason I don't post anything factual beyond what I have mentioned? Because you will never believe me no matter what.

I gave up long ago, but I detest being picked on. Kindly eff off!

Last edited by zapper (2020-11-01 19:48:13)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2020-11-01 20:13:37

Juicy issue thread for those who are curious: https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

So the Palemoon devs were assholes and pissed off ibara sufficiently that he dropped the port. @ibara is active over at daemonforums.org and he is an absolute legend, I will hear no ill will spoken of him.

Zashi · 2020-11-01 20:14:51

blackhole wrote:

zapper, there is no "feud". You are spreading misinformation and betraying your own ignorance. Please stop.
This a bad case of "the mote and the beam"... first exhibit is your trolling of the OpendBSD misc mailing list with misinformation:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692336815902&w=2
Software like wine or palemoon belongs in "ports" in any of the BSD projects. They are not part of the base system. If you want an OpenBSD port of palemoon, you're free to contribute one.
Your embarassingly childish outburst again on the misc mailing list, only betrayed yout complete lack of knowledge of the project.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158692845817261&w=2
Because you cannot post snything factual or worth taking the time to read you are ignored.
@Ron, is "old and obsolete, though still actively developed, code" better?

Know what, since you had the nerve to ignore, you are the child you bitch. I cannot believe Trisquel and Devuan are trying to both drive me off the wall you punk.

I don't have to stop, yout isn't a word, I don't care what you think I am, that's none of your concern. as for facts... Fuck off! You don't care about facts... I know who you are, you are just like magicbanana! It seems like people all over the world want to piss me off. People exactly like you. You had zero right to ignore me btw, you just can't stand the truth you dumb fascist. When someone doesn't agree with you, you go on the attack and you act like they are a child... How childish of you. And yes this is a socket puppet account, I will still use devuan after this, but I am sick of your kind trying to run me out forums and get me to respond.

I may have anger issues, but I am at least an honest person. You on the other hand are not even honest. Kindly eff off and never reply to me again on any forums ever.

golinux · 2020-11-01 20:28:34

Hey, kids . . . this sandbox is for adults so take it down a notch.

FWIW, there is no ignore function on this forum. Get along or move on and take your delusions of self-importance along with you . . .

zapper · 2020-11-01 20:51:47

golinux wrote:

Hey, kids . . . this sandbox is for adults so take it down a notch.
FWIW, there is no ignore function on this forum. Get along or move on and take your delusions of self-importance along with you . . .

You raise a good point, I just don't like being looked down on.

Perhaps, I need to work on controlling my pride.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 2020-10-26 12:21:49

Choose your browser carefully

#2 2020-10-26 13:03:32

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#3 2020-10-26 16:03:57

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#4 2020-10-27 08:12:43

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#5 2020-10-27 17:32:32

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#6 2020-10-27 21:41:26

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#7 2020-10-27 22:27:00

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#8 2020-10-27 22:29:27

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#9 2020-10-28 17:56:01

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#10 2020-10-28 19:16:25

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#11 2020-10-29 18:03:10

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#12 2020-10-29 19:01:49

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#13 2020-10-30 02:34:09

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#14 2020-10-30 05:04:25

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#15 2020-10-30 05:08:29

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#16 2020-10-30 08:20:49

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#17 2020-10-30 18:38:49

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#18 2020-10-31 00:18:38

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#19 2020-10-31 07:02:19

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#20 2020-11-01 09:44:34

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#21 2020-11-01 19:45:19

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#22 2020-11-01 20:13:37

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#23 2020-11-01 20:14:51

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#24 2020-11-01 20:28:34

Re: Choose your browser carefully

#25 2020-11-01 20:51:47

Re: Choose your browser carefully

Board footer