Improvement requests :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
Use this forum to talk about a feature you're missing.
inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: July 21, 2016 09:39PM
Does this browser have inPrivate aka Incognito browsing options?
or is it only by selecting settings>tools>privacy?
Can we add it? like most popular ones have it as ctrl,shift,N
might be a good thing to add...
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: July 22, 2016 07:39AM
PrivacyMode extension for K-Meleon uses a separate profile
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 26, 2017 10:30AM
I can't tell when or if Dorian will have time to update the Gecko engine.
Just in case he will, I'd like to see the private browsing feature implemented in K-Meleon.
All advises given by senior members so far, how to trim K-Meleon for private browsing are IMHO deficient.
For better understanding, I'll give just a single example: persistent storage.
While it's possible to disable persistent storage in K-Meleon, it might break some sites that are eager to track. The number of such sites is on the rise.
Cleaning up the SQLite library after each session is not a viable solution.
Any opinions or thoughts?
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 26, 2017 01:49PM
I have already the prototype of extension, clearing the storages on every restart.
And one of the planned tasks is to create 'K-MeleoNoia' privacy-oriented assembly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2017 09:21PM by rodocop.
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 27, 2017 11:08AM
Quote
rodocop
I have already the prototype of extension, clearing the storages on every restart.
This sounds like a reasonable remedy.
Quote
rodocop
And one of the planned tasks is to create 'K-MeleoNoia' privaci-oriented assembly.
You could also make average users aware of the fact that best privacy settings can have negative impact on best security settings and vice versa.
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 27, 2017 09:14PM
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 28, 2017 12:14AM
Yes, it's about DOMstorage.
There are tools you can use with K-Meleon for exploring and deleting the content of LocalStorage. That's not the problem.
However the most convenient way (and that's what I meant) would be that no data should be written to the HD in the first place.
During private browsing a temporary database for LocalStorage will be created. Once you close the window the database vanishes.
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 28, 2017 02:43PM
Set permissions for Profile Dir > storage > persistent as read only (permissions, not attribute) for all users in Windows and it won't be written anything there. All will work in memory.
Set read only (attribute, not permissions) OfflineCache > index.sqlite (this is indexedDB feature) and you'll done. No data is written to disk. All memory.
And, really, all pages demanding them work. Even html5test.com tells it is enabled and working, but nothing is written.
Twitter.com (not mobile) is a good site to test it too (it writes to storage > persistent).
For doing this by demand, should be needed something as an AutoIt exe, because this can't be done by K-meleon itself. I don't know how to do it, but shouldn't be much complicated. I really don't know.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2017 02:45PM by JohnHell.
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 28, 2017 08:18PM
Wow, sounds just brilliant to me: working, but only in memory!!
Just trying to better understand why and how: why 1x attributes and 1x permissions?
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 28, 2017 10:18PM
Quote
siria
Just trying to better understand why and how: why 1x attributes and 1x permissions?
Because the database for the indexedDB API needs to exist first. You can't set OfflineCache folder without writing permissions. It is easier to set, after creation, to just read only, after emptied, of course. Just a plain index.sqlite file without any other data.
If I remember correctly, those were my findings about this and that is the reason I set that file like that.
It was strange but, hey, works
Maybe someone now tests it and say, "no, there is no need of index.sqlite" either. But I remember having some troubles in the past. Maybe it was just html5test.com or something else.
I told all this in the forum a few years ago. I think...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2017 10:19PM by JohnHell.
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 29, 2017 01:54AM
Quote
JohnHell
I told all this in the forum a few years ago. I think...
I probably missed it. There were times when KM seemed to be dead and I rarely visited the forum.
Thanks for the precious info!
Quote
JohnHell
Maybe someone now tests it and say, "no, there is no need of index.sqlite" either.
What I can tell you for sure is that localStorage doesn't need an offline cache folder/"index.sqlite" in order to work (read & write).
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 29, 2017 04:07PM
Quote
Yogi
Quote
JohnHell
Maybe someone now tests it and say, "no, there is no need of index.sqlite" either.
What I can tell you for sure is that localStorage doesn't need an offline cache folder/"index.sqlite" in order to work (read & write).
Local storage/DOM storage doesn't, but indexedDB does.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API
Re: inPrivate browsing "incognito"
Date: April 29, 2017 08:15PM
I was referring only to localStorage but you are right. There are a few sites which are refusing to work with indexedDB disabled.
GoogleDrive comes to my mind. (Grrr, rotten Google)