Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Occasionally I've seen posts with unrecognizable image attachments. The posters always claimed that they did nothing wrong - if they noticed at all.
I now managed to reproduce the problem but don't know how to fix it.
Below are 3 images: The logo mark dowloaded from the this server and 2 screenshots in JPG and PNG taken with mtPaint default setting.

Should be no problem to attach them,right? Let's see:

What I do know is that this is a browser problem. I'm currently posting with Firefox 102.9.0esr. This is the browser preinstalled in @dimkr's Vanilla Dpup 9.3.13
I have the same issue with LibreWolf 110.0

The same images, now posted with Pale Moon 32.0.1

Yes. Same experience for quite some time now.

If I need to add any image to the post, I automatically reach for a browser other than Firefox.

From what I've observed, this is a Firefox issue in general, regardless of the Puppy/dog version.

MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:51 am

The same images, now posted with Pale Moon 32.0.1
index.png
screenshot.png
screenshot.jpg

But the file sizes are reported differently?

MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:40 am

I'm currently posting with Firefox 102.9.0esr.

Feek wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:00 am

From what I've observed, this is a Firefox issue in general, regardless of the Puppy/dog version.

I don't have this problem with Firefox 102.9.0esr on Fossapup64-9.5.

Are the images broken also in the post preview? - Yes.

Edit: found the answer here.

Now:

jscher2000 wrote:

...
(menu bar) Tools > Page Info

When the dialog comes up, click the Permission icon at the top to show that panel.

Near the top, you'll find "Extract Canvas Data" and you can uncheck the "Use default" box and select the Allow permission. (Note: this permission only appears if privacy.resistFingerprinting has been enabled.)

That change is saved immediately. You can close Page Info and it should be effective on your next upload.

Burunduk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:23 am

Are the images broken also in the post preview?

Yes.

I don't have this problem with Firefox 102.9.0esr on Fossapup64-9.5.

I don't have this issue either with Firefox 102.9.0esr on F96-CE-3

It gets even weirder. I'm still on Vanilla Dpup. I mounted the main SFS of F96-CE-3, copied its /opt/FirefoxESR-portable64 folder and now started the included Firefox 102.9.0esr via the LAUNCH script.

Appears to work:

PS: Our posts crossed.

@MochiMoppel :-

Mm. If anything - after what you've just described doing - it sounds more like a problem with the Debian build of Firefox. As I understand it, VanillaDPup uses packages direct from the Debian repos, so my guess is that that is where the issue originates.

I can't say as I've ever noticed it myself, but then FF is NOT my browser of choice; more of a "backup" browser than anything. What I use in the portable packages always comes direct from Mozilla...

Mike.

mikewalsh wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:13 am

... it sounds more like a problem with the Debian build of Firefox. As I understand it, VanillaDPup uses packages direct from the Debian repos, so my guess is that that is where the issue originates.

The privacy.resistFingerprinting setting that breaks uploaded images is set to true in Vanilla Dpup in the /lib/firefox-esr/puppy.cfg file. This authoritative decision can be revoked by deleting the /lib/firefox-esr/defaults/pref/puppy-settings.js file (disables all added changes) or just by flipping the setting in about:config.

Heh.

This is of course the thing about our community.

Any Puppy/Puplet released for public consumption, no matter HOW carefully thought-out & implemented, will always contain a certain number of the author's sub-conscious preferences - and we do all HAVE preferences - whether they acknowledge that fact or not. And given how diverse individuals are, with all of their personal requirements for how things should work, it would be an absolute miracle if any Puppy/Dog/whatever should satisfy everyone in every last little detail. "One man's meat is another man's poison", an' all that....

This is why the ability to modify/customize exists. Goes without saying, really. We're all different (thank God!)

Mike.

MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:40 am

Occasionally I've seen posts with unrecognizable image attachments. The posters always claimed that they did nothing wrong - if they noticed at all.
I now managed to reproduce the problem but don't know how to fix it.
Below are 3 images: The logo mark dowloaded from the this server and 2 screenshots in JPG and PNG taken with mtPaint default setting.

Should be no problem to attach them,right? Let's see:
index.png
screenshot.png
screenshot.jpg

What I do know is that this is a browser problem. I'm currently posting with Firefox 102.9.0esr. This is the browser preinstalled in @dimkr's Vanilla Dpup 9.3.13
I have the same issue with LibreWolf 110.0

When I first joined this forum I posted a few images as attachments, but then it stopped working. I think it may have stopped working after a browser update. I suppose it is also possible it could be a plugin. I normally use FF portable. I am now using Firefox portable 102.15.0esr (64-bit),

Thanks!

So the problem is solved?

Flash wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:29 pm

So the problem is solved?

Apparently the problem persists in Firefox and Librewolf (maybe others). The attachment function works in Palemoon 32.4.0.1 which I just confirmed.
Since it requires a different browser and extra steps if Palemoon is not your normal browser, I would not claim the problem is solved by using Palmoon.
I would call that a workaround.

Thanks!

Flash wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:29 pm

So the problem is solved?

Solved for me in LibreWolff (Menu -> Settings -> LibreWolf -> uncheck "Enable ResistFingerprinting").

Uploads work in firefox 115 if the about:config setting privacy.resistFingerprinting is set to false. Just like before, in firefox 102.

Enabling that setting globally but allowing to "Extract Canvas Data" for this forum only (in the Page Info window) also works.

Good to hear a solution exists, has been found, and that it appears to work for most.

It's not an issue that affects me, personally. I don't think I've ever used the 'Attachments' function for images.....only ever for small .pet packages or tarballs. Where images are concerned, I've always found an image-hosting site to be far more flexible in terms of how I present images along with my posts.....but of course, not everyone has an a/c with such as these. Indeed, many don't want one, preferring instead to use the tools that are provided for the purpose.

Never mind. All's well that ends well, thankfully.

Mike.

mikewalsh wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:21 pm

Good to hear a solution exists, has been found, and that it appears to work for most.

It's not an issue that affects me, personally. I don't think I've ever used the 'Attachments' function for images.....only ever for small .pet packages or tarballs. Where images are concerned, I've always found an image-hosting site to be far more flexible in terms of how I present images along with my posts.....but of course, not everyone has an a/c with such as these. Indeed, many don't want one, preferring instead to use the tools that are provided for the purpose.

Never mind. All's well that ends well, thankfully.

Mike.

I hope someone is making a list somewhere of the browser issues and fixes while using Puppy.

Thanks!

MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:58 pm

Flash wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:29 pm

So the problem is solved?

Solved for me in LibreWolff (Menu -> Settings -> LibreWolf -> uncheck "Enable ResistFingerprinting").

I don't like having to compromise security for the sake of features. I had a job where they used "Microsoft 365" and of course "Outlook". There was a possibility to access work e-mail from an external computer, for example at home. I tried to access my work e-mail from home ONCE. In order to get into the e-mail interface, I had to disable every security feature and plugin in Firefox. That is not acceptable. I can't access some sites because they don't approve of my user agent header, and/or because I disallow 3rd party cookies, or redirects to 3rd party sites. Seriously?

Thanks!

May want to read this:

Why Browser Anti-Fingerprinting Techniques Are Not Effective
https://fingerprint.com/blog/browser-an ... echniques/

Gecko’s (the browser engine behind Firefox and the Tor Browser) fingerprinting protection is a prominent example of the uniformity approach in the real world. The feature is controlled by the privacy.resistFingerprinting flag in the browser’s advanced preferences (about:config). At the time of writing, this feature is still considered experimental and disabled by default in Firefox because, as mentioned in the official documentation: “It is likely that it may degrade your Web experience.”

Governor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:49 pm

I don't like having to compromise security for the sake of features.

I hope you see the irony. On the one hand you are unwilling to disable (even temporarily) a questionable browser "feature" in order to prevent @rockedge 's BB site from spying on you, on the other hand you have no problem to entrust your data to a commercial image hosting site, who's business model it is to grab data from the users. These companies can be useful but they are not charities.

You write that you don't like to be redirected to 3rd party sites. So am I. But that's what you do when you essentially force forum users to click a link to your image hoster. I prefer to stay on the forum site.

MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:55 am

Governor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:49 pm

I don't like having to compromise security for the sake of features.

I hope you see the irony. On the one hand you are unwilling to disable (even temporarily) a questionable browser "feature" in order to prevent @rockedge 's BB site from spying on you, on the other hand you have no problem to entrust your data to a commercial image hosting site, who's business model it is to grab data from the users. These companies can be useful but they are not charities.

You write that you don't like to be redirected to 3rd party sites. So am I. But that's what you do when you essentially force forum users to click a link to your image hoster. I prefer to stay on the forum site.

Paradoxes are plentiful in the computer world. Why should fingerprinting be required to upload an image?
Someone suggested using postimg.cc when I was unable to upload directly.
However, I see your point and if I can't get the upload to work in FF, I will use Palemoon for the uploads.

Thanks!