Microsoft WebView Is Not Privacy

[8374954]

Likely portmaster V2 can block internet access for microsoft webview, but why rely on it in the first place? This question has been asked before and i'm sure many users dislike it but safing and ivpn don't seem to care. What is the current status of V2, can it run without microsoft webview? I'm still on V1 and intend to keep it that way unless there is a way to use V2 without being forced to use microsoft webview. I spent ALOT of time hardening windows and would rather keep the system clean from junk.

[eabase]

Using Microsoft anything is a terror. I just recently found out that Docker VM built-in to Android Studio is contacting MarkMonitor.com data collecting servers owned by Newfold Digital. Zero privacy!

[8374954]

Using Microsoft anything is a terror. I just recently found out that Docker VM built-in to Android Studio is contacting MarkMonitor.com data collecting servers owned by Newfold Digital. Zero privacy!

Yes. You are 100% correct, anything microsoft is legal malware. However there are ways to modify a windows os to such an extent so that it will be completely silent, meaning it won't phone home to MS at all. I know this for a fact because i've done it, highly recommend the privacy.sexy website which let's you generate a script to rip the guts of microsoft out of windows. Also with portmaster you gain control over all network traffic, i see the connections and there is only a single one that attempts to phone home coming from svchost.exe and this one connection is blocked by portmaster. I'm running windows, but i've replaced all the inbuilt apps/programs with better alternatives. Microsoft edge webview does NOT exist on this system. And i'd like to keep it this way. It would be to ironic if the program that protects my privacy from microsoft, forced me into installing ms-edge-webview.

[eabase]

Interesting. https://github.com/undergroundwires/privacy.sexy

I filed a feature request there: https://github.com/undergroundwires/privacy.sexy/issues/615

And will file the same here.

[8374954]

@stenya @Raphty @dhaavi @vlabo

I don't mean to disrespect you @Safing but i must ask if there is ANY option to use portmaster V2 without microsoft webview?

[eabase]

@8374954

Just out of curiosity.

• Is Webview OSS?
• What is the main issues with it (apart just being from MS)?
• Why was it added and integrated to Portmaster?

[Minoresa]

@8374954

Just out of curiosity.

* Is Webview OSS?

* What is the main issues with it (apart just being from MS)?

* Why was it added and integrated to Portmaster?

Hi, i think ms-webview will alway be active on the system. Atleast the webview process will always run as long as portmaster runs which means permanently. Eliminating webview from portmaster would actually be a really welcome change. Myself i am also running V1 for this reason.

[eabase]

@Minoresa

Thank you. Doing a simple search on it, doesn't look very good.

[stenya]

@8374954

Just out of curiosity.

• Is Webview OSS?
• What is the main issues with it (apart just being from MS)?
• Why was it added and integrated to Portmaster?

https://github.com/safing/portmaster/issues/1932#issuecomment-3211871543

[stenya]

For those who intentionally removed the WebView component from their system, there is a way to use the Portmaster user interface from any web browser.

Steps:

1. Manually enable “Development Mode” in the Portmaster configuration by modifying the file C:\ProgramData\Portmaster\config.json.

Example file content:

{
  "core": {
    "devMode": true
  }
}

2. Start the PortmasterCore service.

Run the following command from a Command Prompt with administrative privileges:

sc start PortmasterCore

Alternatively, you can start it using the mouse via Task Manager → Services.

3. Open the Portmaster UI in a web browser. Open the following link in your browser: http://127.0.0.1:817/

[8374954]

Thanks, while not an ideal solution this is certainly a great alternative to running microsoft webview. I will try installing an additional webbrowser, block its network access entirely and only allow http://127.0.0.1:817/

Yet i do not understand why webview was integrated to portmaster in the first place? V1 runs flawless without it, why does V2 need it?

[johnnyburnaway]

See the thread @stenya referenced above. It is extensively discussed and answered there. Main comment to answer this: https://github.com/safing/portmaster/issues/1932#issuecomment-3211871543

[eabase]

Yet i do not understand why webview was integrated to portmaster in the first place?

From this comment:

The choice for switch to Tauri, which brings the Webview requirement was made by the original Safing team, not the new developer group at IVPN. We were aware of this choice, accepted it and stand by it, it won't be reverted in the v2 version. There is no ulterior or secondary motive for this choice (we received some questions around this via support). We are not in contact with, funded by, share or sell data to, ie. have no relationship with Microsoft or any other company. It's simply a Tauri dependency.

See:

• https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri
• https://tauri.app/start/

Tauri is a framework for building tiny, blazingly fast binaries for all major desktop platforms. Developers can integrate any front-end framework that compiles to HTML, JS and CSS for building their user interface. The backend of the application is a rust-sourced binary with an API that the front-end can interact with.

The user interface in Tauri apps currently leverages tao as a window handling library on macOS, Windows, Linux, Android and iOS. To render your application, Tauri uses WRY, a library which provides a unified interface to the system webview, leveraging WKWebView on macOS & iOS, WebView2 on Windows, WebKitGTK on Linux and Android System WebView on Android.