privoxy/firefox

[ADB]

FF does SOCKS 5 securely, so I don't see why you couldn't. The only 
reason I do is because I'm paranoid and use Squid to filter out some 
http headers. Squid doesn't  know SOCKS, so I need privoxy for 
http--->socks translation. Unless you're doing what I just described, 
you shouldn't have to.
~Andrew

Arrakis Tor wrote:

>Other than not having cookies blocked, Is there anything to lose by
>not having privoxy installed, and using firefox as its own sock5
>proxy? Does this compromise security by dns headers?
>
>This is in reference to:
>http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/FireFoxUsage
>
>
>
>  
>