Problems with Web Browsers

This weekend I finally decided to start to build my own web browser.

Actually I've thought about it for quite a while, because I really don't agree where the Web and how it is used is going. Due to my work of being a software engineer, most of the time I do browse the web in order to find articles, read articles and papers about topics, and discussions of problems on reddit and stackoverflow.

That's it, quite literally that's what I use the web browser for over 90% of the time. I don't regularly use social networks much (only max once per week, probably even less) because I think they are a waste of my precious time.

But when I do, I always use their mobile variants instead of the "real" ones. So I'm using or , for example - because the normal websites are so much pain to use and they annoy me most of the time with all their ads and useless scripts that prevent me from efficiently consuming their content.

Web Extensions

In the beginning of last year - in 2018 - I decided to give the Firefox Quantum release a go. Before that I was using Ungoogled Chromium most of the time.

I realized that Chromium is very limited when it comes to the interception of requests and modifying the network flow, so by concept most of the Web Extensions cannot protect you from advertisement networks.

As the default behaviour on what a Web Browser does is literally the most optimistic case (in everything they implemented over the last decades, they never learn) I am forced to use Web Extensions.

The Web Extensions that make the interwebz somewhat usable are :

HTTPS Everywhere because Browsers are idiots. Period. This extension does nothing else than replacing http:// with https:// in every URL that the user types in. I think Web Browsers should've done that a long time ago.

uBlock Origin because it allows to filter advertisements by using community-maintained filter lists.

uBlock Origin by default has support for host block lists and adblock-filter rules (that are applied to the DOM after it was loaded, not before) to block elements and scripts via a selector. These are community-maintained, but they are of very good quality.

The issue is that a Browser Extension cannot modify the loaded HTML, and can only modify the parsed DOM. So that's why there exists an Anti-Anti-Anti-Adblocker somewhere already.

uMatrix to make uBlock Origin usable. Most of the time, I block everything except whitelisted, trusted websites that I visit regularly.

This is actually a problem of the naive Web Browser that allows iframes, tracking cookies, advertisement networks and WebRTC-abusing network traces by default. uMatrix allows to flexibly set that with a clickable matrix instead of some weird filter rule syntax nobody that's not a developer can understand. Even though, the matrix isn't understandable at first, so you have to adapt your thinking to that as well.

Decentraleyes to fix cache-busting CDNs. Most CDNs on the web actually abuse cache-busting in order to track their users.

That means they do not use correct ETag or Last-Modified-Since flows and let the Browser always do a completely new request for the identical assets that have not changed for years. The extension has a very limited understanding of what is an asset, as there's no API for that in any kind of Web most of the time it's actually still loading stuff from .

Cookie Autodelete to delete cookies that I do not want websites to store. It allows whitelisting websites, so only trusted websites can store login data, sessions, or tracking cookies.

Mobile Internet

Okay, now let's talk straight about the situations you cannot change. In Europe Internet Service Providers are ridiculously expensive, they are even more expensive when it comes to providing mobile internet.

Additionally, there was no legal way to provide free Wi-Fi without the owner of the router being responsible for what a script kiddie does on its internet connection.

The initiative of freifunk fought a 3-years-long legal battle in front of the state to get the right to provide a free internet connection for everyone by abusing a loophole that ISPs are not responsible for their users; and that freifunk as a legal club ( e.V. aka eingetragener Verein ) now is officially being treated as an Internet Service Provider. This process took very, very long, and odds are very much against you that you can be your own ISP. So there's not much of a free Wi-Fi that's not coming with injected ads and TLS certificates provided by the money-making machine.

So, when talking about high-speed mobile internet, the flat rates for mobile are actually no flat rates. They are always limited with a volume. Once you exceed that volume (I do that on the first day of the month within less than two hours, always), you are very much back to the 1960s with your very unstable 4 kibi Bytes per second.

When an internet connection is throttled, the Domain Name System protocol will be compromised as well. That is not only the case with throttled internet connections, but with all mobile connections, always, even while you feed the dragon hundreds of bucks a month to keep your 5 Giga Bytes for the next 30 days.

They do so by setting the TTL (time to live) header field to 0 seconds in order to let the Web Browser forget the IP of the domain you've just requested.

So the network flow will always look like this.

Browser:  What is the IP of ""?
Internet: Hey, it's ""!
Browser:  Okay, gonna do a request to "" now.
Browser:  Oh, found a CSS file.
Browser:  What is the IP of "" again?
Internet: Hey, it's ""!
Browser:  Okay, now loading the second CSS file.
Browser:  What is the IP of "" again?
Internet: Hey, it's ""!

(... and so on ...)

... and it will continue to do so with - every - single - request.

Additionally, every request that is done - ever - will receive data after an initial 30 seconds response timeout . And every mobile connection has a maximum of 4 parallel sockets whereas all other sockets are timing out after 2 minutes when more than one socket exceeds the bandwidth limit.

As there is no easy way to do this in a Web Browser (it's only configurable anyhow in Firefox's about:config with around 20 different options for each protocol and situation) the underlying problem is that when switching a connection it takes at least 10 minutes until you have configured everything correctly.

Firefox Network Settings

The screenshot is somewhat cropped together, because there's no easy way to do these mobile internet settings in a single search and/or all together. I probably forgot one of the dozens of entries I had to override to make it work, and I'm sorry about that... but it's literally totally undocumented and you will only know about its perks and tweaks when you are faced with yet another useless error message.

Also, you cannot use Chromium because Chromium keeps doing shitty requests to that you have to blacklist in your /etc/hosts file. Otherwise you will have to wait for your Web Extensions to update, all the fucking time. And a couple of Mega Bytes should not be underestimated at 4 Kibi Bytes , on failed requests it will continue back from scratch, because google's download servers do not have Content-Range or bytes= range requests support.

It's so annoying that I actually forked and rewrote a DNS Proxy that tried to fix at least parts of it and that maintains its own hosts file, but soon enough I came to realize that a DNS cache without the why it was loaded is pretty senseless and stupid and will waste a lot of traffic anyways. Let alone the UX problem of telling a user to override a specific host with in order to be able to use Chromium with it.

There is no such thing as a working DNS filter aand cache without the why it was loaded. The why decides what to refresh, when to refresh and how to refresh. Otherwise it won't work. Literally, never ever. If dev ops guys say differently, they ain't knowing shit about what they talk.

So in my personal opinion, the DNS cache has to be maintained by the Web Browser in an intelligent and peer-to-peer manner.

TCP Connections

Additionally, when using a mobile internet connection, TCP ( Transmission Control Protocol ) is broken as well. When you try to use something like a Sweden VPN in order to get your neutral internet connection back, Internet Service Providers will fuck that up as well.

Every TCP connection to a bordering country will be flagged for manual intervention by the feds (I know that for sure, as I've seen Gotham and the systems behind it). Additionally, the Internet Service Provider will slow that bandwidth down as much as possible by injecting TCP RST ( Rest ) packets.

Those packets will be packets without content, they are just literally telling the client something like "Hold on, I need more time". These packets are injected to slow down the connection, as it's not possible to request anything else on this socket until it times out. Well, and they set the timeout to the maximum limit possible.

If you don't believe me, try typing via Remote SSH on a Sweden VPS. It's so annoying that you will smash your keyboard after a couple minutes. If you ask the Internet Service Providers about why it's that way, nobody knows anything. They will always deny it. But when using a DSL connection of the very same Internet Service Provider, it will magically work.

UDP Connections

Most people in the South American area are using the UDP Tunnel idea in order to get back their uncensored internet. As ISPs there are flagging and slowing down TCP connections as well, their solution to the problem is using a UDP socket via mobile internet connection.

As Internet Service Providers are always allowing UDP (because it's their means of how to track their users) there'll always be an unlimited UDP socket on port 53 . Literally, this is how you can get unlimited internet bandwidth on mobile, and how to break out of your throttled internet. BTW it works in Europe, too.

The downside is that most internet connections will become very, very unstable. As packet loss is killer for UDP, you will have at least 20% unsuccessful HTTP requests and/or TLS protocol errors inside the Web Browser. So that's no practical solution, at least not with the current state of Web Browsers.

Socket Timeouts

Networking on mobile internet connections are always unstable, so you have to assume that a socket isn't for granted and that when a response doesn't come within time you can assume it didn't work.

Most concepts on how this part is implemented currently has a fixed value in the sense that a static timeout is set and assumed to work in every future case.

That is not the case on mobile internet connections, as there might be stable connections temporarily, but not always. It's a time-dependent problem, so it must be dynamically adapted, and not statically set.

All Web Browsers and all networking stacks that I know of do that particularly wrong, so most of the time you as a user keep waiting for literally 10 minutes before you can open a new socket again, and then the Web Browser realizes "Oh shit, I can actually do a request".

Before the socket times out, you cannot do so. If a single request to a website or asset and script failed, you end up with waiting time. You cannot even influence this by resetting your Wi-Fi or whatever network interface. Literally, this is annoying as fuck and there's no solution to the problem in current Web Browsers.

Also, waiting for 10 minutes isn't enough. After that you will have to reload the whole page again, so the Browser Cache will be flushed and you start from scratch. When being online on EDGE/2G only, a website will successfully download around 20% of the time. And quite literally, when the Browser loads web advertisements, it gets exponentially worse.

Error Handling

The Web Browser is a little retard. Every time an error happens it assumes that the user magically knows what to do when it shows an error message.

The simplification of those error pages by telling "Could not connect to the website" doesn't magically make it work, dear Web Browser designers. A little dinosaur won't make it work either.

Firefox Network Connection Error

In these error cases that happen very often when being online on mobile, most of the time it is solved by doing another request and then packet loss is temporarily less than before and it will work again. But, as Web Browsers are retards, they will redirect the whole fucking tab to the error page when a sub-request anywhere on the website or its requested assets or scripts failed.

If it can't load the advertisement networks' cookie notification for European users, it will literally black out the whole Tab and show nothing; forcing the user to reload the whole website again. And requesting again is bad, because Web Browser caches are little retards, too.

Firefox Network Protocol Error

Web Browser Cache

Okay, now it's getting very hard to stay objective here. Literally, this is the most frustrating part ever when it comes to talking about Web Browsers and how they work.

Every time there's a Web Browser cache issue the Web Browser devs delegate the problem to the developer's side, saying that they are implementing HTTP/HTTPS/whatever wrong and send the wrong response headers to some special requests that they introduced.

For a while there was the Cache Manifest specification, but as every Web Browser ignored that quite literally, the W3C gave up on that, too.

So, when it comes to Browser Cache, the Browser always relies on the correct implementation of the complete HTTP specification. If there's one of possibly thousands of mistakes in there, it won't work. Literally that is why the Web Browser always does requests to and why static CDNs are not really static, actually.

Current Browsers always assume the Best Case Scenario here without any kind of graceful implementations and intelligent algorithms here, which is very bad. Never trust a website developer to be an all-knowing godlike being. Never, ever. It's simply impossible to know everything regarding Web Browser APIs.

The Web Extension Decentraleyes somehow tries to fix that, but whitelisting the internet with a delay of two weeks until it's available for end-users again isn't really how it's supposed to be possible at all.

So when talking about working Browser Cache...

I'm using as I don't agree with the annoying JavaScript-based overlays on the new website. The code of all assets regarding didn't change for over two years now, and yet the Web Browser keeps requesting stuff from . How's that even possible?

Firefox Cache on Mobile Internet

In the screenshot you'll see only the filtered website already (without any advertisements or API requests that are not necessary to display the web page). All of the assets and scripts were downloaded before and should've been in the Web Browser Cache.

Literally, all requests except the initial HTML file did not change for years. And those 4 minutes waiting time will happen on every single link that I will click, even on the same website.

Even when assuming that web developers always know the correct implementation of HTTP/HTTPS headers and what you as a Web Browser are assuming (they can't know because there are no docs on that, actually. You have to read the browser's code base which is literally beyond 20 Giga Bytes in size these days) you still could handle it more intelligently than that.

For example, make a statistic of how often this very specific URL was requested because missing headers said so, and just +1 that rank every time it is requested. After a million requests without a change in Content-Length , it will be blacklisted and not requested anymore. I bet even this stupid algorithm would be more efficient than how both Firefox and Chromium work these days.

Web Browser APIs

I realize that the Web Browsers got a bit awesome, too. Being able to create fancy WebGL games, rendering a lot of effects, animating the shit out of that transforms and having dynamic web chats is indeed very awesome.

But, with great power comes great responsibility.

And you cannot do so by default. If advertisement networks start to track their users via ultrasonic sound that's playing on a website in the background, leaking their private network information via WebRTC turtle routers that they own, creating an all-recording speech-to-text protocol of what the user said during the visit of their website while he's been on an Android App that loaded the very same advertisements of the very same advertisement network, leaking even GPS and IMEI information ... is not what I think is a responsible thing to allow as a Web Browser developer.

This is the golden age of spy agencies. Think about it, back during the Nazi regime they had to hire people and physical neighbors to listen to your dirty secrets. These days they have that for free, because Web Browser devs don't give a shit about their users.

I personally cannot stress enough how important the right to privacy and the right to disallow self-incrimination is. It is the foundation of what I believe in and what I think societies should embrace, no matter on which planet or country they are.

I also cannot stress enough how wrong it is to allow all those Web API features by default and removing the power of decision from the user and moving it to the website owners and financially motivated corporations.

If somebody was listening to you with a microphone on the street, all the time pushing the mic right into your face and trying to sell you online casino-related shit you don't need and taking notes when you kiss your girlfriend... would you tolerate it?

Probably not.

Why are you tolerating it in the Web then? I mean, come on. You gotta have to wonder how Google and Palantir get their data at some point. They are "free" as in "self-prostitution" for a reason.

This has to change. And if Web Browser devs aren't willing to listen, I have to change it myself.

The Semantic Web

The Semantic Web was an idea, and it kind of never made it into the real world. But I really admired the idea and I think it's important to know about it when talking about the Why of Web Browser behaviour.

Back in the days when I learned HTML, CSS and JavaScript, things weren't so dynamic and more of static nature.

The general idea was to embrace HTML for content, CSS for design and JavaScript for behaviour in order to make websites accessible for people that cannot read or see the same way as you do.

I'm also talking about blind people here, these use "Web Browsers" like JAWS or similar which include screen readers and can navigate through elements and paragraphs with short cuts. Some of them also have braille integration, so that they can read it with their finger tips.

But, as most screen readers use trident 6.0, it's based on a very outdated Internet Explorer that can't do shit and won't understand shit about shit.

The major problem I have with HTML5 is that Web Browsers at some point decided that XHTML was not worth going for because of the lack of "forgiving mistakes in parsing".

Remember when Opera had a weird XML parser message with the yellow background and red colored text everywhere? That's what I'm talking about.

When a website developer didn't know their stuff about creating a validating XHTML website, these kind of parser errors happened.

So, XForms and related specifications embracing easily parseable XML-like structures was dropped and SGML-like structures was the way to go now. Also known as living standard and HTML5 where you have to do redundant shit and polyfills all the time. But that's not the point and I'm ignoring it here.

Personally, I liked the idea about the Semantic Web because it created relational data and meaning of content. The content was completely parseable and "polishable" in an automated manner. Web Browsers could literally understand the content, even before the age of Reinforcement NLP AIs that are still not quite there yet.

The advantages of embracing the Semantic Web are unimaginable. Things like "Wanna print the website and store it in your bookshelf? No problem." or "Wanna summarize the page real quick for me?" would have been for free.

The Knowledge Web

But sadly, HTML5 doesn't give shit about shit. These days literally not even stackoverflow can be printed out and even has no print stylesheets. A website that has the only purpose of transfering knowledge.

What the fuck?

StackOverflow's Print Preview

When I got online, the first website I visited was MIT OpenCourseWare .

I was 12 at the time, and I downloaded literally everything interesting I could find. The next month, our internet plan (which had 5 Giga Bytes volume) was overdue by 20 Giga Bytes .

My parents were not so happy, and actually tried to block me from accessing the internet but realized it was a bad idea when I hacked the computer at the city's library in order to access to MIT OpenCourseWare.

Yes, the police incriminated me for that and yes, I was processed. Thanks, society.

It literally still gives me the chills when I think about MIT OpenCourseWare or the Internet Archive .

These people are the good guys. Free knowledge. All knowledge. All ideas that humanity had ever. Literally at my fingertips. I only have to ask the correct question and learn How to Ask .

From building an indoor cleaning robot to building a space rocket. Everything's there. How amazing is that?

The Back To Reality Web

Sadly, Web Browsers ignore that very factor completely. When I visited a website and I'm offline afterwards, I cannot access that knowledge anymore. I can't find shit using the search in the address bar, and I cannot even find my goddamn bookmarked websites.

I probably have been to the exact same article on stackoverflow about the exact same problem and solution hundreds of times. I even bookmarked it, yet I can only access it by searching for it again on Google.

What the fuck?

I think this can be done better. I wish that the Web Browser had an automated integration for 404 Not Found errors on the Web.

For example, why not query the Internet Archive with the URL? If it's there, offer the possibility for the user to download the latest archived version of the website.

Well, or just correctly cache it in the first place.

Tholian Stealth

All in all I probably forgot about dozens of annoyances on why I started to create my own Web Browser.

The Too Long Didn't Read version of this article is probably I think Web Browsers do suck and they do it wrong, and I want to make the internet semantic and awesome again.

So I started to implement my own peer-to-peer Web Browser under the name Tholian Stealth and it's not even working yet.

The planned architecture filters out all stuff that a website doesn't need to make it readable, so it will also probably drop support for JavaScript entirely and filter that out as well.

Stealth Browser Settings

The idea is to have a peer-to-peer knowledge-aware Web Browser that can and will share resources among other machines in the local network, allowing an intelligent offline cache that will lead to less bandwidth usage and will allow to search the local web archive when you need answers to the same question on stackoverflow again.

It will also be a Web Browser that drops support for JavaScript, Cookies and everything entirely by design. It tries to bring back the Semantic Web and filter out all things you don't need to understand the content of the website.

Things like JavaScript, WebGL, WebRTC or Web Fonts are completely filtered out on purpose to speed up the download process. The idea is to do that on HTML-level, so that the cached files do not have to be post-processed and can be reused later in an offline manner.

There's simply no way to filter out all that crap that advertisement networks will do to abuse Web APIs, so things like Web Logins, sessions, commenting and everything that came after the Web 2.0 hype will probably only be realized by trusted plugins that will use the website's API instead of using their JavaScript files.

At least, that's the plan for now.

The project is in its very infancy, so there's not much to see yet. I'm probably going to write an article about it once it's ready for the public.

If you have feedback, critiques or comments about the architecture or design, please let me know in the issues of the project.