http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/ms_firefox_extension_row/comments/

I'm not biased :-D but isn't this one of the reasons we Linux users
refuse to use M$ products.
Before I get flamed, I reckon Excel is one of the best spreadsheets
available - it's what wine was built for

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> I'm not biased :-D but isn't this one of the reasons we Linux users
> refuse to use M$ products.

  I don't think anybody has claimed that Firefox is perfect and
security-hole-free.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/ms_firefox_extension_row/comments/

Still doing what? Complaining? Or did MS do something new? I'm still at V1.0 
for that tool.

Or are they "still at" updating the code so you *can* remove it in spite of 
firefox not giving you that option.

> I'm not biased :-D but isn't this one of the reasons we Linux users
> refuse to use M$ products.

Likely, yes. If you don't sufficiently trust your OS, you probably shouldn't 
be running Windows.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I don't think anybody has claimed that Firefox is perfect and
> security-hole-free.

Clearly you haven't heard as many rabid OSS fans as I have. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>> I'm not biased :-D but isn't this one of the reasons we Linux users
>> refuse to use M$ products.
> 
>   I don't think anybody has claimed that Firefox is perfect and
> security-hole-free.
> 

I didn't claim that FF is perfect. What I'm complaining about is the
silent installation of an extension that imposes (and I quote)
> IE-style behaviour on Firefox users, specifically the "ability for
> Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC".

I am also a little bit concerned that the M$ developers didn't seem to
realise the difference between installing for all users and installing
on a per-user basis.

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> I didn't claim that FF is perfect. What I'm complaining about is the
> silent installation of an extension that imposes (and I quote)
> > IE-style behaviour on Firefox users, specifically the "ability for
> > Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC".

  Are you sure the quiet installation of the add-on happens by visiting
a website, rather than it happening by you running an executable installer,
which then silently adds the add-on to Firefox? I thought that the whole
issue was that a Microsoft update, besides installing normal updates to
your Windows system, *also* installed the Firefox add-on without asking.
In other words, you have to run the update installer to get the undesired
add-on, rather than just getting it by visiting a website.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> In other words, you have to run the update installer to get the undesired
> add-on, rather than just getting it by visiting a website.

It comes with the new version (3.5) of the .NET runtime stuff. So yes, the 
installation isn't "silent", but it's a small part of a large bundle of 
updates. Plus, as soon as you start up firefox, firefox tells you it was 
installed and gives you the option to disable it.  So it isn't "silent" in 
any sense of the word, other than being bundled with a lot of stuff you 
might want in a way that makes it hard to take the rest without taking that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Are you sure the quiet installation of the add-on happens by visiting
> a website, rather than it happening by you running an executable installer,
> which then silently adds the add-on to Firefox? I thought that the whole
> issue was that a Microsoft update, besides installing normal updates to
> your Windows system, *also* installed the Firefox add-on without asking.
> In other words, you have to run the update installer to get the undesired
> add-on, rather than just getting it by visiting a website.
> 
No, I said the silent installation of the add-on happened when you
received your normal M$ updates. The add-on itself allows other websites
to install possible malware (as I understand it).
Anyhow, what me care? (c) MAD Magazine. I run Firefox on Linux so it
ain't my problem :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

> The add-on itself allows other websites
> to install possible malware (as I understand it).

Only if the user "Clicks Once" to allow the app to install, and then clicks 
some more times to allow the app to gain an increased security level to do 
malware type things (like writing to the registry and to the disc, 
interacting with other apps etc).  Nothing can happen silently, any more so 
than if someone put a normal .exe on a web server.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> The add-on itself allows other websites
> to install possible malware (as I understand it).

It's software that lets you easily download and install on-disk programs and 
update them whenever the server updates it. I don't know about recent 
versions, but the older versions would go thru the whole windows installer 
dance the first time you tried to use the program.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message