mozilla.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Basic touch screen plus Firefox mouse gestures? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-27 03:31 · Score: 0 · on Apple Awarded Patent For iPhone Interface

Ok, so the first version of Firefox's "Mouse Gestures" came out on July 26, 2004 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/39#version-0.9.20040725. Which is before this patent was filed. So if we found evidence of someone using mouse gestures with a touch screen monitor, would that constitute prior art?

Heck, it goes back further than that. Perhaps Apple should be paying Opera a license fee?

Basic touch screen plus Firefox mouse gestures? by HockeyPuck · 2009-01-26 18:40 · Score: 2, Informative · on Apple Awarded Patent For iPhone Interface

Ok, so the first version of Firefox's "Mouse Gestures" came out on July 26, 2004 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/39#version-0.9.20040725. Which is before this patent was filed. So if we found evidence of someone using mouse gestures with a touch screen monitor, would that constitute prior art?

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript by BikeHelmet · 2009-01-26 14:45 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 8 RC1

I don't have a computer with IE7/8 on it. For those, I use IE NetRenderer.

http://ipinfo.info/netrenderer/

Addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6455

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 10:30 · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 8 RC1

Thank God Firefox makes supporting standards such a high priority.

Re:A wikipedia that was "cool like that" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:58 · Score: 0 · on Edit-Approval System Proposed For English-Language Wikipedia

Edit your userContent.css, or install the Stylish plugin. http://www.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html#usercss .metadata {display: none !important;}

Noscript by Don_dumb · 2009-01-24 21:22 · Score: 1 · on Downadup Worm — When Will the Next Shoe Drop?

I can't believe people still haven't heard of Noscript
It (along with adblock plus) is the reason Firefox is the most secure browser.

Re:Keep spreading lies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-24 13:39 · Score: 0 · on Downadup Worm — When Will the Next Shoe Drop?

Noscript ftw.

Captcha: installs

Just offer some money and you're fine by bratgitarre · 2009-01-24 10:13 · Score: 1 · on Mozilla Labs Wants To Monitor (Volunteers') Firefox Use

Just offer a small compensation from the multi-million dollar Mozilla Foundation budget and people will volunteer. As Schneier said, "If McDonald's offered a free Big Mac for a DNA sample, there would be lines around the block."

Re:Apples and Oranges by weston · 2009-01-22 15:45 · Score: 4, Informative · on Survey Says C Dominated New '08 Open-Source Projects

Why throw JavaScript in there? The rest are server-side languages, while JavaScript is client-side.

Two reasons I can think of:

1) An increasing amount of number of applications are being delivered via the web browser
2) JavaScript increasingly lives a number of other places besides the browser. See Rhino, JScript.NET, Seed, and probably a few other places I'm not thinking of right now.

Javascript: A *Good* Language by hdon · 2009-01-20 07:11 · Score: 2, Informative · on Building Linux Applications With JavaScript

But javascript is an awfully convoluted language. Why does it become easy when you put a language like that into the equation?

To put it bluntly: "Because a lot of people already know it." ... The problem with attracting developers is that so many of them these days have went on to develop web applications with awful scripting languages like Javascript...

You know what I don't think this is accurate at all. Javascript is actually a very elegant language, what is convoluted is the "web" platform.

Re:Is it FUD if there's some truth to it? by MrMr · 2009-01-20 02:47 · Score: 1 · on The In-Progress Plot To Kill Google

If your search history worries you try: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173

Re:Removing IE poses one very significant problem by seeker_1us · 2009-01-19 11:20 · Score: 1 · on EC Considering Removing Internet Explorer From Windows

What if I build by own systems?

Then you are tech savvy enough to use this.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Re:The article doesn't describe the actual exploit by citizenr · 2009-01-16 06:34 · Score: 1 · on Phishing For Bank Info Without Any Pesky Malware

https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Same_origin_policy_for_JavaScript
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy
cant just grab pages at random in javascript

Re:Ban Pop-ups by robo_mojo · 2009-01-15 18:42 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Phishing For Bank Info Without Any Pesky Malware

Javascript alerts would be fine, as long as they would stay only with their own content and not interrupt other tabs/windows or other programs on the system.

There is a very long-standing bugzilla bug about this for Mozilla, you can read:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59314
Bug 59314 - Alerts should be content-modal, not window-modal

(comment #39 describes a security problem that sounds similar to the problem here)

Lots of good ideas in that page about how alerts could be handled differently. I like the one where the alert becomes an infobar. If you aren't on that tab when the alert happens, you won't be forced to see it, and it can't interrupt anything else you're doing.

In the meantime, closing all open browser windows before you visit your bank site is still the safest thing to do.

Re:Wikipedia Search = Sucky by Eighty7 · 2009-01-14 11:15 · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia Gears Up For Explosion In Digital Media

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2517

Re:Product dumping by Tubal-Cain · 2009-01-12 14:53 · Score: 2, Interesting · on How Microsoft Beats GNU/Linux In Schools

I would say its not hard to believe that market use of Linux/BSD on the desktop rival this at least.

I would.

Honestly I am not sure how people are counting number of Linux/BSD desktop/laptop users since there is no license to buy.

The current favored method is tracking web users across large collections of websites through cookies and the browser's User Agent.

Linux has <1% marketshare and declining (enable javascript for hitslink if you use NoScript)
Of course, this metric is skewed somewhat by the fact that Firefox users can fake their user agent (for sites like fafsa.ed.gov, for instance)

...then go using one copy of a download to install numerous times/instances.

Is that so very different from your average XP install?

According to the Apple site, a copy of Leopard costs $129.

To be pedantic, that is supposed to be an upgrade disc.

Re:Hardcore Slashdotters won't notice... by socsoc · 2009-01-12 03:22 · Score: 1 · on New Google Favicon Deja Vu All Over Again?

It's called Smart Bookmarks

Re:Hardcore Slashdotters won't notice... by DeathCarrot · 2009-01-12 02:45 · Score: 1 · on New Google Favicon Deja Vu All Over Again?

On a related note, I have been storing all of my favorites on the bookmark bar (or whatever it is called). As more sites are using the "favicon", it has been helpful to just edit the bookmark and remove the title altogether (leaving just the icon). You can fit a lot of favorites in the toolbar in this manner.

Check out the Smart Bookmarks extension if you're on Firefox. Allows you to do that and more without renaming your bookmarks.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-10 15:08 · Score: 0 · on Google Releases Chrome 2.0 Pre-Beta

But don't just get all high-and-mighty about how advertising is for suckers, while posting to a site that wouldn't exist without it with a browser that wouldn't exist without it.

Absolutely. And it's probably worth noting: 88% of Mozilla revenue [PDF 62kB] comes from those ads.

Re:Local software solution instead by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 12:57 · Score: 0 · on OpenID Fan Club Is Shrinking

PasswordMaker for Firefox. Give one password and it will generate irreversible password hashes for each site you visit. Stores nothing on your computer by default so there is nothing to crack.

Re:I noticed a dhs.org redirect once by Jherek+Carnelian · 2009-01-06 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful · on A Peek At DHS's Files On You

More likely your browser was pre-fetching search results and one of your search results was on a dhs.gov web page.

Re:Web ads have themselves to blame by CodeBuster · 2009-01-05 06:00 · Score: 1 · on How Web Advertising May Go

The problem with the hosts file is that the advertisers keep switching servers and IP ranges in an attempt to dodge host based filtering. A better solution is a browser extension, such as AdBlock Plus with subscription lists and support for regular expression based filtering.

Re:More intrusive ads for the same revenue? by CodeBuster · 2009-01-05 05:54 · Score: 1 · on How Web Advertising May Go

That is why NoScript is a must have add-on for Firefox. Combine with AdBlock Plus for an especially effective prescription against subversive scripts and annoying ads.

Re:More intrusive ads for the same revenue? by CodeBuster · 2009-01-05 05:54 · Score: 1 · on How Web Advertising May Go

That is why NoScript is a must have add-on for Firefox. Combine with AdBlock Plus for an especially effective prescription against subversive scripts and annoying ads.

Awfulbar by gumpish · 2009-01-03 15:45 · Score: 0, Troll · on Open Source Victories of 2008

Some, like Firefox 3, we can probably mostly agree on.

Not really. I mean, intentionally making your product less functional (with no way to restore the stripped functionality) generally isn't a good thing.

Awfulbar by gumpish · 2009-01-03 15:45 · Score: 0, Troll · on Open Source Victories of 2008

Some, like Firefox 3, we can probably mostly agree on.

Not really. I mean, intentionally making your product less functional (with no way to restore the stripped functionality) generally isn't a good thing.

Re:Taking a harder line on certs. by ArsenneLupin · 2009-01-03 06:23 · Score: 1 · on Do the SSL Watchmen Watch Themselves?

When he told me (paraphrased) that they "KNOW the entity they give a cert to isn't committing fraud because they have to sign a LEGAL DOCUMENT that says they aren't!"

A marketroid spouting nonsense about technical matters. What else is new?

Of course, you and I know that a CA is supposed to verify identity of the party that they're issuing a certificate to, not its trustworthiness (unless they're issuing a sub-CA certificate, but that's a different matter). Much misunderstanding does indeed come from this misconception of a CA's role.

Of course, https is screwed up anyway because of the way it munges security and authenticity together. Ideally, browser and server should immediately do a key exchange, then once the connection is encrypted, perform optional authentication after the browser sends the host field. The lock icon should indicate encryption and authentication separately.

Ok, now you seem to fall prey to the same misconception. Without being sure about the identity of the party your communicating with, there can be no security. Think about it.

You could be talking to an interloper who does nothing else than pass your messages to your bank, and your bank's messages to you. And take notes, of course.

That's what's is called a man-in-the-middle-attack. And apparently they're not just the stuff of some James-Bond movie, but occasionally do happen in real life. Here, a prankster was setting up an open Wifi honeyspot and rigged it to eavesdrop on SSL communications. Of course, Firefox caught the bad certificates, which the victim dutifully shrugged off and filed as a bug. Haha. Or maybe it was a trawl, she did indeed mention that she was "bumming off an unsecured Wifi access point" a leetle bit too early in the thread...

Without public key verification (either by certificate, or by manually comparing fingerprints) there can be no security against such attacks.

Re:A Better "Web of Trust" by ArsenneLupin · 2009-01-03 06:01 · Score: 1 · on Do the SSL Watchmen Watch Themselves?

What about simply creating a better web of trust?

Congratulations!

You Sir have just re-invented CaCert. CaCert is a certification authority which operates by a web-of-trust model: users certify each other after seeing id, and only users having gathered a minimum amount of assurance points can get a certificate.

Unfortunately, CaCert is not trusted by the browsers (such as Mozilla or Konqueror), who seem to be more hung up about expensive audits and pompous root key signing ceremonies.

Other CA's, such as Comodo/CertStar or RapidSSL/GeoTrust don't seem to have any problems being blessed by browsers though. Thanks to these fly-by-nighters it's still very easy to mount an Mitm attack using your open Wifi honeypot, which will be undetectable, unlike this poser here.

Re:A Better "Web of Trust" by ArsenneLupin · 2009-01-03 06:01 · Score: 1 · on Do the SSL Watchmen Watch Themselves?

What about simply creating a better web of trust?

Congratulations!

You Sir have just re-invented CaCert. CaCert is a certification authority which operates by a web-of-trust model: users certify each other after seeing id, and only users having gathered a minimum amount of assurance points can get a certificate.

Unfortunately, CaCert is not trusted by the browsers (such as Mozilla or Konqueror), who seem to be more hung up about expensive audits and pompous root key signing ceremonies.

Other CA's, such as Comodo/CertStar or RapidSSL/GeoTrust don't seem to have any problems being blessed by browsers though. Thanks to these fly-by-nighters it's still very easy to mount an Mitm attack using your open Wifi honeypot, which will be undetectable, unlike this poser here.

Just to back up your point: by jonasj · 2009-01-02 11:43 · Score: 1 · on Google Tells Users To Drop IE6

Firefox manages to run on Mac, Linux, Windows, and BSD.

...and (from a quick google search) AIX, OS/2, Solaris, HP-UX, BeOS, and something called RISCOS that I haven't even heard of before now... and probably more!

Re:You'll see WAR by Spad · 2009-01-01 21:08 · Score: 1 · on IE Market Share Drops Below 70%

The Kitchen Sink, you say?

Mozilla plugins == Active X... by tjstork · 2009-01-01 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful · on IE Market Share Drops Below 70%

Everyone trashes Active X as a security problem while Mozilla plugins get a pass and this is rather silly. The essence of both is that you download a DLL and it runs arbitary code in the process space of the browser (and then hence, often the user). Active X is just a different way of talking to the DLL, nothing more.

If you can run flash plugins, java plugins, and other plugins, inside of a browser, they can and will have the same security problems that plague Active X. It's random binary code that a user gets off of the internet.

SERIOUSLY, ANYONE BITCHING ABOUT ACTIVE X SHOULD JUST READ THIS GODDAMNED LINK.

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/plugins/

IT'S THE SAME FRICKING TECHNOLOGY... UNIDENTIFIED BINARY CODE RUNNING IN THE SAME ADDRESS SPACE AS THE BROWSER.

DUH.

Re:It's spelt Firefox by symbolset · 2008-12-31 17:47 · Score: 1 · on Browser Privacy Test

You do know there's a plugin called Firesomething, right? Call it what you want. Or install Firesomething and "All your branding are belong to Firesomething." Every time it starts it can have a different name.

Yes, it's for 1.x Firefox. There are instructions in the link to fix it so it works with versions up to 4.0.

Flashblock is your friend by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-31 14:45 · Score: 0 · on Browser Privacy Test

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433

Didn't some TLA fund tor development? by Nicolas+MONNET · 2008-12-30 10:37 · Score: 1 · on HP Accused of Illegal Exportation To Iran

TLA=Three Letter Agency
They can use tor to download anything they want from any US server, or they can simply connect to any other countries' mirrors.
That's why reading this is always mind-boggingly hilarious:

This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. laws, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports (including those (a) on the Bureau of Industry and Security Denied Parties List or Entity List, (b) on the Office of Foreign Assets Control list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, and (c) involved with missile technology or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons).

Hm, yeah, right, sure.

Re:Ideally... by badkarmadayaccount · 2008-12-25 02:17 · Score: 1 · on Chrome Complicates Mozilla/Google Love-In

Here you go: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/394

HTH!

Efforts underway to resolve problem. by Animats · 2008-12-23 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative · on Perfect MITM Attacks With No-Check SSL Certs

This subject is being discussed by Firefox developers, Comodo CA people, the person who reported the problem, and somebody named "Patricia" from CertStar, the issuer, here.

Robert Alden of Comodo says they "have suspended Certstar's reseller activities until our investigation has been completed." The CertStar site now says "Due to technical issues we are unable to process orders at this time. We are working hard to resolve the issue and apologize for any convenience caused. Please check back later."

The Mozilla team is discussing revoking some root CA keys.

Re:Certificate revoked already by c_g_hills · 2008-12-23 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative · on Perfect MITM Attacks With No-Check SSL Certs

Update: a bug has been opened to handle this incident. It seems the offending company was spamming, and nowhere did they state that they were a reseller for Comodo, nor were there any ownership checks done before issuing the certificate.

Re:Don't take the bait by hairyfeet · 2008-12-22 12:26 · Score: 1 · on Chrome Complicates Mozilla/Google Love-In

That is why I don't think we have anything to worry about with regards to FF going anywhere. With Chrome, Safari, or IE I have to have a browser THEIR way, and with FF I can have it MY way, which to me is worth a hell of a lot more than some faster Javascript, which I have blocked with Noscript so is kinda pointless to me anyway. With FF I have Forecastfox to keep me abreast of bad weather, I have Noscript and Adblock Plus so I don't need to be irritated by ads, I have video downloader and download statusbar to make videos and downloads nicer, and finally I have FEBE to keep my FF on the desktop synced to my flash.

So while folks can talk about this browser being faster or that browser having a better engine I just can't see anything taking the place of FF for me. And Google would be crazy to cut off the cash to FF because I am sure that MSFT would be more than happy to pay to be the default search engine in FF. So while I have tried Chrome and Opera and think both have nice things to offer, being able to see the web MY way makes FF a no brainer for me.