Slashdot Mirror
Security-Updated Versions Of Mozilla Released
petabyte writes "As mentioned in this Mozillazine article, there are new versions of the Mozilla Suite (1.7.2), Mozilla Firefox (0.9.3) and Mozilla Thunderbird (0.7.3) available. They address 4 security bugs (linked from the Mozillazine article). Unlike Firefox 0.9.2, these can't be fixed with just a XPI upgrade, so you'll have to download a new binary and install."
Due to Microsofts previous wealth of experience in fixing security problems, can it be true that their patching process is more effiecient than the Mozilla's?
Why otherwise would it be required to download an entirely new browser to fix a few problems?
I'm getting tired of the whole uninstall, delete, re-install, get plugins, import bookmars, set settings, get skins (optional) routine. I wish they would hurry up and fix the installer so that I could simply update the browser and save all my stuff.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
If things keep going this way we end up with 0.9.55 or seomething. They should think about some patching systems..
I suggest we tell the Mozilla Foundation guys to buy some OReilly security titles and read up, and come back with something that's actually not buggy
Hi, welcome to Firefox beta .93
Anyway, do you think that FF/Moz should take the Windows route and refuse to acknowledge vulnerabilities, and simply hope they pass by with no one else noticing? Please, think a little bit before posting a comment.
i know it'll be an unpopular one about these parts, but: yeah, i'm with you bro. i should only have to click "Upgrade" on the Moz page to get the newest browser. Bitch and moan all you like, that's the way it should be: an icon in the corner: "upgrade now"...you can ignore if you like, you can build from source if you like, but me? Hell, just get me a new browser now....when i click. Yeah, yeah, save me all the "but, if it's just click and go and the security and the users and malware pages"...save it. Code against that, let me upgrade on the fly (restart okay...reboot not-okay) with a click. Tough to do? Hell, look about at the OS that this browser runs on (for the most part at this time): click and do for 'em eh? Not that much to ask. Give 'em a, 'no thanks, i'll do it the hard, trusted, but sure way' button. i'm not banging that in any way...hell, with some packages that's the only way i'll trust 'em. Moz is a safe bet: give us s 'click an' go to the newest version' button k? Yep.
Yeah, Firefox beta, right up there next to Mozilla 1.7.2. Just keep talking about how it's all 'unfinalized, buggy beta software' and I'm sure you'll convince a lot of people to stop using Internet Explorer.
That being said, I'm glad to see the bugs being acknowledged and fixed, even if I don't personally agree with the way some of these bugs have been handled.
Schlock Mercenary
While this is not a showstopper, can somebody explain me why Firefox for mac ever since 0.7 has a problem with Expose feature? IE one can se a small window attached to the main window?
Also, why is it we cannot search the bookmarks in the sidebar wihtout crashinf the whole application?
Small annoyances but we are getting awfully close to 1.0 and still no sign of improvement.
Safari is catching up in terms of speed and is looking ever more appealing!
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
>>What the initial poster was talking about was a motherfucking update, NOT a service pack.
Since when is a service pack not an update?
Update:
1. Information that updates something.
2. The act or an instance of bringing something up to date.
3. An updated version of something.
Now. Please. Tell me how a Service pack doesn't count as an update?
NeoThermic
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
Yeah, i see a lot of people on this list complaining about Mozilla having so many patches... dang, at least they put them out there... also im sure the opensource nature of mozilla/firefox lets many eyes see the bugs... while in IE there could be millions of little goodies that could be exploited and we would never know. I'm just impressed that the coding team has fixed the bugs so quickly. Yes.. they do need to build in a better patching mechanism.. but every project has a few growing pains.
Are you fucking stupid? Every fucking one of those is EASILY an exploit, not of code but of the user.
.jpg before a .exe, and how much shit does MS take for THAT one? Like it's their fault that people are fucking stupid enough to double click on 0wnyourcomputer.jpg.exe. Faked extensions are worse, because they don't even have the fucking .exe at the end.
Fake certificates help in all sorts of scams. Spyware, eBay scams, whatever. "Oh, this is signed by Macromedia. It must be safe!"
Fake extensions. We've all seen the results of simply adding a
Lock icon spoofable. So you go to a site you THINK is secured, but it turns out it isn't. Happy funtime on your credit card!
Not all exploits are code-based, not all exploits are related to software.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Major difference: /., in other media, and a month or so later (if at all) there appears a fix.
- IE vulnerability: you hear about it on
- Mozilla vulnerability: Mozilla foundation announces "we found a vulnerability and have a fix for it" where it is also the first time I hear about it.
And in the rare case it is in the press before there is a bugfix, the fix will be there before the ink is dry.
Wouter.
Prior to 0.9, Firefox was only being updated ever few weeks, with each release holding many fixes since the last release. I think the increase in releases has mainly been due to the fact that in the last month or so the user base of Firefox has gone up dramatically.
I am sure this has put a lot more stress on the Firefox dev team because now people are starting to rely on their browser to be as good as IE and with whole organisations now looking at using Firefox over IE, the pressure must really be on to make sure it lives up to expectations.
Once Firefox hits version 1.0, people will get real shitty if it has bugs and security flaws, so the more they fix during 0.9.+ the better. Until then, I am happy to keep downloading it, daily if needed.
Maybe out on a limb here, but I prefer downloading a new version where security fixes are required. Security fixes need to be right, and right first time. Patching doesn't alway guarantee that.
the patching system for IE must work because MSFT keeps using the incremental patch system. It shouldn't be necessary to download a whole browser just to fix some security bugs. I'm not saying IE is a better browser, I just have to say it's update system is better.
Just wait until Patrick adds a Slack package of 1.7.2 to Slackware-current and get it off a mirror.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
a few KB? what about mshtml.dll, a 2+ Mbyte DLL... iexplore.exe is small, 'cos it's not much more than a dummy dll loader.