Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 2.0 Update To Remove Phishing Detection
An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld and others are reporting that Firefox 2.0.0.19, the last security update to be released before 2.0 goes end-of-life, will remove the phishing detection at the request of Google. The browser is using an older version of the Safe Browsing protocol that Google will discontinue. According to the latest NetApplications report, about 25% of all Firefox users were still on version 2.0. This move ought to result in an increased adoption of Firefox 3.0 and other browsers, unless it goes unnoticed by most users."
Hrm.. I don't think that's the intended use of security updates that causes users to be willing to accept and enable such updates.
In a way, it's a breach of trust if they were intentionally holding back on upgrading to 3.0. Users would be in slightly better shape if they refused to accept this update (at least until Google finally does turn it off).
I anticipate not necessarily a massive increase in users updating to Firefox 3.0, but more likely a massive increase in phishing targetting 2.0 users who still think they're protected (they didn't pay attention to the update release notes).
I consciously refused to upgrade to 3.0-- a number of my extensions and scripts don't work right and it's incredibly ugly in my opinion. Workarounds/alternative settings exist, I'm sure... but how much are people really missing out on by refusing the updates?
Somebody throw in some new phishing detection, for free, already. What else, are you going to do, today, over-use Google, and piss off an ISP?
(sorry about all the commas... I have no idea why I used them)
You just gave a reason for Firefox 2 users not to upgrade to Firefox 3.
The reason not to switch from Firefox 2 to Opera instead (for older systems) is the same reason for Windows '98 users to not switch from MSIE to Firefox.
They are more familiar with their chosen browser, and there is an inherent resistance to switching.
It's ashame the last major, tried and true, stable release of Firefox is EOL'ed so rapidly, in favor of the bleeding-edge FF 3.
What would you think of Microsoft if they had discontinued further security updates for Windows XP in 2007, one year after the release of Vista?
Yes, you have a point there, I can't say you are wrong, but I don't get why wouldn't you give up for something that is newer and works on your older machine (and is supported too) than use what you are used to, but get significantly slower browsing.
I certainly would give up from something that I am used to, to something that works better.
[insert lame sig here]
I still use Firefox 2 at work because the Firefox 3 downloads won't run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation 4. Seems to want libpangocairo, as I recall. Also, a couple plugins I like haven't been updated for Firefox 3 (FLST and Open Link In... come to mind).
I wonder how many of the 25% are in similar situations to mine?
Program Intellivision!
No Firefox 3 for Mac Os X 10.2.8 -> I'll keep Firefox 2 on my old Mac....
Google has too much power, but you're just being ridiculous. This is the last FF2 security release ever. Leaving in an automatic information query to a dead server would be a GAPING security hole.
I don't mind the Awesomebar, but those are just my two cents. Then again, I'm still with Safari, holding out for a Mac version of Chrome.
I'm fairly certain that anyone who actually needs phishing detection probably won't even notice that it's gone, or won't know what it means. For example, people like my parents who only have Firefox because some well meaning geek installed it for them a year and a half ago...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Run their own phishing blacklist? Is that really a good use of their time?
Maybe they should sue Google, without any contract having been broken?
Or break into their data center and force them at gunpoint to turn the machines back on?
Mozilla should have gotten Google to contractually agree to keep the servers running through the end of life of Firefox 2, and they didn't, which is their screwup. But you're just conspiracymongering.
Not sure what's so bleeding-edge about FF 3, it's a lot more stable and faster than Firefox 2 was. I think your word choice is a bit disingenuous and designed to make FF 3 look bad. And the situation is a bit different since upgrading from XP to Vista costs money, whereas unless you're on Windows 98 upgrading from Firefox 2 to 3 doesn't cost a thing.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Because contrary to your notion, it's an end-user's right not to upgrade.
Yet another example of the following aphorism:
Open Source != Socialism
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
can't upgrade.
On Linux Firefox doesn't distribute RPM's or DEB's for the various major platforms, and most vendor's don't provide new software for distros once they've been released.
Also, getting firefox 3 compiled from source on older distros is incredibly difficult due to version skew of various libraries. I got most of the way there, and gave up.
People who use linux for work are often stuck on older distros due to long corporate maintanance cycle's. It costs them a lot of money to roll out a major update to thousands of machines, especially if you are developing software on top of them.
Thus, it really sucks that there is no way to put newer software on older linux OS's without running into library version hell. Especially since this is so easy on other platforms. After all, who has trouble getting software working on XP?
Google is going to stop supporting the version of the protocol that FF2 relies on. They could upgrade the version of the protocol 2.0 uses (they're doing it with 3.0) but it's pretty near EOL so they're not going to bother. This is all in the article.
Just to be fair, there ARE some people who can't upgrade to FF3. I'm thinking of Mac OS users. FF3 only works with 10.4 or higher. So many of those with G4 Macs are left in the dust.
I'm unsure of Windows compatibility, but Windows XP *is* over 7 years old, so users of older PCs are probably in good shape, at least.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
And what if you are still on FF version 2 because you don't like some of the 'features' introduced in FF version 3? I'm looking at you, 'Awesome Bar'.
There was a lot of resistance to the awesome bar, and I thought it was a stupid idea at first, but honestly, give it a week and you'll get used to it and wish it was there when you're forced to use other browsers.
the anti click jacking code and the really miserable handling of self signed certificates is starting to really annoy me.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
I totally agree. After how much trying is one entitled to simply decide that one does not like a particular piece of software?
FF3 has decided that people like me, who actually like using URLs to access on-line resources (crazy, I know) would rather have some higher-level language based address system which trawls through your history and bookmarks and spews them forth into the address bar whether you want them there or not. I have tried everything to disable this "feature" without success.
It would be trivial for them to include options about this stuff, but apparently the old ways are forbidden and options are 'confusing'. That kind of attitude is what ultimately loses you users.
Read Pynchon.
If you have been using Firefox 2, then you *haven't* been giving Firefox 3 a chance "since it was introduced"; you only gave it a chance until you switched back. It's obvious that you're too stubborn to use the awesome bar regularly because it learns which sites you like to type into it, and it only takes *one* try. If you type a single letter in the bar, then select the site you want from the list, the very next time it will appear at the top of the list. In the worst case, you have to type the whole url *once*, then the second time only three or four letters, and after that it should only take one. And here's a hidden feature for you: if one of the bar's suggestions offends you for some reason, you can banish it by pressing shift-delete (this also works for form autocompletion).
I miss the Aweseome Bar's learning when I use Chrome. GMail's URL does not start with G, but Firefox learned that when I typed G I wanted GMail. In Chrome I have to remember to type "M" for GMail, becuase no matter how many times I type "GMail", then scroll down and select https://mail.google.com/mail/, it won't remember.
No. To be a valid analogy on /. it has to have a car in it. A bicycle just isn't good enough.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
When I go "Check for updates" I get the dialog box that informs me: "This update will cause some of your extensions and/or themes to stop working until they are updated." Clicking on "show list" shows me that Compact Menu and Whitehart will be disabled with FF3. If that extension and that theme get updated, then I'll switch to FF3. Until then, I'll "suffer" with my working browser, anti-phishing or not.
Ahh, someone who knows me inside out - glad you could be of service, but nothing you said has been of any help to me.
Firstly, who said I wasn't using FF3? I certainly never did in this (or any other) thread - you simply surmised that from things I did say, and your assumption has proven to be wrong. I use FF3 daily, because it has better memory usage than FF2 - but the Awesome Bar still sucks, even after six months of usage and 'training' as it certainly doesn't seem to learn my browsing habits.
Take, for instance, the example I gave in another thread - I start typing the domain of a site I use daily and the 'Awesome Bar' decides that what I actually want is a site I visited once, several months ago. How many times should I train the 'Awesome Bar' in that situation?
I want my old url bar back. You have said nothing which has changed my opinion of the current system.
Fine, some people may find it better than the old alternative - so why not make it an option they could use? Even make it the default, just allow it to be disabled. Or am I worth less as a customer to Mozilla for some reason?
The reason I consider it bleeding edge, is a bunch of plugins don't work at all with FF3.
It's a relatively new, unproven release, in the grand scheme of things.
Mmm.
In the grand scheme of things, VMS and masonry are new and unproven things, too.
If someone complains about the site not working and describes that message, I tell them to downgrade to FF2, which actually lets you still access the site (with just a simple dialog box).
*points* *laughs*
Moron. I hope that you don't work a helpdesk or IT somewhere.
FF3 keeps needing updates frequently, security bugfixes (I guess), and I kept running into crash bugs with FF3, several times a day, even the latest version of FF3, whereas FF2 and FF1 were rock solid, rarely ever crashed.
System specs? Installed plugins?
Firefox 2 uses an older version of the anti-phishing that will no longer be supported by Google (the provider of the database). So, whether Mozilla removes it or not, v1 is giong away.
2.0.0.19 is the final release of Firefox 2. As soon as it is released, Firefox 2 has reached its end of life and will no longer be updated or supported (no new features, no bug fixes, no security updates). So, it doesn't make much sense to worry about the anti-phishing feature being updated when the browser itself can no longer be assured of being secure due to possible bugs, etc.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc