Microsoft Update Slips In a Firefox Extension

malware.... by gchesney0001 · 2009-02-01 15:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember Sony?

--
Bite me

Re:malware.... by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Remember Sony?
Yes. Trying not to.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:malware.... by houstonbofh · 2009-02-01 15:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Remember Sony?
Unfortunately, for most people the answer is no... For me it is which time? The CD-ROM Trojan, or the secure thumb drive Trojan?
Re:malware.... by eebra82 · 2009-02-01 16:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wouldn't class Sony's rootkit 'malware' as much as it was a security risk. This is not even remotely close to how stupid Sony's decision was.

Having said that, I wonder if this update is stated anywhere in the ToA.

--
Full Tilt
Re:malware.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2009-02-01 16:05 · Score: 4, Funny

No, no, no. The grandparent meant the original Sony Walkman. :P
Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who's to say this thing isn't a security risk? Microsoft?
Of course, we don't *know* that this software is bad, but my policy with my own machine is that if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer, which is why my computer still runs smoothly even though I haven't reinstalled Windows for several years.
For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right), there's another good reason to get rid of it. Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser. The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument to ush whatever new web technology they're pushing. Now that non-IE browsers account for 30% of the total browsers on the internet, Microsoft is losing their stranglehold on web "standards", and they're pulling this crap to get it back.
Don't be a part of it. Remove this plugin, then go into about:config and change your browser string back so it doesn't falsely advertise that you have it installed.
Oh, and as far as Firefox goes... why is the uninstall button grayed out? This feels like a UI issue to me; principals of user-friendliness dictate that I ought to be in control of whether or not I can uninstall an add-on. Even having code in the browser that allows someone to take that freedom away from me is a bad thing. (Of course, is it really Firefox's fault? Is there a technical reason that Firefox *can't* uninstall the plugin?)
Re:malware.... by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-02-01 16:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Firefox cannot uninstall plugins that are installed to "sensitive" areas, like the actual Program Files folder. Skype does this also. It shouldn't prevent you from disabling the add-on though.
Re:malware.... by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:52 · Score: 4, Informative

If you install something (e.g. an extension) via apt or (I assume) rpm on Linux, Firefox can't uninstall it since it isn't running as root. In that scenario, the button is grayed out with no explanation. But, of course, you can always ask apt/rpm to remove the offending software, or not install it in the first place...

--
$ make available
Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 16:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interesting... Would it be possible to change Firefox in such a way that it refuses to recognize those plugins that it can't install?
Re:malware.... by BZ · 2009-02-01 17:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

You could, but that would basically mean the system administrator can't make extensions available system-wide. A tradeoff, of course, and assumes that you trust your system administrator somewhat...
Re:malware.... by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 17:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Firefox cannot uninstall plugins that are installed to "sensitive" areas, like the actual Program Files folder.

So why didn't MS enable removal through the "add or remove programs" mechanism?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:malware.... by StuartHankins · 2009-02-01 17:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

The fact that this unwanted addon is NOT visible in Add/Remove Programs, and this was done to a 3rd party program smells like an attempt at sabotage.

I'm not aware of any other Windows updates targeting 3rd party software.
Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

"if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer" ...but you use a closed operating system?
Re:malware.... by Arker · 2009-02-01 18:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

So why didn't MS enable removal through the "add or remove programs" mechanism?
For the same reason they went to so much trouble to wire IE too deeply into the system to remove it.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:malware.... by johannesg · 2009-02-01 18:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

there's another good reason to get rid of it. Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser. The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument to ush whatever new web technology they're pushing. Now that non-IE browsers account for 30% of the total browsers on the internet, Microsoft is losing their stranglehold on web "standards", and they're pulling this crap to get it back.
This. It doesn't very often happen that a point is so important that I feel the need to quote it entirely and just add a "me too", but this is one of those very rare occasions.
They have just hijacked every Firefox install out there, and are using it to advertise their own product. The only appropriate response would be for Mozilla to automatically refuse it from Firefox with the next Firefox update.
Re:malware.... by Antony-Kyre · 2009-02-01 18:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Is there any difference between Microsoft doing that to Firefox, and Microsoft doing that popup blocker with Internet Explorer when someone does the SP2 update? Or how they force a firewall on you?
You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 18:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Touche.
A touch of vulgar honesty for you: I don't give two shits if my policy is "biased". I don't do it out of a sense of fairness; I do it to keep my computer running smoothly, and here in the real world, my strategy works, even if it's not ideologically perfect.
I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft, but my choice is either to run their OS or give up a lot of software that, quite frankly, I enjoy using (mostly games). I use Linux when I can, but unfortunately that's not all the time.
Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The true question here is not how to uninstall it. The question everyone should be asking is: is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes? Maybe I don't want my f'ing browser to report what other software is installed on my computer.
How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.
Note: I noticed this extension the other night on a system in VMWare but I haven't had a chance to look into it yet.
In all fairness I think Microsoft should be forced to open source things they want to add on to NON MS applications. That way people can go take a look... Especially when you don't ask the user permission.
Are there any legality issues with what they just did here?
Re:malware.... by westyvw · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a lesson there somewhere.....

I would give up Microsoft Windows....but I like playing games.....
Re:malware.... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-02-01 19:27 · Score: 3, Informative

I did. I can't find "Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant" anywhere.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:malware.... by Thiez · 2009-02-01 20:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Be honest. Have you read the source code of EVERY program you run, and of your operating system? Did you understand all of it? If you have read it all and understand it all, you're either running very few programs and a tiny, simple OS, or you have way too much free time. 'Knowing what someting does' is not a black-and-white thing. To get a good analogy: I can use a car and understand most of its parts without fully understanding the atoms it's made of, or how the car was made. Odds are GP is someone who knowns what all processes on his computer do, even if he doesn't know precisely how they do it. You create a false dichotomy by suggesting it is only possible to know what your programs do when you run an open source operating system.
Re:malware.... by stephanruby · 2009-02-01 20:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it's Microsoft, but on the other hand they seem to be competing directly with Amazon's one-click button technology.
Re:malware.... by mpeskett · 2009-02-01 20:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Which of those was the good thing?
Re:malware.... by Yvanhoe · 2009-02-01 21:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because malware usually disable this feature.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:49 · Score: 3, Informative

You trusted MS?
I don't trust even Google, that swears by their company they won't 'be evil'.
Re:malware.... by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-01 21:57 · Score: 4, Funny

they don't want you to accidentally buy a Zune, or Windows 7. ClickOnce is a deployment techno... oh, hang on.. suddenly I'm not sure I got the first bit right.
Re:malware.... by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · 2009-02-01 22:01 · Score: 4, Funny

How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.
Don't worry, just flush. You'll have some more trust in about 20-30 hours.
(I'm only half-joking)

--
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
Re:malware.... by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-01 22:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right)
the problem isn't this software in itself (though its pretty bad that the OP got it installed without realising), the software works as a deployment technology - from wikipedia "ClickOnce enables the user to install and run a Windows application by just clicking a link in a web page."
So, once you have this software, its an open-door to installing thin-client .NET applications with just a single click. And we all know how well that'll work out!
Re:malware.... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-02-01 22:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, it's rape.

They violated my open FireFox with their dirty corporate extension.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:malware.... by Linker3000 · 2009-02-01 22:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I AM my system administrator, you insensitive clod.
Oh, and no, I don't trust myself!

--
AT&ROFLMAO
Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 22:42 · Score: 5, Funny

The only appropriate response would be for Mozilla to automatically refuse it from Firefox with the next Firefox update.
I have a better idea, let Firefox add an "extension" to Microsoft Office that improves its usability by downloading and starting OpenOffice when the user starts MS Office.
Re:malware.... by Ed+Avis · 2009-02-01 23:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes?
If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences. Since Microsoft control the operating system and can push out updates for it, any trojan they wanted to install would be much more stealthy.
If you run Microsoft Windows then you accept that you run whatever software Microsoft chooses to put on your machine, and without source code you have little hope of finding out exactly what it's doing. If you do not trust Microsoft, I suggest you uninstall Windows from your computer right now.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:malware.... by hairyfeet · 2009-02-01 23:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

How so? I mean pretty much everybody hosts their plugins on Mozilla's servers anyway. They get seen more there, and it is trivial to update through the Mozilla extension updater if they are hosted on Mozilla's servers. And I haven't seen Mozilla pull an extension unless it was malware. I mean they had an Abe Vigoda plugin, so pretty much anything goes. So all they would have to do is sign the plugins after the developers upload them to their servers. But by signing them they could set some ground rules on extension installation, like always asking for permission and always having a functional uninstaller. So how would this be a bad idea? Because I'm just not seeing the downside here.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:malware.... by nazsco · 2009-02-01 23:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mod parent up. That's the whole point. You install binary crap from a provider you don't trust. So, don't complain. It's not like at this day and age there's still a gun pointed to you to use Windows (in the past i may recognize there were, but not today)
Re:malware.... by PReDiToR · 2009-02-01 23:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Walkmans installed Madonna, and we still haven't gotten rid of her.

If you like Madonna then feel free to read this joke with Michael Jackson in it instead.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:malware.... by squidinkcalligraphy · 2009-02-02 00:15 · Score: 2, Informative

In the case of firefox extensions in apt-based distros, true you can't uninstall the extensions through the browser, but you can disable them.

--
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Re:malware.... by nine-times · 2009-02-02 01:25 · Score: 3, Funny

If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences.
After some recent events, I'm starting to suspect that Microsoft may indeed be stupid.
Re:malware.... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>>they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences
Irrelevant. The relevant question is: Why the HELL does Microsoft think it's okay to modify *other* people's software? I expect MS to randomly upgrade Internet Exploder since it's their product, but why are they fucking with a Mozilla product????? Reminds me of something a virus programmer would do.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:malware.... by Ed+Avis · 2009-02-02 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I dunno, you could equally well say this shows that Microsoft is starting to accept a multi-browser world and distribute software that works with Firefox and not just IE. If there were no Firefox extension available and you had to use Internet Explorer instead to get this thing to work, there would equally be complaints on Slashdot...
Remember that the whole point of an extension mechanism is to let third parties modify Firefox. Linux distributions routinely ship patches and modifications to Firefox (and many other applications). And it's not as if no third party software ever installs extensions to Windows...

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:malware.... by poot_rootbeer · 2009-02-02 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative

If they wanted to do [a bunch of Bad Stuff], they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences.
What kind of argument is this? "See, Microsoft is totally upfront about what they're secretly installing! All you have to do is open Firefox, go to Tools -> Add-ons -> Extensions -> Local Planning Office -> Dark Basement -> Locked File Cabinet..."
If you run Microsoft Windows then you accept that you run whatever software Microsoft chooses to put on your machine
That's not true according to the Windows EULA, nor in a pragmatic sense. The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered, and the affected software was neither part of the operating system nor even a Microsoft product.
There's enough FUD surrounding Microsoft Windows without your contributions to it.
Re:malware.... by BZ · 2009-02-02 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

They didn't "sabotage" anything. They simply installed a system-wide extension. If it's not installed in the Firefox profile, Firefox can't very well remove it (especially if the user it's running as is not privileged).
Note that the "Disable" button works just fine, as it should. Had they really wanted to prevent this thing being disabled, they could have done that too, you know.
Re:malware.... by SenFo · 2009-02-02 03:45 · Score: 3, Informative

ClickOnce is in no way limited to the Windows platform because it's little more than an installation mechanism that is usually hosted on a web server. There is no reason that a Linux system running Mono couldn't install something via ClickOnce. Furthermore, ClickOnce is targeted towards desktop applications. The fact that you mention AJAX implies (to me) that you have the wrong idea about ClickOnce functionality.

--
My lame blog.
Re:malware.... by mysticgoat · 2009-02-02 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny

This is a good point.
Since copyright infringement is now routinely elevated to the violent robbery of "piracy", then it makes sense that we start calling the insertion of unwanted extensions into our applications "rape".
The charge is "You have inserted your extension into my application without my consent". Yeah, that's rape.

Huh! by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-01 15:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

This definitely goes into the "WTF?" category.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:Huh! by carlzum · 2009-02-01 16:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Exactly, this could have been touted as proof that MS was serious about .NET interoperability. Instead they chose to install it silently and make it difficult to remove, making the update a nuisance to FF users.
Re:Huh! by obarthelemy · 2009-02-01 19:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is probably actionnable under whatever covenant MS signed to get out of the antitrust lawsuits against them: they're using the OS (windows update) to modify a competitor's software (FF), in order to give an unfair advantage to one of their technologies/product.
If that behaviour can be proven, someone stands to make a lot of money. Several someones: the states, the competitors...

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

Allowed scope of updates by Statecraftsman · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft gives us updates all the time and we trust them to fix bugs and security holes. Firefox not coming with their extension is not in the scope of bugs and security holes they should fix. When they overstep their bounds like this ON TOP of an application(esp. a free software application) what might they be doing in their proprietary code under the application? Whatâ(TM)s next, an OpenOffice extension to make sure Microsoft never has an $ where their s is?

Re:Allowed scope of updates by schon · 2009-02-01 15:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft gives us updates all the time and we trust them to fix bugs and security holes.
What you mean "we", Kemosabe?
Re:Allowed scope of updates by zobier · 2009-02-01 16:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

It is totally unacceptable for Microsoft to interfere with any of the 3rd party software I have installed on my computer whether via their update mechanism or otherwise. If I ever find any of these shenanigans going on I will raise a formal complaint with the appropriate government competition bureau, I encourage others to do the same.

--
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Re:Allowed scope of updates by TheSeer2 · 2009-02-01 16:22 · Score: 3, Informative

There is an option that you have to check to allow updates to things other than Windows.
Re:Allowed scope of updates by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is an option that you have to check to allow updates to things other than Windows.
Which most people assume means things like MS Office and other MS components that are not part of a bare Windows install. I can't imagine anyone thinking this means 3rd party software.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Allowed scope of updates by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope someone, preferably the U.S. or E.U., sues them for anticompetitive practices (again).

--
$ make available
Re:Allowed scope of updates by mabhatter654 · 2009-02-01 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

that's because:
a) most apps in Ubuntu come from the ubuntu servers, not their native homes and are compiled by canonical to work nicely with ubuntu
b) Other apps are hosted in repositories. Some by the program writer, some by other people. But Apt/synamptic manages all the repositories in one place for you! And you can turn them on and off at will. What a concept!! This is what people have been requesting from Microsoft update for the better part of a decade.
Re:Allowed scope of updates by rcw-home · 2009-02-01 17:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Which most people assume means things like MS Office and other MS components that are not part of a bare Windows install.
Probably because it's labelled "Microsoft Update" - implying that it updates anything from Microsoft on the computer.
If Microsoft wants everyone to use a new "Computer Update" service, then they better call it that and see how many people they can get to click on it.
Re:Allowed scope of updates by no1home · 2009-02-01 17:54 · Score: 2

Yes, all kinds of things are installed when an update is performed on our various favorite distros. However, unlike this install from Microsoft, the update window displays everything that's being installed before you permit the action (in my experience so far).

--
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

Persecutors will be violated!
Re:Allowed scope of updates by Workaphobia · 2009-02-01 18:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course and as always, the word "trust" is used in its technical capacity to indicate a relationship characterized by uneasy vulnerability, rather than an actual commitment of faith.

--
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Re:Allowed scope of updates by aussie_a · 2009-02-01 19:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft Update sure sounds like it will update Microsoft products. Given that Firefox is not a microsoft product, how the hell was I to know they would update it?
Re:Allowed scope of updates by jez9999 · 2009-02-01 22:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Whatâ(TM)s next, an OpenOffice extension to make sure Microsoft never has an $ where their s is?
Hah, MS are never gonna stop me from saying MS - there's no way they can do that. MS MS MS - see?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Amazing by kcbanner · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh?

--
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/

Re:Amazing by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh? [emphasis added]
I can't tell if that's binary or decimal or what.

--
$ make available

NOT Unsuspecting... by eWarz · 2009-02-01 15:50 · Score: 4, Informative

The add-on is automatically installed when you install the latest version of the .net framework. Microsoft Update does NOT automatically install this add-on. In order for it to be installed you had to explicitly choose to install the .net framework.

Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by flydpnkrtn · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.

Just because I installed the .NET framework, I'm subject to whatever else MS wants to do to my computer? Nay, sir, nay.

--
Here's to the crazy ones
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by nemesisrocks · 2009-02-01 16:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was never notified that an ADOBE product would entail installing an addin to a completely NON-Adobe product. Get with the times. Companies install addons to "complementary" products (web browsers, office suites, etc).
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by flydpnkrtn · 2009-02-01 16:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm pretty sure that during the install for Adobe Reader you're given the option to install the browser plugin or not (maybe the most you have to do is go into "Custom install)... with the .NET addon all that happened as far as I can see is that I installed pending updates, rebooted, and bam the addon was there

Do you see how that's a different situation than installing an app that adds a browser plugin?

--
Here's to the crazy ones
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by at_slashdot · 2009-02-01 16:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why are you so amazed? Your control over your computer is illusory when you use closed-source programs -- especially ones that call back home and install "updates"

--
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by mabhatter654 · 2009-02-01 17:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

the adobe products are SPECIFICALLY browser helpers... that's the point of Flash or Acrobat Reader to be plugged in to your browser. There's even a spot in the browser for them to do this.
Microsoft is trying to "fix" Firefox compatibility with .Net tools, that's the big problem people have. On one hand they are adding in the tools needed for Firefox to function properly on Microsoft web pages like any other browser plug-in vendor would. On the other hand Microsoft is doing this without announcing it, and the manor in which they slipped this in is of questionable motive. Remember they had a motto years ago..."DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" Firefox and others had/have no such intentions.
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, Yes, MS does automatically install this program. The dotnet update 3.5 SP1 was listed as a critical security update, I have this on two servers that IE can't even access the web on. Firefox is only on it to check an internal website and monitor/access the web interfaces to routers and switches. The update installed the thing as it wasn't there before and yes, I check quite often. It also hasn't attempted to do anything on the internet yet because I monitor port access and nothing out of the ordinary has came up.
So if you had automatic updates on, it would have been installed without you choosing to install it. If you manually install automatic updates, there is no warning of it being installed. Critical updates shouldn't be adding new features or changing the way other software works unless it's specifically to address a security problem. Adding functionality to Firefox isn't a security fix.
Now it doesn't matter if you get this with any DotNet install now because you didn't in the past. Up until this month, it didn't even exist as far as I know. And just because it installs with dotnet now doesn't mean I agreed to installing it a year ago when I installed the last dotnet package to suppose a program we are using.
Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by esocid · 2009-02-01 18:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

[root@localhost ~]# apt-get update apt-get: ET phone home
You forgot one thing though
# su -
When's the last time any packets installed without your consent?

--
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia

Intelligence gathering by madcat2c · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Funny

They are gathering intelligence on how to build on of these "web browsers".

Equal Opportunity Offender... by __aaclcg7560 · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea, more spyware. Now on FireFox instead of Internet Explorer. :P

Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by Spy+der+Mann · 2009-02-01 16:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
Wait. You mean IE has non-hole parts?

YES Unsuspecting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run. Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?

Re:YES Unsuspecting... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run. Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?
It doesn't "Scribble all over Firefox", for God's sake! It installs a plugin which uses public and documented extensibility APIs of the browser.
When you install Java, it similarly installs the browser plugin for viewing applets, and registers Java Web Start MIME type in the browser, as well. Yes, it does that for Firefox as well. This ClickOnce thing is functionally precisely equivalent to JWS. Does that mean it's time for Sun bashing? Maybe we should start calling Java "malware"?

XP SP3? by Malc · 2009-02-01 15:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you sure? Did you actually mean .Net 3.5 SP1? That's what just installed it on my machine. I've never seen XP SP3 install it.

Re:XP SP3? by Culture20 · 2009-02-01 16:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Updates for XP SP3. I got it installed with .Net 2.0 SP2
Re:XP SP3? by Malc · 2009-02-01 16:37 · Score: 2, Informative

.Net 2.0 SP2 is an update to .Net 2.0, not XP SP3. It's the same installer binary for whatever version of Windows you have (64/32-bit differences aside)

A good sign! by dclozier · 2009-02-01 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although it's not the best approach that could have been taken it is a good sign. If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.

Re:A good sign! by markdavis · 2009-02-01 16:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, well, so the sites will use some proprietary .NET stuff. I don't see such a plugin for non-MS operating systems. I would rather those sites that WERE ignoring Firefox code in something that not only works on all browsers but on all platforms as well.
Re:A good sign! by Firehed · 2009-02-01 16:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

All what sites? Aside from internal corporate web apps, has this been a real problem in the last five or so years? I remember having some issues back when Firefox was still having issues picking a proper name (pre-1.0 days), but I honestly don't think I've seen a public site with serious issues since around Firefox 1.0.
There's still some stuff out there with wonky stylesheets, of course, but that almost never is SO bad that it causes a site to be unusable.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:A good sign! by glwtta · 2009-02-01 16:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.

Is that really still a problem, though? I'm pretty sure that particular knee-jerk needs to be updated a bit.

I'm sure half a dozen people will jump in here with their favorite examples of IE-only sites, but chances are they will be quite obscure. I spend a fair amount of time online, and it hasn't really entered my mind in the last 2-3 years that I'm using some kind of "fringe" browser.

Now, internal corporate apps are another matter entirely; then again, they only have a 50/50 chance of ever working in their "supported" environment to begin with (ahh fond memories of having to install a VM with some extremely specific, and extremely ancient java version just to sign the company "ethics pledge" or whatever).

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:A good sign! by glwtta · 2009-02-01 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

as it is thanks to Mozilla taking IE behaviour into account and accomodating for that in their own software, AFAIK.

I'm not sure I agree with that, the Mozilla people have always been pretty adamant about not bending their standards implementations to accommodate IE "quirks" - Free Software developers take their ideological purity pretty seriously.

It's a moot point anyway, nowadays almost no one would consider releasing an IE-only site - the "alternative" browsers claim 30% in some countries, but even if it was 10% or 5%, it still represents customers that you can't afford to just ignore (I think that attitude is the real change here - there's money to be made, and every user counts).

And in truth, web designers with a clue still need to limit their options too much in order to remain IE-compatible.

Certainly agree with that - it's even more fun when you have the corporate-mandated IE6 as your primary user-base!

As soon as IE goes below 20%, at least we can finally justify not giving a crap about what our designs look like in IE, put up a warning message saying "Get a browser that supports web standards." and be done with it.

Yeah, not so much - see above. At the very least, designers "with a clue" have their stuff degrade gracefully on legacy platforms.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

sony by symbolset · 2009-02-01 15:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Never forget.

Forgetting is key to getting caught again. You can only catch a cat in the same trap once.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:sony by MrNaz · 2009-02-01 16:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless that cat is the American public and the time since the last time you caught them is greater than the time since the last episode of American Idol.

--
I hate printers.
Re:sony by hairyfeet · 2009-02-01 22:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well allow me to add that it is NOT, I repeat NOT just Visual Studio. I don't have Visual Studio installed and this "extension" was installed along with the latest patch for DotNET V3.5. So pretty much anyone who has FF and has the latest version and patches for dotNET is affected.
How are they allowed to get away with this? Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware? If some company like Gator or WhenU pulled this crap they would be busted. So why is MSFT allowed to pull this crap? And how do we know that this "extension" wouldn't cause problems or add bugs to FF? Seems like a great way to hamstring your competition to me. I just hope they get called to the mat for pulling this crap, because as far as I'm concerned this is the definition of malware. After all I didn't ask for it or give them permission to install it, they disabled the common way to remove it, and the only way to get rid of it was to hack both the reg and my prefs.js file. Sounds exactly like the kind of crap I deal with removing malware BHOs for customers.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:sony by ciderVisor · 2009-02-02 01:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Why he wouldn't just come inside to eat the exact same food was beyond me.
Because, although you could only see it as two examples of the same food, your cat could appreciate the underlying symbolic differences.

--
Squirrel!
Re:sony by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not a big deal???
Microsoft modified *another company's products*. What's next? MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect?!?!? They shouldn't be messing with non-microsoft products.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:sony by slashdottedjoe · 2009-02-02 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am disappointed that MS is pushing out .Net 3.5 as a high priority update to v2. The real reason can be found looking up .Net 3.5 on Google. Developers want this out there and hoped it would have been in XP SP3. I really do not care what developers want. It is my system and the Windows updates need to be for system maintenance and not for pushing an agenda from MS and its developers. I emailed MS and complained. I had not installed that update, so I had not seen the FF ext. Hearing this, I am even more alarmed over MS activities.
Re:sony by Richy_T · 2009-02-02 02:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware?
Give the guy a chance, he's only been in for two weeks...
Rich
Re:sony by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah I see he was performing a commentary on how we are all really prisoners to our appetites.
Or he was a lazy fatass. I'm going with the second.
Re:sony by Machtyn · 2009-02-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

The difference is you choose to install Flash. You knowingly (in most cases) go to Adobe, download the flash installer, agree to some sort of EULA, and install Flash with the understanding that it will be modifying third party software.

Microsoft is doing this in an update without notifying its users (as far as has been reported) that this update will be modifying third party software with no easy way to prevent or uninstall the change.

Given that, I am curious to know how this addon will improve my web experience in Firefox. Will it open security holes beyond what is already in Firefox and my other addons? Will it slow or decrease performance of FF? What benefit is it to FF (I thought .NET was already compatible with FF and other webbrowsers.)
Re:sony by el_chicano · 2009-02-02 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative
It's funny how the fanboi mentality works (and not as a valid argument, mind you)
- MS creates a browser (and packages it w/ their OS)
- Everyone is up in arms. ZOMG monopoly!
Microsoft did not just package IE with Windows, it illegally tied the it to Windows where the user had no choice about it being installed and they could not remove it easily. The US and EU governments have investigated and have accused Microsoft of being a monopoly, it is not just fanbois making that accusation.

Sound more like an incessantly nagging spouse on a power trip please...
You yourself are either a fanboi or an astroturfer. I mean come on, a content-free post complaining about other computer users complaining about the software installed on THEIR computers?
If you are an astroturfer, does Microsoft pay well? If you are doing this for free why? Why do you feel compelled to defend a large faceless corporation like Microsoft? Especially given their past criminal behavior?
Too bad you can't channel all that time and energy into some productive activities that benefit humankind instead...
--
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Re:sony by repvik · 2009-02-02 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do you know what bugs me about this browser plugin? The fact that Microsofts knowledgebase article on the update didn't mention it.
If they did it openly, it would have been recieved much better. But they go "stealth-mode", and install it without the user knowing.
Re:sony by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes.
And if Microsoft had ASKED, I would have said, "No thanks; please leave my Mozilla browser alone." But they didn't even give me the choice. They used a Negative Option where they signed me up automatically, and if I want to get unsigned, I have to do it myself. Negative Options are generally considered illegal. See: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/negative_option.html

"Today, with "negative option" marketing, commerce can be anything but simple, and consumers can end up being charged for products or services they never intended to purchase...... In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on negative option abuses, suing nine companies for charging customers credit cards for products or services without gaining their express approval.
"Negative option marketing is particularly troubling when marketers already have consumers' credit card or billing account information and can easily charge consumers' accounts without their permission or when marketers fail to disclose that consumers' credit card numbers will be transferred to another company and charged unless consumers call to cancel," the FTCs Elaine Kolish told Congress in November, 2001.

Although in this case Microsoft did not charge for the upgrade, I still find it offensive that they are modifying OTHER companies' programs without my permission. Microsoft should not be practicing negative option upgrades to non-microsoft products.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Scumware, eh? by dmomo · 2009-02-01 15:58 · Score: 5, Informative

One hint that this "extension" is unwanted garbage is that when you Google (google: Microsoft Framework Assistant) for it and the top links are pages about how to remove it. Then the first link from your site (microsoft.com) is also a forum that mentions getting rid of it...

Anyway, here's how to remove it.

http://www.robertnyman.com/2009/01/26/microsoft-force-installs-firefox-extension/

Re:Scumware, eh? by Dwedit · 2009-02-01 16:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

That doesn't matter at all. Type in any .DLL file you can think of, and you will see all the "Remove Spyware Now!" type sites that catalog DLL files. Buried in the actual relevant content of the site, hidden beneath all the "Spyware is dangerous, you may have spyware" boilerplate content is a row in a table telling you that the DLL file you searched for is safe. You can't just trust results like that.
Re:Scumware, eh? by Kral_Blbec · 2009-02-01 16:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

It does matter because the sites are different. The ones that come up for Microsoft Framework Assistant are forum postings, articles and blogs instead of autogenerated bull-honky.
Re:Scumware, eh? by pcgabe · 2009-02-01 18:50 · Score: 5, Funny

You have a problem with autogenerated bull-honky? This site may have the answer!

--
Don't put advice in your sig.

Microsoft will never learn by chrome · 2009-02-01 15:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft just can't resist the urge to use it's position as the marketplace leader for desktop OSes to be a dick.

but... by powerspike · 2009-02-01 16:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's Funny, i have had the same issue with apple update, i find it requesting to install updates for programs that weren't installed in the first place, seems like the same thing but different company...

Re:but... by spectecjr · 2009-02-01 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except in Apple's case, it's somewhat worse... after all, why the fuck would they install MobileMe or Bonjour on my system when I install iTunes?
Why the FUCK do they think I want their networking system along with their player?
Bonjour
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Weak. At least the .NET extension is within the realms of making sense.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:but... by guruevi · 2009-02-01 16:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because some iTunes' features are built around those technologies. Eg. if you have wireless speakers or another library/machine/appliance you want to share your music with, Bonjour will auto-detect it and list it in iTunes. Here Microsoft is including spyware targeted at their competition (Firefox) in their own updates in order to make Firefox look bad. It's like Apple including an update to Microsoft Office so that information on every document gets sent to them or including an Internet Explorer extension to send out personal or system information to the pages they're visiting.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:but... by EvilIdler · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't understand the hatred for Bonjour. It's a discovery protocol, used by Macs for ages. All it does is to make it possible to find other computers. Adobe seem to be using it in their latest products, so you'll be seeing it more. It's not as if Windows programs historically have been satisfied with just one version of a DLL, anyway ;)
Re:but... by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-02-01 16:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because Bonjour is a dependency for the correct functioning of an iTunes feature?
Re:but... by blincoln · 2009-02-01 17:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't understand the hatred for Bonjour. It's a discovery protocol, used by Macs for ages. All it does is to make it possible to find other computers.
The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it. The only reason I have Quicktime installed is because of people who only make their content available as Quicktime files for whatever reason.
*Why* would I want Quicktime to be able to discover other devices on my network? Even if I did, why would I want a service running all of the time as opposed to once every few months when I go to play a Quicktime file?
I can only speak for myself, but that's why *I* hate Bonjour. I wanted Apple's poorly-coded (for Windows at least) proprietary video player. In order to get it, I had to get a bunch of extra software I most definitely didn't want.
I already tried Quicktime Alternative. It wasn't able to play the newest Quicktime variants.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:but... by spectecjr · 2009-02-01 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because Bonjour is a dependency for the correct functioning of an iTunes feature? ... the same could be said for the correct functioning of a Microsoft .NET feature here.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:but... by Dhalka226 · 2009-02-01 20:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh. My. God.
Spyware? Are you kidding now? Because it tells you what version of .NET is installed on a system and lets you launch a .NET program as easily as you would with IE?
Well holy hell boys, you'd better all uninstall all of your web browsers. Do you know those damn things are spyware? They report what version of your browser and operating system you use! And your IP address, so that the evil hacker groups know where to find you.
There are plenty of problems with what MS did and the way they did it. This is not one of them. This is hyperbolic bullshit, plain and simple.
Re:but... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 21:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Depends on when he installed QuickTime. Apple pulled a stunt where is hid and changed the downloed to Quicktime without Itunes. There was a period of a couple of months where they even forgot to make the public page for the standalone download availible from the quicktime page. That means if you didn't follow a link in from a this party site, you wouldn't have found it.
It's possible that both of you are right and neither of you are wrong or not looking very hard depending when he went after the QuickTime. Apple certainly didn't make it easy.

Java does this, too by RockMFR · 2009-02-01 16:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Some of the recent updates for Java SE have included "Java Quick Starter". And for those with Ubuntu, there are a number of things that show up in the Add-ons list that are not explained well.

Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-01 16:29 · Score: 3, Informative

WTF? Do you understand why this is an issue?
Some of the recent updates for Java SE have included "Java Quick Starter". And for those with Ubuntu, there are a number of things that show up in the Add-ons list that are not explained well.
Neither of the examples you cite update an independently installed third party software without giving you an easy way of uninstalling.
FFS.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.

Re:First by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-01 16:18 · Score: 4, Funny

!First. Fail!

...not first, fail not? ugh, this is why I prefer using the bitwise oprtator (~) instead, although in /. lore this is instead in jokes used to mean "home", per the bash usage instead of the one's complement.

Or, I just need to get out more. After asking why all the guys were buying wings and beer on the same day in throngs at the grocery store, I found out the last super bowl was indeed not 32.

Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by terranwannabe · 2009-02-01 16:24 · Score: 2, Informative

More like appending the version of the .NET CLR to the UA string, so that ClickOnce or XBAP applications can install through Firefox instead of requiring IE. I can testify (looking at my UA right now) that it does not change anything else and leaves the Firefox name intact. Of course, to find this out you might have to research or think about your answer instead of assuming evil behavior on Microsoft's part...

--
If I have not seen as far as others, it was because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson

firefox security hole? by enter+to+exit · 2009-02-01 16:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Firefox installed this without me allowing it too

it seems very for malware to be installed like this

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but shouldn't Firefox stop extensions being installed this way?

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Fritzed · 2009-02-01 16:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are (purposely?) missing the entire point. The average Firefox may CHOOSE to install flash, but that is their choice. If Microsoft wants to make a Firefox extension, then they need to put it in the directory just like everyone else.

--
Spooooon!!!!!

Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

People think that Microsoft is a software company that is sometimes abusive. But it isn't, in my opinion. Microsoft is an abuse company that delivers abuse using software.

Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:20 · Score: 3, Funny

So who are you, Umberto fuckin' Eco?
Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-02 00:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I sure am, but then again I'm not claiming I'm smarter than you are. I actually didn't so much prove anything as right out said that I didn't understand what was being said. I don't really feel any shame in that.
I'm still confused. You say that "You can't see the world as it is. It is not possible". If that is true, then you're statement is self-contradictory because you are saying that you are seeing the world as it is, which is that seeing the world as it is is not possible. And thus relativism withers on the vine of postmodernism.
Perhaps you are having issues with facing reality? I know it's tough, but when you mature a little in a few years time it should be possible to start coping.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:59 · Score: 5, Funny

you came here for software? I'm sorry, this is Abuse!
Re:Normal for Microsoft by RobDude · 2009-02-02 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh dear god....
Looks like someone took an Intro to Philosophy at their university and wants the world to know just how 'deep' they are.
I bet you didn't even get an A in the class.
You can sit around for *years* and debate whether or not Slashdot exits, or if it is simply a construct of your imagination. And you can go on and on, at great length; trying to determine whether you can determine *anything* because, everything, as you said, that you can perceive is from your own reference point. How can 'real' be defined.
The same old, tired, arguments for and against these have been tossed around for, hundreds and hundreds of years. Probably longer.
Pointing them out, in unrelated contexts...like a Slashdot discussion of Microsoft software patch makes you look like a fresh out of Phil101 college d-bag who plays hacky-sack in the quad after lunch and before BIO 102.
Next you'll point out how maybe the colors you see are like...ya know...different from what other people and that perception is all relative. WHOA!
But yeah, the whole 'Like, dude, it's really just a symbol! That's all it is, just a symbol' crap is really a stretch.
Yes, of course, it's a symbol. Symbols are used extensively by people. It makes communication easier. Is it easier to define a large company like MSFT by saying, 'Microsoft' or 'the company responsible for the creation of Windows, Office, .Net, Visual Studio, etc, etc, etc...' or perhaps a complete list of employees start and end dates would make you happier?
Of course it's a symbol. Duh.
Pointing it out adds nothing to the conversation. Nothing. And feeling the need to point it out means that you think you are a LOT more clever than you really are.

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Mad+Merlin · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe because...

nobody asked for this extension
the extension makes a point of not letting you remove or disable it
the extension doesn't help you in any way whatsoever
it's Microsoft

Just one of those is enough to make something bad.

--
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by pallmall1 · 2009-02-01 16:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types...

What part of "can't uninstall" confuses you?

--
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Nutria · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins ...

The point isn't that MSFT is creating FF plugins.

The point is that MSFT is silently forcing plugins without telling us what they do.

This whole thing would have been a non-issue if they had

added a sentence on why this plugin is useful, and
enabled the Uninstall button.

But MSFT is too arrogantly stupid to do that.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1

Re:Profiling, anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then I assume that you have the source for the plugin, no?

If you dont have the source, how can you be sure what exactly it's attaching to? I know if I was Microsoft, I'd attach to parts of the rendering engine and screw around with things. It'd be an easy way to make Firefox seem slower and buggier. And, why disable the "Uninstall" button? Looks rather fishy to me.

I mean, if Firefox is prone to crashing at random times on random websites, wouldnt you think users would go back to IE?

--

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37

Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, to find this out you might have to research or think about your answer instead of assuming evil behavior on Microsoft's part...

Given the ample, well documented evidence of bad behavior by MS, failing to consider evil behavior by MS is a clear example of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....". Just because the "evil behavior" is not so obvious yet, doesn't mean that there is not such a motive behind this action.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

updating third party software? by master_runner · 2009-02-01 17:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it interesting that people here are so outraged at MS installing an extension for third party software, particularly a web browser. Think about how many completely non-Mozilla related products install a Firefox extension - PDF readers, media players, etc. I'll take as an example Adobe Reader, which installs a plugin for in-browser viewing when you install the desktop app (I hate Adobe Reader too, but it's a high-profile example). Firefox is not an Adobe product at all! yet we aren't yelling at that. Additionally, MS already has components installed in FF. Silverlight and the Windows Presentation Foundation are both MS products that are commonly installed in Firefox as plugins, to enable apps that take advantage of Silverlight and .NET browser features to operate in Firefox and friends as well as Internet Explorer. This plugin seems to serve a similar purpose of allowing .NET-powered web apps (which MS wants to be common in the future) to operate in Firefox as well as Internet Explorer. It seems like we should appreciate this move towards interoperability on MS's part - the alternative is only supporting Internet Explorer for web apps.

So it's really nothing abnormal to install an extension in a third party browser. This leaves us with only one issue, the fact that it was distributed via updates to other applications. I refute this as being a major issue for the exact same reason - quite a few programs update/install Firefox extensions as part of their normal update procedure - I raise Foxit Reader as an example, which as of v3.0 automatically installs a Firefox plugin. No one's yelling about that.

A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?

--
I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take.

Re:updating third party software? by Aussie · 2009-02-01 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?
Apples & oranges, only MS has the desktop monopoly to make this work.
And the lack of an uninstall makes it malicious by my standards.
Re:updating third party software? by Qantravon · 2009-02-01 17:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not the fact that they're installing an addon, it's the fact that they're not telling you they're doing it, and that they're not giving you an easy/obvious way of getting rid of it.
Re:updating third party software? by master_runner · 2009-02-01 17:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

there are plenty of installers and updaters out there that obscure what they're doing. Must I came back to Foxit Reader? when you install that, you have to go to the Advanced installer to see anything about the browser plugin. The fact that it can't be removed the normal way is very likely unintentional, as MS seems more blundering than malicious.

--
I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take.

New Idea by bendodge · 2009-02-01 17:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've noticed several of these uninstall-proof extensions lately. How about the Mozilla folks tweaking the extension model to allow an uninstall option?

--
The government can't save you.

Is this SO bad? by gorehog · 2009-02-01 17:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of you will hate me for this...

MS doing this is them trying to ensure that Firefox will work with their web apps (or, web apps built with their technology). Now, granted that they are taking liberties they should not. It would be better to just make the plugin easy to get and install. Consider however that they are doing this so their technology will work on a standards-compliant browser. That's not nothing. It IS dysfunctional in a passive-aggressive way (aggressive-passive?). On the other hand MS is trying to make the browsing experience BETTER for people who use .Net with Firefox. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. maybe poorly executed...but...there's an argument for saying it's not.

Look, if you were running Ubuntu, installed Opera, and automatically got plugins from Synaptic for Opera that added new functionality would you complain?

Then again, the convoluted removal process should be reconsidered.

Re:Is this SO bad? by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-02-01 18:52 · Score: 2, Informative

OK, Captain Open Standards. I'm sure you can refer MS to the open standards dealing with ClickOnce installs of .NET apps?
Oh. OK, I guess you can't.

Re:Profiling, anyone? by gparent · 2009-02-01 17:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft isn't trying to fuck up your web browser, they're enabling ClickOnce functionality via a plugin. You can tell what it's doing because it works exactly as is expected.

Conspiracy theories are not needed here. True, they should have enabled Uninstall, but jumping the gun is absolutely ridiculous.

Fucking up your ACID test via plugin in order to make IE seem better? Are you frakkin' serious? There's absolutely no possible way the community wouldn't notice that, and it'd be a ridiculous waste of time.

If I were Microsoft, I'd fire you for such a terrible idea.

Ah, I was wondering by Torodung · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

That explains why .NET 3.5 SP1 was tagged as a 'high-priority,' and thus completely automatic and unnotified, install for anyone who allows Automatic Updates self-governance.

It clearly wasn't a security update: I only have .NETs v1 and v2 installed, and yet I still got a notification to install the SP1 update for .NET v3.5! Luckily, I don't automatically trust Microsoft with anything. I told it to ignore the update and never show it to me again.

Basically, MS is once again abusing the high-priority update channel, just like they did with the Genuine Advantage Notification tool. Don't let anyone tell you differently. They are treating machines set to update automatically like a spammer treats his botnet.

--
Toro

Re:Profiling, anyone? by pallmall1 · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is no different than the Java SE installing it's plug-in for Java applets, or Adobe Reader installing it's plug-in for viewing PDFs directly within the browser.

The microsoft "helper" plugin cannot be uninstalled like the java or adobe plugins. And since it behaves differently in that respect, I wonder if the .NET "Click-Once" apps trigger all those "security" warning popups like applets do? Maybe this uninstallable characteristic is related to getting around the windows "security" model. If that's the case, then microsoft will be able to call it "a feature".

As in creature feature.

--
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.

Security by Adrian+Lopez · 2009-02-01 17:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:

- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws.
- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes .NET functionality allows websites to host .NET executables.
- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.
- Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsoft.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Mod up. 5 is not enough. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 17:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Installing software on my computer -- especially software that is designed to make YOUR software work better, at the possible expense of others -- without my knowledge or consent is UNETHICAL . Period. And deliberately making uninstall difficult? INEXCUSABLE!!!

Shame on MS. They have been through this before and should know better. Bad. Bad. Negative points. Sad, sad negative Karma.

Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Yeah because when you choose to install software on your computer its completely wrong of them to actually install that software on your computer.
This program is mentioned in the new features list of .NET Framework 3.5.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613588.aspx

Firefox Support for XBAPs
A plug-in for WPF 3.5 enables XBAPs to be run from Firefox 2.0, a feature that is not available from WPF 3.0.
No big deal. Return to your homes. Disaster averted.

Re:First by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-01 17:41 · Score: 2, Funny

mumble... bitwise oprtator (~) mumble...

Lovely spelling as well, after all its not like every app using GNOME has spell-check now. And on such a detailed subject with no right being brought up in the same post as football, too! Why don't I either start writing my posts in binary or just tap some snipped ethernet wires together to make the binary datagrams/packets myself? Man I really need to get out more...

Exactly! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 17:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is where Microsoft shows its true colors. They believe that as long as you are running Windows, they actually have RIGHTS regarding your desktop and the software you run.

They think they have a right to re-configure the software you use, for their own convenience and profit. That they can install things and you should have no say in the matter.

I am serious. On the corporate level (not most individual employees, I am sure), they really think that way. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Which used to serve them well. But which, in today's environment, is suffering a greater and greater disconnect with reality. I am sure you have noticed this yourself... the most obvious explanation for Microsoft's accelerating loss of market share is simply that they have lost touch with the realities of the market: their users' wants and needs, and, not to make too small a point of it, their business ethics.

I am not surprised at all.

Re:Exactly! by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or possibly they believe that:
a) You are running Windows
b) You have the .Net framework installed
c) You are clicking a "Clickonce" installer link ... then it is quite possible that you want the goddamn thing to actually work. They have delivered an add-in, which brings this support, at their expense, to your browser.
They have added a goddamn handler for the clickonce mime type. That is all. This is useful. This allows firefox adoption in the many businesses that deliver LOB thick client apps using clickonce.
Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.

--
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Re:Exactly! by ais523 · 2009-02-01 23:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

They think they have a right to re-configure the software you use, for their own convenience and profit. That they can install things and you should have no say in the matter.
They do. Read the EULA.

--
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"

Quickly forgotten by scdeimos · 2009-02-01 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anybody remember when Windows "Genuine Advantage" validation software was getting slipped in as part of "critical updates" for things like the Microsoft Flash Player patch? It wasn't really that long ago.

You don't seriously expect Microsoft to *not* do these sorts of things on what they consider to be *their* systems, do you?

Microsoft, huh? by Waccoon · 2009-02-01 18:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's a look at all the plugins I didn't want and had to disable:

Extensions:
- Java Quick Starter 1.0
- Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0

Plugins: - Adobe Acrobat
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U10
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U11
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U11 (Yes, again)
- Microsoft(R) DRM
- Microsoft(R) DRM (Yes, again)
- QuickTime Plug-in 7.4.5 (I'll send it to the external player, please)
- RealPlayer Version Plugin (RealAlternative, please)
- RealPlayer(tm) G2 LiveConnet-Enabled Plug-IN (32-bit)
- Windows Media Player Plug-in Dynamic Link Library

So far, that's Sun, Apple, Real, Adobe, and Microsoft messing with my browser without telling me... and only because I'm quite strict with what I install on my system. This isn't Microsoft up to their old tricks, it's just them keeping up with the Joneses, and forcing me to keep up with everyone with an agenda. What else is new?

I do have Silverlight installed, too, but at least the installer for that told me it would work with multiple browsers. Thank goodness the Mozilla people had the fine sense to let people see plugins and extensions, unlike IE6 and friends. Quite a few time I've had to fix someone's compter by hacking out IE extensions from the system registry, and that's not pleasant at all.

documentation by blue_goddess · 2009-02-01 18:35 · Score: 3, Informative

there is a doc about that extension, written by M$:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc716877.aspx

according to that site, its present sice *July* 2008

--
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

You have missed the point. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 18:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

(1) Firefox is not a Microsoft application. It is installed at the will and whim of the end-user. And the end-user should have control over what is installed into their Firefox.

(2) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE. Yet, typically of Microsoft, they chose not to do so. That was the WRONG decision. And that is how most people view their work machines today: it belongs to me, by damn, and you had better ask me before installing something. As a computer professional, who depends on controlling software versions and so on to guarantee compatibility, this is not an option for me. I insist upon it. Companies that violate that policy are not my friends. They do NOT make my life easier, they make it much more difficult.

(3)They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned "Clickonce" thing to work. Maybe I don't. And in fact, the OP was not about installing it via the web at all, it was about it being installed automatically in the background via SPs and SP updates. This isn't about clicking on a link at all. Please read first before you offer an opinion.

(4) This is NOT about adding a mime-type handler. It is about installing a mime-type handler that some users may not want, secretly, in the background, without asking for permission. And for a BROWSER that isn't even their own product. Not only is this unacceptable to me (because I must always be in control of what is installed on my work machines), it is also typical of Microsoft's arrogant attitude toward their users.

My high-horse is not strictly MS-specific, as you would know if you actually read what I wrote! If any other company did this, I would oppose it just as vehemently. It is just that Microsoft is famous for doing this kind of thing, and here is yet one more example.

Odds are, "ozphx", that I was using Microsoft products professionally before you were out of elementary school. If you don't have a direct counterargument to mine, then please go elsewhere.

Oh... by the way. I agree that including the Google toolbar in Java updates is unethical, too. But at least a choice *IS* offered, and that during a voluntary install. In the case under discussion, it was stated that this software is being added unannounced, as part of an update, without any such option being provided. So there is a bit of a difference.

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Sta7ic · 2009-02-01 18:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Echo'ed.

If someone in a suit on the street forced you to wear a band-aid on your shoulder, you'd ask them what was up with them. If someone wanted on the street was "vaccinating" everyone walking by, you'd turn and run the other way.

It's not possible to guard against this by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-01 18:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Firefox is a standards-compliant program that does things via standard API's. MS is going behind Firefox's back and putting stuff in places where Firefox can't write/delete files. You do *NOT* want FF to be able to write/delete all over your system. That is one reason it's safer than IE.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Re:It's not possible to guard against this by FriendlyLurker · 2009-02-01 21:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Firefox is a standards-compliant program that does things via standard API's. MS is going behind Firefox's back and putting stuff in places where Firefox can't write/delete files. You do *NOT* want FF to be able to write/delete all over your system. That is one reason it's safer than IE.
Sure, fair enough. But FF can *ignore* said extensions in a standards compliant way without writing/deleting all over your system. A simple user authorised extensions list will do the trick.

Re:Ho Hum by l0ungeb0y · 2009-02-01 18:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

And so the disabling of the "uninstall" button is totally cool with you?

Not sure which comments you were reading, but the ones I payed attention to were the ones that were ticked about the lack of any sort of notification prior, during or after the install, the lack of an opt-out and the intentional disabling of the uninstall button.

Wasn't there some laws being pushed that made this sort of covert install procedure illegal? Or did MS and Sony get those laws squashed?

Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

What is ClickOnce and why should I be forced to have a plugin to support it? How is it supposed to work? If my browser crashes unexpectedly, how can you be sure it isn't the mysterious plugin that appeared?

I get jumpy when software starts appearing on my laptop that I didn't put there. It screams 'attack vector', especially when it hasn't been vetted by any agency or group I trust.
How does it do it's job? What information does it send? Why the FUCK did it feel the need to modify my agent string?

I'm going to dig through firewall logs and see what it sends.

Re:Erm, right.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Eh... well not under Extensions, but under Plugins. (I'm looking right at them right now.) Which is where I go to disable them, since they are the Great Satan. Well ok maybe not, but they are annoying. :-D

Re:Ho Hum by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-01 19:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

> The amount of venom/vitriol/nerdrage comments in this story is fucking astounding.

Why, because MS is so benevolent and competent and writes such secure code? No. The reason is because of their high-handed tactics, combined with their propensity for malicious behaviour. And please, forget the old saw about not assumimg malice when effing incompetence explains things; the results are the same.

The reaction would've been totally different if MS had promoted this plugin, and made its installation voluntary, and made uninstallation possible without registry hacking. Note that dozens of obscure extensions show up on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/ This is the "official channel" for people who want to enhance their Firefox. The extensions at this site are downloaded voluntarily by end-users who feel a need for them. And these extensions can be uninstalled by the same users who install them. MS merely needed to have asked the Mozilla folks to link to a specific MS webpage from their addons section, and things would've been copacetic.

Instead, MS chose to act like Apple. Remember the flak Apple caught for trying to sneak in Itunes and Safari for people who install/update Quicktime? We happen to be "equal-opportunity-bashers" here. MS acts like Apple, they catch flak like Apple.

Yes, I did RTFA. FFClickOnce makes automated installation of .NET code (the successor to Visual Basic) much easier. Have you ever heard the phrase "drive-by download"??? Many people fled from IE to FF specifically to avoid this very problem. Now MS throws in code that may enable this in FF. No thanks. BTW, there was a plugin for FF that provided ActiveX support for FF (For crying out loud... WHY?). Let's just say I wouldn't want it on my work machine either.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Car Analogy For You by TheLink · 2009-02-01 20:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

"You look like you need a car analogy"

This is like sending in your Microsoft car for servicing at Microsoft and having the Microsoft mechanic install an extension to your "Firefox" add-on car radio - which you installed yourself, because you wanted an alternative to the embedded Microsoft Car Radio (which cannot be removed without disabling a large part of the car).

An extension that allows you to listen to the New & Wonderful Microsoft Radio Stations, and all installed without asking your permission first.

Just because you chose to add that extension on your built-in Microsoft Car Radio, does not give them the right to install it on your non-Microsoft Car Radios, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

After all many of us have the Firefox Car Radio just so that we can avoid listening to the Microsoft Radio Stations by accident or mistake or "Just Because Microsoft thinks it's time for you to". When we want to listen to those stations we use the Microsoft Car Radio.

So far I have managed to install the Java crap on various computers without having the google tool bar installed without my permission - they made it optional and I usually deselect all such options.

MS deserves a bashing for this. They are trespassing and are arguably doing an "unauthorised modification" to your computer system, which is a Computer Crimes offense in many countries.

They'd probably get away by giving the various usual excuses. After all, the Sony bunch got away without being jailed even though they did something worse.

Unauthorized modification of one to a few hundred computers and it's "hacking/vandalism", and if caught you can go to jail.

Unauthorized modification of millions of computers and it's called "useful and allowing firefox adoption".

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Re:Erm, right.... by TSPhoenix · 2009-02-01 20:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Try the "Plugins" tab of the Add-on window as opposed to "Extensions". Both Flash and Java are listed and can be disabled.

Not updating by Arancaytar · 2009-02-01 21:21 · Score: 2, Informative

And this is why my XP system has not been updated in two years now. The PC's working, Microsoft won't support the OS much longer, and Microsoft is known for messy and intrusive changes. Ain't no way I'm letting them near my computer now.

Yes, that means I have dozens of unplugged security holes, but then there are dozens of unplugged holes even after updating - plus the messy changes into the bargain. Ultimately I'm probably safer relying on a NAT router and a virus scanner than on system fixes.

Re:Ho Hum by Arker · 2009-02-01 21:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

One can only assume if you install .NET, you might actually want to run .NET apps, and some of them are deployed using ClickOnce. The FF extension is a convenience.

Very poor assumption. I run firefox specifically to avoid making it so easy to install arbitrary code on my machine behind my back. I installed .net because one program I wanted to run (and purposefully installed) required it. As soon as I remember which one that was I'm going to start looking for an alternative, directly as a result of this hijacking in fact I'll be looking carefully for alternatives to ANY .net program, and whenever possible refusing to run .net programs EVEN IF THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT IT.

If you want to add an extension to MY copy of firefox, you need to ask my permission and respect my answer, whether it's yes or no. Leveraging their control of the OS to install it without even asking was a criminal attack they should be prosecuted for. (Yes, I know they wont, they're above the law, but if some 15 year old kid had done the same thing we both know he'd be risking gaol for it.) Doing this in such a way as to disable the uninstall button is just adding insult to injury.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Jaruzel · 2009-02-01 21:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't use .NET.

I bet you do.

Got Office 2003 ? Some of that is .NET code. Got Live Messenger ? Ditto. Nvidia or ATI graphics cards ? well, those DEFINITELY need .NET to work properly. Let's not forget all those extra bits of freeware you've also got, some of those will be .NET based as well.

As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing - as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory).

Yes their installation methods were suspect - but remember MS's major user base is The Doe Family, who can just about turn their PC on and off. Do you really thing they know the answer to 'Do you really want to install the .NET Framework Assistant ?' - If course they wont know what that is, or whether they need it.

Does your mechanic, dentist, doctor, explain to you each and every thing they do to you or your car in intimate detail ? No.

The PC is becoming a closed box appliance. You can't fight this.

An finally, if you distrust MS SO much - why did you have Windows Updates on anyway!?

--
Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out

Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by zoney_ie · 2009-02-01 22:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, obviously Firefox does not obstruct the possibility for some other random application to install a Firefox plug-in as part of the install process.

How does a Firefox user have any assurance that it's a good idea for them to manually install a given plug-in in any case?

As far as I can see, it's just because people "like" Firefox that they choose to believe it's all perfect. It's just like Apple, or Google, or $FlavourOfTheYear

This story is as much about Firefox insecurity as Microsoft surrepticiousness in my opinion.

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Re:Firefox security hole by BBird · 2009-02-01 22:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

It isn't. First time you start firefox after the update it tells you about the new add on and you can delete it or disable it on the spot. Before that it will not work. I've got the ms update and was surprised myself (as I only run on demand ms updates, and review before installing, and it did not say it was installing this add on bundled in .not update)

Re:Firefox is a web broswer by One+Monkey · 2009-02-01 22:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I always understood that any installation that takes place without the user giving some kind of permission was classified as viral behaviour.

--
www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.

Mozilla should include a Linux "OS extension" by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2009-02-01 23:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Mozilla should include a Linux OS extension with Firefox then. And install it by default! :D

Also changes User-Agent string by tonk · 2009-02-02 00:40 · Score: 5, Informative

The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)", so infected sites can better detect which MS vulnerability to exploit.

Strange, I don't see it... by nyvalbanat · 2009-02-02 02:01 · Score: 3, Funny

dpkg -l | grep .NET returns nothing.
Oh, wait...

--
Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).

Quick uninstall by qubezz · 2009-02-02 03:11 · Score: 5, Informative

For a fast removal of the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 from Firefox, save the following text as decrap.reg and run:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Firefox\extensions] "{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}"=-

To run this from a command line (like a login script on all your machines):

regedit.exe /s decrap.reg

Feel free to modify and add the strings of any other extensions you want to auto-kill...

Microsoft has also added to the Firefox prefs.js config file, located at C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\XXXXXXXX.default, where USERNAME is the user profile and XXXXXXXX is random characters. You will find these entries added to the file:

user_pref("general.useragent.extra.microsoftdotnet", "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)"); user_pref("microsoft.CLR.clickonce.autolaunch"

You can remove these lines manually after closing all Firefox windows.

You can type about:config in the URL bar, and filter for 'microsoft' if you want to see what the slimeballs have been adding to your browser.

(high posting so you can find this...)

Why is MS the only one being blasted here? by Hassman · 2009-02-02 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed, what MS is doing is TERRIBLE!

That said, if this was the other way around. Some 3rd party software installing something into / on top of some other software, people would be screaming of security holes and blasting MS or whoever for their shoddy software.

So where are the folks calling out FF for allowing this to happen?

--
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.

Re:Why is MS the only one being blasted here? by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-02 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

> So where are the folks calling out FF for allowing this to happen?
Huh??? It is impossible for an ordinary application to prevent a system app with root privileges (such as WIndows Update) from doing anything. FF would have to hack Windows Update to block it, which would raise an uproar.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Update Slips In a Firefox Extension

165 of 803 comments (clear)