Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's .NET Addon
bonch writes "Mozilla previously blocked the Firefox addons Microsoft included with .NET, citing security concerns. After talking with Microsoft, they have now unblocked the .NET Framework Assistant addon and are working on a way for enterprise users to unblock the Windows Presentation Foundation addon as well."
Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?
Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel. That should be the case for any plugin that doesn't play by the rules, no matter who it's from or what its use is.
If I can't delete it, it's malware. Oh, wait, I *can* delete it, if I google for some crazy instructions that involve registry editing? Isn't that how I delete malware?
Now I'll admit that there are only a few posts above mine, but already they are generally negative. Which I don't get.
Isn't this a good thing?
Microsoft releases a couple of Firefox plug-ins.
A security vulnerability was discovered in the plug-ins.
Mozilla disables the plug-ins.
Microsoft and Mozilla has a talk about the the vulnerability and it appears that one of the plug-ins aren't vulnerable.
The plug-in is re-enabled.
As far as I can tell, this is the system working properly.
If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.
Further, why is Mozilla.org is allowing a mode where any Tom Dick or Harry can drop in a bunch of files in the install directory and suddenly all the users get the extension on by default? Since it is in the instal dir, individual users cant even disable them or uninstall them. The existence of such a mode itself is a big security hole. If IE has a hole and allows a drive by download of a file into Firefox install dir, boom, you get a vulnerability in Firefox. Already there are reports that installing an HP printer gives and unwanted, unasked for and unpermitted extension added to Firefox. Now every software you install is going to want to add a tool bar or an extension to Firefox.
I wish Firefox will just disallow such a way of installing extensions. The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule. They control their browser, they decide which extensions are allowed, which scripts are allowed to run, which user agent string is sent out, whether or not to allow java, applet, or javascript or flash or silverlight or whatever. For corporate deployment, the Mozilla team might allow a script based instal on all machines in a corporate network using proper authentication procedures, like Corportate IT dept has local sysadmin privilege, so they come in and install an extension, and even disable its uninstall option, but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures. Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder and suddenly everybody gets the cruft is totally against the expectations of the standard mozilla firefox user.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Seriously -- I have FAR more of an issue with Firefox disabling a plugin *that I want there* and not providing a way to re-enable it (or at least any obvious way).
Microsoft may choose to say that Firefox integration is part of the .NET framework, and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it. But where does the Mozilla organization get off disabling an extension I have, and may be using, without any ability to opt out?
The double standard on this would be funny if people weren't so serious about it.
What, you're not like all the other /.ers who are using XP or Windows 2000?
Seriously though, this thing is being blown out of proportion. /.ers are in a minority. Firefox is a main stream browser (through choice), and most people don't care for these political shenanigans, and just want it to behave properly (no global blocking of a standard part of the Windows experience).
Didn't Mike Shaver spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article? Now they've backtracked from blocking an already patched vulnerability, but he's still sleeping! We require your insight!
slashdotters represent the crowd that companies like MS would like to deny when it is convenient to them.
They represent a group that enterprise and abusive corporations basically try to ignore/minimize to make them sound irrelevant.
Basically, the informed consumer. This is every abusive enterprise's nightmare.
Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
There's a name for programs that prevent the OS from modifying their files, rootkits. Firefox is not a rootkit. Microsoft update installed the plugin by modifying the filesystem, it didn't use firefox API's.
If you don't trust microsoft update, frankly you shouldn't be using windows.
That too has been a focus of this whole fiasco, the fact that the plug-in exists isn't a problem, nor is the functionality it provides, which is critical to many enterprise FF users. The core of the whole thing and what has pissed most people off on both sides is that both MS and Mozilla took action without customer consent, effectively choosing for us. First MS for installing it, then Mozilla for disabling it. The resounding consensus has been: "Could you at least ask first?" By acting without consent both Microsoft and Mozilla have shown that they don't think their users can make an informed consenting decision about how they wish to use their browsers. Such an action is disrespectful and disgraceful of both parties. Microsoft should know better having been burned before, and Mozilla because such an action is against the core principles on which Firefox was marketed.
Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to install?
Replace Firefox with Honda Civic and Internet Explorer with Ford Focus.
"If I use Honda Civic, which Ford Focus update do I need [to install]?"
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
That flies in the face of the difference in expectations.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
The most annoying thing on the internet by far, is the shenanigans of "internet tough guys"
umm hello- most Firefox users are using it because of how insecure internet explorer is-not because it has great bonus features (although it does). I for one use it cause I use GNU/Linux and Firefox is well supported and looks great. Not so much because of the bonus features. This mashes up with most other users. It is only the very very technical users who are installing add-ons. If Firefox lets this through it is negating its core benefit to the majority of its user base.
When you download Firefox on Windows, you're downloading it from Mozilla. When you download Firefox in Ubuntu via apt, by default, you're downloading it from Canonical, which struck a deal with Mozilla to package their plugins with it and redistribute it. If you don't want them, you can uninstall firefox and reinstall it from Mozilla's repo, or just uninstall the plugins directly from apt. With Windows, Microsoft installs their plugin into the user installed installation of Firefox without asking permission or following the API. That's the difference. Neither of them has the right to install anything into a user install of Firefox from Mozilla, but Microsoft didn't care. The point is that there AREN'T different standards for Canonical and Microsoft.
"No. You can still use the Win32 API, MFC, ATL, WMI, vbscript, jscript etc."
They go pretty far out of their way to make your life difficult if you do though.
All the current developer tools are targeted towards .NET and newer technologies. That includes things like the shiny new interface elements they introduced with Vista, as well as stuff like the new (hardware accelerated) video decoding/rendering system or the re-designed taskbar in Windows 7. From Vista onwards anything that boils down to Win32 APIs for GUI stuff no longer gets hardware accelerated drawing either.
So yeah, in theory you can still use all those old technologies, but it's an uphill struggle. To be fair most systems are like that - imagine trying to create a modern website in just HTML 3.2 and CGI. You could do it and it might even be faster and less bloated than CSS, PHP and SQL, but you would probably fail and end up with a website that looks like it's from 1995.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC