Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Hides Firefox Extension In Toolbar Update
Jan writes "As part of its regular Patch Tuesday, Microsoft released an update for its various toolbars, and this update came with more than just documented fixes. The update also installs an add-on for Internet Explorer and an extension for Mozilla Firefox, both without the user's permission."
MS stop acting like spyware....
Old news is so exciting!
A black hole is where God divided by 0
I like your products, Microsoft...but I still abhor your business practices.
Kinda like Sony, Apple, etc...
Living With a Nerd
Didn't they do this before with a .net update?
Microsoft needs to just go ahead and buy out Mozilla.
Loading...
I'm pretty sure this was done at least once before sometime in May in 2009. I was managing a conference and a "debate" about MS doing this broke out because supposedly if you tried to disable the plug-in Firefox would break. If I can find a reference to this I'll post it.
Microsoft hides extension in awkward zipper malfunction.
(Sorry, it's one of those mornings)
So glad I don't use Firefox anymore. I'm thoroughly enjoying Chrome. And hey, Google does no evil. Right? Right?! I'm just hoping Microsoft doesn't start making ghostly add-ons for Chrome.
Why the hell hasn't Mozilla made it easy to remove plugins from Firefox? You have to Google solutions to find out how to remove Microsoft (and in some cases old Java) shit.
Disclaimer: This is only my opinion, nothing more.
It's the same problem I have with Apple keeping people locked into the Appstore. It's not that the action itself is a big deal, it's the fact that they are actually doing it that's the problem. The consequences of that action is irrelevant; the action itself is bad.
Living With a Nerd
My XP installation is quite old. So old in fact I was a minor when I clicked the "I agree" on the EULA. The EULA is a contract, which cannot be legally entered into by a minor in the good ol US of A, voiding the contract. Since MS never got permission to install this add on to my computer, could I go after them for unauthorized access to my system?
No. From TFA:
On one of our Windows systems, we had the Windows Live Toolbar installed for Internet Explorer but not for Firefox. Nevertheless, installing this update added the add-on/extension to both browsers without telling us that it would do so. On our second system, we had the Bing Bar installed for Internet Explorer, but it was disabled. Firefox was not installed. This system already had the update in question, so we decided to install Firefox. Not only was the Bing Bar extension present upon Firefox's first launch, but so was the Search Helper Extension.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Yeah not really much of an issue in my book seeing as I don't have any type of search toolbar installed in any of my browsers (Iron, IE, FF.) Consequently I didn't get some "unwanted sekrit mystery update" when I installed updates Tuesday.
pretty sure that means you're not using a legally authorized version of windows, since you were not leagally able to authorize the installation due to not being able to sign the licensing agreement.
Except even if the toolbar is disabled it still installs and enables the toolbar in Firefox. It also auto-enables the toolbar upon a new installation of Firefox if Firefox was not previously installed.
FIRE FIRE FIRE!!!!!
Jack of all trades,master of none
I hope someone does. Regardless of intention, updating other manufacturers' software without notification or approval should be considered a crime. Think about it this way: If you wrote a plugin that updated Word from time to time with an additional toolbar, do you think Microsoft would be upset?
I will be delaying Microsoft software approvals and suggesting non-Microsoft equivalents in my company because of tricks like this. They're totally out of control.
My friend and I played a drinking game to /. once. One person clicks on a story involving Microsoft or Apple or Linux or polotics and the other person has to take a drink for every bullsh*t post about "M$" or Apple's App Store or Android FTW and everything else completely unrelated to what the actual post is about. Let me just say, don't attempt this in the morning...
:)
ps. Slashdot community, I love you all but some days you make me pull my hair out.
I don't have no steenking Bing searchbar in my Firefox browser (no searchbars at all, in fact). The new extension did NOT show up in my Firefox addons, although I received my Windows updates yesterday.
So I'm not affected directly. But, as many others have said, I do NOT appreciate Microsoft changing ANYTHING in my computer without my specific, informed permission. Okay, they can change their own OS if necessary (since they usually accept responsibility for disasters that occur). But leave MY programs the hell alone!
You could if you weren't a minor.
But you are so you can't.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
A textbook example of what our anti-trust laws are supposed to address a company using it's monopoly in one market (OS) to trying and gain an advantage in another market (search).
Sigh...
I have two windows, a netbook with windows 7, and a XP, and the general malpractices of the software that this OS use is really anoying. Stuff like the printer driver creates a resident program (HP something) on the toolbar. Other applications after running only once, set itself to start at restart. WTF LOL!?. How is that possible? a OS sould ask user permission with something like sudo for setting apps to auto-run at restart. All these apps that start and are doing nothing at all make the start very long, and take screen space.
So.. is bad enough wen people like HP, Impulse or others do this, but.. Microsoft? In a way, is like Microsoft is sanctioning this evil practice thenselves.
-Woof woof woof!
The more MS tries to force Bing down everyone's throats, the more determined I am to boycott Bing. It pissed me off so much the day I found that Verizon had signed a deal with MS to make Bing the exclusive (not merely default) search provider on my Blackberry. Of course, I countered by putting google at the top of my bookmarks, but really I shouldn't have to maneuver around microsoft's asshat shenanigans just to use my search provider of choice on my phone (and yes, I resent verizon for that as well).
Plus obviously one has to wonder: "If Bing is so freaking great than why is MS paying to have it force-fed all over? Like all those pop-up ads so many sites have now that resolve to Bing -- and they count those as hits for their search engine, which probably at least quadruples their numbers.
It's inconvenient to dislike MS, because they're everywhere. I'd rather be able to embrace them, I really would. But their behavior is just so objectionable in so many ways it's impossible.
Caveat Utilitor
Well, the problem is, nobody knows exactly what it is and why it's there. Given Microsoft's lousy record with internet security, what's to say they haven't inadvertently created a security loophole?
From the looks of it, they're installing toolbars into Firefox. Since they're for Bing and for Search helper, I'm sure they're directing people to their own search engine. Which means they're taking advantage of their control over the OS to meddle with my browser.
And, most importantly, they didn't ask. Since this isn't Microsoft's software, WTF are they doing jamming in add-ons without notifying the user or making it possible to delete it?? When they installed the last .NET extension to my Firefox, I can't delete it -- only Disable it. It's not up to Microsoft to "enhance" my user experience in software that isn't theirs.
Seriously, you have to ask why installing additions into other companies' software without asking the user or allowing them to delete it is just plain wrong? What next, deleting any software which competes with their own offerings?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
My Ubuntu installation at work installed a Firefox extension by default. It also made numerous modifications to packages installed on my computer - from bash to Xorg to Gnome. Both legal and morally acceptable.
Same thing is with Microsoft, with the only difference being that there is no assumed connection between Windows and Firefox (Microsoft doesn't package Firefox)
Your OS will tamper with the rest of your machine. The question is: do you trust your operating system with your computer?
Its a friggin browser extension. We're not talking a Sony rootkit here!
I'm no MS fan but this constant MS bashing from self righteous geeks who smell an easy target gets tedious after a while.
If you really hate MS so much why are you running Windows in the first place to get upset about it? Install Ubuntu
or buy a Mac and shut up.
Contact the EU. Seriously, this is just after (in bureaucrat time) they were forced to offer browser choices. Now they're trying to lure people to their search engine to generate ad revenue by abusing the same near-monopoly on desktop OSes.
Not to mention this is a horrible security practice -- force-installing software someone didn't request. This should be prosecuted as unauthorized access to millions of computers.
Every time ubuntu updates firefox, it slams it's own list of search engines into my browser, and I have to yet again remove them. Why would a system update muck with personal settings like that?
When they installed the last .NET extension to my Firefox, I can't delete it -- only Disable it.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
I didn't get the patch; however, I don't have the browser toolbar installed at all. I am reluctant to install anyone's toolbar because it gives them another point of entry into my privacy. It seems that this time, the paranoia paid off.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
since you were not leagally able to authorize the installation due to not being able to sign the licensing agreement.
Did you sign your Windows licensing agreement? I doubt it.
A EULA is not a contract.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Removing the .NET plugin:
del /q "%SystemRoot%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation\NPWPF.dll" /v {20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b} /f > Nul /q %SystemRoot%\System32\dllcache\*.*
reg DELETE HKLM\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Firefox\Extensions
del
I also remove the Media player DRM plugin: /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npdrmv2.dll" /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npwmsdrm.dll"
del
del
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
In the U.S. there has emerged a business model that uses the math of, "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission." Personally, I'm getting more "bang for the buck" by going to other businesses and asking, "how much?"
But its not benign in any sense of reality. Think of it this way, for every 1000 lines of code there is an average of 1-1.5 defects even in highly scrutinized Government sponsored "secure" programs. If Microsoft wrote 10k lines of code (conservative I think) that is, given Microsoft's current defect track record, about 12 real defects in that hypothetical extension (I don't know the actual size of the code base). If even one of those defects provides a security vulnerability your system gets hacked. How secure are you? You don't even know its vulnerable, and if you did, you may not even be able to remove it entirely because Microsoft doesn't provide that capability on purpose. Even if you find a way to deactivate it there is still code on your system that might be abused without clicking on the GUI taskbar. Removing these Microsoft 'add-ons' generally requires a knowledgeable person to essentially hack you Firefox/OS installation just to remove it. The real twist to the reality is that they even want Firefox to be unstable and cause you problems, so what is their incentive to make it defect free? They are not going to put much effort into ensuring that a competitors product continues to beat them in the open market. Microsoft likes to win. History itself tells the truth about their true motivations. I won't even go there.
Apple don't update other company's applications, though. MS just did.
Dear Mozilla developers, please disable by default *all* extensions except:
The power to choose what to install in their browsers must reside only in the hands of the users.
If a vendor actively tries to circumvent this new protection mechanism, permanently blacklist ALL its extensions, plugins and whatnot. Report them to antivirus vendors as malware.
It's not the first time this happens and it actively damages users, with slower browsing experience, less screen space for actual content, huge undisclosed privacy and security breaches (you can BET they exists, even if they are not made public).
This shit has to stop.
P.S. to the users of Microsoft products: please any time you can, try to avoid this company, you're not their customer, you're their victim. There are other software vendors that respect you much more than that.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
So every time you don't put that disclaimer, may we assume that what you write is 100% objectively factual?
Why do some people have such an inflated sense of their own opinion that they believe it somehow warrants a disclaimer?
Really? I've got two add-ons with a nice shiny Uninstall button next to them that is enabled should I decide to push it. (Why I would uninstall noscript, I don't know, but it's there).
I also have Java Add-ons and .NET add-ons which have the Uninstall button disabled.
Methinks if Firefox was designed to prevent uninstalling add-ons, there would be no such button.
And, really, unless you know exactly which files to delete and if you can do it safely, deleting the files from the disk isn't really an option.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I would like to point out, as somebody who has and uses Firefox and does not use the toolbar, that it didn't install on my computer when I updated Windows.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
The first thing I think of when I see that is; spyware. The enhancement is probably only to their benefit, not yours.
We are all God's parents.
You wish to embrace Microsoft, but find it hard to do so? A suggestion to help you on this, consider actively supporting the WINE project in some fashion. In this way, you can embrace Microsoft products, extend them for use with a Linux based environment, and eventually, extingush the need for for such an invasive OS as Windows has been.
BING: But... It's not Google!
They exist.
Both of my systems updated yesterday and neither received this toolbar or extension. One system is XP, the other is 7.
Apple don't update other company's applications
True, when Apple sees functionality in an App they don't like they just ban the app!
I'm pretty sure it's in their EULA. Try read it sometimes :)
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
According to TFA, a Microsoft spokeshuman didn't even know about the toolbar being forcefully installed:
"The worst part of this issue is that Microsoft does not seem to be aware of it: a Microsoft spokesperson simply pointed us to the aforementioned Microsoft Support page that inaccurately describes the update. We asked the company for an explanation of why the extension was installed and what it does, but have yet to receive a reply."
I have a bad feeling about this...
It was designed to give developers the choice as to whether a user can uninstall from Firefox.
Actually, on the iOS, unlike in MacOS, they do, but that's part of why they have a testing process for app submissions. Of course the anti-Apple folks like to look at it... no actually they just prefer to turn away and imagine what it might be like.
--- What?
Did you have the bing toolbar installed (in IE or firefox)? If not, then this update won't do anything. RTFA.
I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
Wait, are you seriously contending that the Microsoft EULA for the OS gives them blanket permissions to alter 3rd party software as they see fit??
That should be illegal. Well, then again, so should the way most EULAs/TOS get updated unilaterally.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It seems that your beef should be with Verizon, not microsoft. MSFT just cut a deal. It's verizon that treated their customer like shit in your situation.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
To be clearer, I meant they install updates provided by 3rd party app developers, which they don't do in MacOS (Software Update in MacOS only updates Apple software). Tthey don't change other's apps or install their own things in them. So, actually I guess they don't, in the sense you are meaning.
--- What?
A EULA is not a contract.
IANAL, but I suspect that it is in fact a contract. It may be a bad contract, and somewhat unenforcable, but if it wasn't a reasonable valid contract people would be suing the shit out of MSFT for every BSOD and error that was encountered in windows and Office. There aren't a bajillion lawsuits out there, so I suspect this means that the EULA is sufficiently a contract to protect MSFT in the majority of cases.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
sure, just like the ss was following orders
Because around here, whenever I don't include that disclaimer and my opinion grates against the common opinion, people do assume that what I write is 100% objectively factual. This happened a couple of days ago here on Slashdot with my opinion on the iPhone.
I'd rather not go through that malarky again, hence the disclaimer.
Living With a Nerd
There are two separate add-on mechanisms: plugins and extensions. Extensions are managed by Firefox, and plugins are not. The .NET "extension" was actually a plugin, and that's why you have to go outside of Firefox to remove it. This is the way Mozilla designed it.
Extensions should always be manageable through Firefox. The fact that Mozilla has provided the ability for an extension to disable its "Uninstall" button is a problem, and it's Mozilla's problem.
As small and simple as this may be this is a monopoly desktop OS vendor using its position to push out things to support its internet and marketing activities. Using one position as monopoly to prop up or support another activity in another market place. That pretty much defines what they have been getting in trouble for over the past 20 years in multiple jurisdictions.
They show no signs or intention of change. They need to be broken up.
I havent been a minor for nearly 3 years now. Surely there is no provision that caused me to automatically agree to the EULA on my 18th birthday.
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
...so no harm, because I don't use the installed version.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
Damn, you MUST be a lawyer :p Joking aside, well said.
Living With a Nerd
It isn't being forced down anyone's throat, at least not in this case. The update is for a toolbar that was already installed manually by the user. Only on /. could people get their collective panties in a bunch over something so trivial.
Three years?
Sorry, you're out of luck. Statue of Limitations and all.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
I noticed Ars only use's the win 7 updater. Hope that's not the future trend.
If you've been around for any amount of time you know these toolbars are all crap for the most part and any little benefit you might get, quickly becomes old, and eventually a waste of productive real estate space on your monitor. As you harden over the years, you don't install such crap in the first place.
But I have to admit, I must have been psychic, cause unlike other updates in 2010, I had this "feeling" I should wait a day or two on this patch Tuesday 6/08/2010 And sure enough some people got bit.
With all the lies in the world we don't need deceptions from our "trusted sources" even minor deceptions. I agree with your bold two liner, for the most part your spot on, but it seems there is a complaint here by folks who had only installed it on one thing, having it force installed on another. What if say someone in firefox doesn't want it when they DO want it in IE. Your saying the toolbar is one size fits all. While we are saying, keep your fucking toolbar out of my 4 portable firefox's opera's and whatever else you feel like attacking from the known paths. If I come to you with IE presented, only present IE with shit. It's lazy and it's deceptive, and it questions trust itself.
But for the most part I agree with you.
I suppose it's a good thing that I run a WSUS server for my Windows based computers and specifically picked upstream products that I want - Bing Search Enhancement Pack not being one of them. This 'update' never showed up for me anywhere - not even the WSUS server. :)
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
While this is a non-issue for most hardened people out there, it does beg the question.
Are we just one update cycle away from "lights out?"
(Where "lights out" means our systems are down and not productive because they have been broken in some way because of a scheduled update.)
I installed Microsoft Search a while back, discovered that it screwed up the ordinary mechanism for searching for files, and dumped it. The offending update was not among those proposed for my most recent Automatic Update, so I'm guessing that it's connected to Microsoft Search.
I don't see any need for Microsoft Search anyway; Locate32 and Everything work a lot faster with a far smaller footprint.
I piss off bigots.
From the article:
See? It's surrounded by a SEP field. Nobody will notice it.
Still, it is nice to see Slartibartfast is gainfully employed...
This premise is incorrect. In general, contracts with minors are not void, they are voidable by the minor. The precise details may vary by jurisdiction, but, IIRC, generally for the minor to exercise this power, they must do so prior to or within a very specific window after majority.
Of course, voiding the contract also means that the minor loses any rights they hand under the contract.
Statute of Limitations of what? The unauthorized installation happened just days ago...
The problem, as someone earlier has already stated, is that the updates are done in a non-user way. I'm not sure how Firefox handles uninstalling plugins that are installed via SYSTEM or a similar account, but it makes some sense that you can't uninstall it from User mode, especailly if the plugin is installed System-Wide. It may be done stupidly (they should have an uninstall as Admin option, for instance), but it makes some sense.
Mutual consideration and acceptance are required for a contract, a signature is generally not. Signatures of both parties on a written document of the contract terms is a common and particularly desirable form of evidence of both what the actual terms of the contract are and that those terms were, in fact, agreed to and accepted by both parties, but it is not a requirement to have a valid contract in most cases (there are certain cases where there is a requirement that a contract be supported by a signed, written document to be valid, such as certain real estate transactions, but these are exceptions to the normal rule, under which contracts which are neither signed nor even reduced to writing are valid and enforceable.)
There are issues with the validity of EULAs (and, IIRC, court decisions on their validity and enforceability are mixed), but the one you raise isn't really one of them.
Oh, so you admit to an unauthorized installation?
Please submit your personal information to the following. . . . http://www.bsa.org/country.aspx?sc_lang=en
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
Repeating that lie doesn't make it any more true. MS forced a bing toolbar on firefox, full stop.
As a security measure, shouldn't Firefox prevent access to plugins that weren't explicitly registered by the end user? If it discovers something new upon startup, then warn the user, circle it in red in the extensions list, and disable it. Allow an "enable" button, but again, warn the user and demand confirmation if it is enabled. Every time extensions are modified explicitly by the end user (like the way they ask you if it's ok for you to install a plugin from the web with a dialog that is not supposed to be trapped by other processes), make a list of the state of extensions, and use that to compare with on startup.
Twinstiq, game news
You missed an important circle on your Venn diagram.
The subset of "Firefox Geeks" with "Windows Live Toolbar" is probably quite small and I can't imagine any of them will mind too much (I mean, they actually installed Windows Live toolbar so how much of a "Firefox Geek" can they be...?)
Still, this is Slashdot so I'll let everybody get back to their Microsoft bashing.
No sig today...
"Additional testing determined that the update is only being offered to those with one of the Microsoft toolbars installed, regardless of whether they are enabled or disabled."
And there you have it. It's your own fault if you install any MS extension. Or any other extension from one of the big SW companies. Extensions are allowed to do almost anything to your browser.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I'm using an older laptop that has several black marks indelibly marked on its screen. When this article's summary appeared on my screen, one of the black marks was so positioned to make the summary read: "Microsoft released an update for its various foolbars".
I'd like to again thank those of you that run the update Tuesday minefield for me. I set my machines to notify but not install when a new update comes out. Then I wait a week or so, just in case something like this kind of trickery manifests. So now I know to wait a bit longer on actually runnig the update, until a "fix", if needed, comes out.
Thanks guys!
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I didn't see this update at all yesterday, but then again, I didn't install their search program.
So we're now going to bash MS for putting an update out for some of their software that people had to manually install?
To add a second data point to your collection: I use Firefox on a Lenovo laptop with basically a factory installation/config. This update did install the search bar into FF for me.
That's further from the truth than the person you responded to.
Microsoft installed it on Firefox if a previous version was already installed on either Firefox or IE. The one case is trivial and non-problematic, the other unusual but wrong when it does hit.
how's that second liver working out?
Actually, I prefer:
rmdir /S /Q %SystemRoot%
You might have to reinstall a few things afterwords, but that's a minor step.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
It’s bloody wrong and I want it fixed.
Yes, it’s installed as a system-wide extension and can’t be uninstalled by a user-level program. That is what UAC is for: to elevate privileges out of the user level so I can perform admin actions (such as uninstalling system-wide extensions).
I want a button with the little UAC access-control icon (the shield) next to “Uninstall”, so that I know I can’t uninstall it unless I’m an administrator. Maybe put a little warning message “uninstalling this extension will affect all users on this computer... you must be an administrator to perform this action...”
I want to click the button, be presented with a UAC prompt, type the administrator password, and have the damn extension uninstalled.
That is how things are supposed to work.
In the meantime, how do I uninstall it? I hate having greyed-out disabled extensions cluttering up my list of extensions. (Same goes for plugins, actually.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Additionally, net searches (yes we called them that because of the Net Search button in Netscape) were actually better back then because you could actually navigate all search results for simple search terms!
Imagine a time when Yahoo would give about 22 search results for Mario Kart. Then when it was done, it provided a link to continue searching with Alta Vista with even fewer results. And every search result was actually relevant, leading to a home page by dedicated fans.
Boy I miss the mid-1990s.
Plus obviously one has to wonder: "If Bing is so freaking great than why is MS paying to have it force-fed all over? .
Google pays Mozilla so that they use it as the default search engine in Firefox. Does that reflect poorly on Google?
So just because the system finds a DLL, all kinds of shit gets ran by my computer?
Oh yeah, this is how "security" works on Windows...
This is just non-sense. There's no way it needs to work the same borked way in Linux and Firefox and all other products, just because Microsoft does it.
There's a difference between being default and being the only option.
If Google payed Mozilla to have Google as the only search engine for the search bar, it would reflect poorly on Google.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
It's Windows, so the answer to that question may very well be "No, I can't."
On my system running XP service pack 3, I tried to delete these files:
del /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npdrmv2.dll" /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npwmsdrm.dll"
del
either with windows explorer or the command shell, and the files magically reappear a few seconds later.
What gives?
It updates previously installed toolbars, so unless you have one, you won't get it.
The bigger problem is that if, for example, you have the old toolbar installed for IE (but not for Firefox), it'll install it for both IE *and* Firefox, rather than just updating the old one.
Really? You think MS updated FireFox itself and didn't use FireFox's blessed extension mechanism specifically provided so that third parties can *their own* functions to FireFox?
Surely you troll ...
Run this immediately after it: /q %SystemRoot%\System32\dllcache\*.*
del
That removes the files form cache and the WFP won't put it back. There's nothing in there that won't be automatically populated when it's needed again so you're not going to screw anything up. If you are worried about it, reboot.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
TFA: "Both seem to be installed in "C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Search Enhancement Pack\Search Helper\." Inside, there is a file called "SEPsearchhelperie.dll" that is responsible for the IE add-on and a "firefoxextension" folder responsible for Firefox. The update can't be uninstalled, but deleting these files works just fine. "
Again, "deleting these files works just fine."
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Well said! I have 256 add-ons (some kind of 8bit limit in my head)
When i saw that update i instinctively unchecked it because I thought it was related to that annoying search enhancement that Microsoft released for XP a couple years ago which actually made searching even more cumbersome in the long run. I was more than happy with searching as it was, I just never thought that update had to do with "web searching" (And it apparently is there for IE 7 too btw). Strange though I don't remember having any tool bars in IE that the article mentions.
> The consequences of that action is irrelevant; the action itself is bad.
The consequence are near nil. The plugin will get blacklisted by Firefox within days, and hopefully Microsoft takes the hint. I doubt they will play the cat and mouse game, so the only other options are to wise up or to give up.