Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Explains Mystery Firefox Extension

Ricky writes with a followup to news we discussed a couple days ago that a Microsoft toolbar update was installing an IE add-on and a Firefox extension without the user's consent. Quoting Ars: "Microsoft has fixed the distribution scope of a toolbar update that, without the user's knowledge, installed an add-on in Internet Explorer and an extension in Firefox called Search Helper Extension. Microsoft told us that the new update is actually the same as the old one; the only difference is the distribution settings. In other words, the update will no longer be distributed to toolbars that it shouldn't be added to. End users won't see the tweak, Microsoft told Ars, and also offered an explanation on what the mystery add-on actually does. 'The Search Enhancement Pack is a shared component used by the Windows Live Toolbar, MSN Toolbar, and Bing Bar. This component enables toolbar search functionality, like the toolbar search suggestions drop down. It is not the toolbar. It is a component used by the toolbars.'"

142 comments

  1. English Doc? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (looking perplexed)

    I still don't understand why it was added to Firefox when I'm not using MSN, Bing, or any other crap
    .

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:English Doc? by Voulnet · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't added to Firefox users who didn't use MSN or Bing toolbars.

    2. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then that MS PR flack did their job well.

    3. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't understand why it was added to Firefox when I'm not using MSN, Bing, or any other crap

      That's because it wasn't added to your copy of Firefox. Have you actually looked to check? I'm going to guess that the answer is no and that you're instead having knee-jerk reactions to something you don't understand fully (which seems to be the case with you many times).

    4. Re:English Doc? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wrong. It got added to Firefox if any of the toolbars were detected on the system, even if it was for IE. So someone with an OEM install of Windows with an IE toolbar, but who never used IE, would still get the Firefox add-on forced upon him.

      Now why Firefox would allow extensions to be installed from the outside without the user's permission is the question I have. That makes Firefox a good target for malware writers.

    5. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it would be ready for you to enhance features, if and when you choose to install the other part of the complimentry component or when someone chooses for you.

    6. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means that they had the Bing or MSN toolbar installed. That in no way contradicts Voulnet's post that you're calling "wrong".

    7. Re:English Doc? by rvw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. It got added to Firefox if any of the toolbars were detected on the system, even if it was for IE. So someone with an OEM install of Windows with an IE toolbar, but who never used IE, would still get the Firefox add-on forced upon him.

      Now why Firefox would allow extensions to be installed from the outside without the user's permission is the question I have. That makes Firefox a good target for malware writers.

      I suppose Firefox isn't running when this happens. So it can't block anything. Firefox can block addons to be installed if they are activated from a page that Firefox visits. This is a different situation. And if Firefox is running, it's probably possible to install something that is activated after a restart. And if it shouldn't, this is Windows, MS territory, and they may be able to do anything if they want to.

    8. Re:English Doc? by AusIV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you propose Firefox prevent the installation of an extension by software that has direct file system access? Firefox is open source, so anyone can look and see how an extension is installed. Third party software need only update the right files and the extension would be installed. Firefox had no control over any step.

      Now, this doesn't make Firefox a good target for malware writers. Anyone who can execute arbitrary code on your system doesn't need Firefox to cause problems.

    9. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (looking perplexed)

      I still don't understand why it was added to Firefox when I'm not using MSN, Bing, or any other crap .

      Yet you use Windows?

    10. Re:English Doc? by Voulnet · · Score: 1

      Which means they had the toolbar installed. I wasn't wrong there, I just wasn't very specific. Firefox now does prompt you when a website tries to install a plugin, but how this one got installed is beyond my knowledge. Apparently Microsoft knows its way around its system.

    11. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can avoid this with Firefox by using the PluginChecker plugin, which will check for plugins installed without permission.

    12. Re:English Doc? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now why Firefox would allow extensions to be installed from the outside without the user's permission is the question I have. That makes Firefox a good target for malware writers.

      Windows Update can remove or rewrite your Firefox install any way you like, Firefox can't in any way control that.
      Also, your profile folder can be rewritten in any way by user run program (malware). There is no way Firefox could prevent that.

      The only way to prevent things like this is OS security packages that enforce security policies (program A can write to folder B, program C may have TCP sockets). AFAIK RSBAC and SELinux are capable of this on Linux. But user home dirs, no way (how?).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    13. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox can activate or uninstall the extension when it runs. Or at least warn the user. They've done this before with an insecure Microsoft .net extension. If Firefox couldn't check for such modifications when it runs, the software would be useless.

    14. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      This is Windows, MS territory, and they may be able to do anything if they want to.

      Microsoft (and the NSA) have root access to your windows machine, just accept this as a fact of life, don't like it, move to Linux.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

    15. Re:English Doc? by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

      Firefox can't prevent a process with elevated privileges from making configuration changes to an existing Firefox installation, that's true.

      It could, however, provide an option which requires the user to sign every extension and plugin that the user wants to install or update.

      The only way a rogue process could imitate this effect would be to capture keystrokes. And subverting that sort of security would be no "accident". It's the sort of thing that would lead to lawsuits.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    16. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an excellent target and it gets even better: you can write your malware in javascript and just append it to another plugin. In fact I had a small botnet running on firefox, controlled by twitter!

    17. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: why do you use Microsoft's shitty closed platform.

    18. Re:English Doc? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uuum because Windows Update is software that has to have full control over the system to do its job of updating core system files. And because Firefox, being a normal user program and maybe not even running, can’t override a program with full access and rights to everything.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    19. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its quite simple actually, just have the program check some encrypted database for the installed extensions. Still arbitrary code execution is possible in any operating system given enough user stupidity, so relying on its non-existence is just as stupid.

    20. Re:English Doc? by the+old+rang · · Score: 1

      The reason, as posted in the article, was clearly explained by (I believe) one of their lawyers from the firm of Gobel D. Gook, Flim, Flam and Muddywaters. The conciseness of the explanation, narrowed to the most broad base terms of contradiction, should have been clearly understood by any writer of the Health Care Bill, as to be non-sequitur. Simple,Huh?

    21. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you prevent some arbitrary extension installer from decrypting the database? The key has to be stored somewhere, and if the installer is running with administrative privileges it will be able to access it.

    22. Re:English Doc? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Have Firefox require user signing of all extensions that are allowed to run.
      With the signing key protected by TPM on systems that support it, or an option to store it on an external location (like a USB key or a WEBDAV location) for those that don't.

      To get around that, Microsoft would have to hack and binary-patch Firefox' own code, which would no longer be merely immoral, but illegal. Not to say exceedingly difficult, considering how many different versions and revisions of browsers there are out there with Mozilla/Gecko engines.

    23. Re:English Doc? by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which means that they had the Bing or MSN toolbar installed. That in no way contradicts Voulnet's post that you're calling "wrong".

      Bzzt. Good thing for your karma that you post as AC. The claim was that it wouldn't install unless you used these toolbars, not whether you had them installed.

    24. Re:English Doc? by Auckerman · · Score: 1

      "How do you propose Firefox prevent the installation of an extension by software that has direct file system access?"

      Don't use filesystem placement as the method of registering extensions. Keep registered extensions in an encrypted database which only Firefox has access to. Only add extensions when the user interacts with a secure API verifying they want the extension added. /next question?

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    25. Re:English Doc? by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

      "Keep registered extensions in an encrypted database which only Firefox has access to."

      You mean, like DRM? Yeah, hackers will never figure that out.

      (i.e., this solution would be vulnerable to the _exact_ same problem seen with media rights management.. the browser would need the key to access the database, thus it is also available to anyone who looks in the right place.)

    26. Re:English Doc? by Polumna · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're obviously right, but there's an implication worth mentioning for this specific instance. *Microsoft* would have had to violate the DMCA publicly. Even if they did it with some legal sleight-of-hand, it would at least make for a >500 comment slashdot story. :P

    27. Re:English Doc? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that cause issues with software updates by extensions in general? I mean often when wanted extensions and addons like Java or Flash are updated, they need to point the references to a new file name or version. If that can be done without accessing the encrypted DB, like through windows update or when another browser is open, then the entire point of the encrypted database is mooted because you can install anything by simple adding to the existing plugins.

    28. Re:English Doc? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have to be that difficult. All MS would have to do is create a sub-shell like program that Firefox runs in. with this, they could intercept or manipulate anything- including using scripts or whatever to overlay boxes on the ui.

      Think of it as the same principle that spyware and popups work/used to work. They installed a program that intercepted your internet sessions, vied them and injected their own ads or content in the replies. Even in some cases, they would recognize the competitions ads on a webpage and overlay their customers ad without the user knowing the difference (well, without knowing outside of degraded performance, pop-ups, and redirects to totally ansurd websites designed to get you to install more of their ad-ware).

      Anyways, MS has the source code for windows. They have the interface to make this happen, they have the update mechanism to make it possible, and there really isn't anything we can do about it besides bitch if they decide to do it and we use MS products.

    29. Re:English Doc? by eulernet · · Score: 1

      It got added to Firefox if any of the toolbars were detected on the system, even if it was for IE.

      No, I never install toolbars, and it got installed on one of my computers...

      I guess I'll have to investigate...

    30. Re:English Doc? by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The toolbar doesn't have to be installed by you. If the Windows version is OEM, it might have been pre-installed by the manufacturer. And if you've installed a program that requires java, it might have installed java with the silent option, and the Yahoo toolbar is opt-out. And a plethora of other options, including it being installed and disabled. If you don't use IE at all, chances are you never noticed it.

    31. Re:English Doc? by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that if Microsoft circumvented the DRM, it would be flagrantly illegal and could not happen by accident.

      We're not talking about defending against a hypothetical foreign attack by a malicious adversary here, we're talking about preventing unwanted accidental or incidental installs.

    32. Re:English Doc? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It got added to Firefox if any of the toolbars were detected on the system, even if it was for IE. So someone with an OEM install of Windows with an IE toolbar, but who never used IE, would still get the Firefox add-on forced upon him.

      I don't use any of the toolbars mentioned. I built this machine myself and installed Windows on it from a corporate XP installation CD. Why did I get that mysterious Microsoft extension?

    33. Re:English Doc? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Informative? What the fuck?

      Since when has bullshit conspiracy theory been informative?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    34. Re:English Doc? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If it was a corporate XP CD, it's far from inconceivable that it has been slipstreamed.
      Open Internet Settings, choose Programs, then choose "Manage add-ons". If you don't see any of the toolbars there, and don't see it in the Add-ons in any of your Gecko based browsers, contact Microsoft support -- I'm quite sure they would like to figure out how it was detected as installed on your system.

    35. Re:English Doc? by AusIV · · Score: 1

      The DMCA applies to "technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works." I think it would be hard to argue that it applies to this kind of protection.

    36. Re:English Doc? by AusIV · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting it has to do with filesystem placement, but that Microsoft's software has the ability to read and modify everything Firefox has access to. How do you propose creating an encrypted database that only Firefox has access to? Where do you plan to keep the key that Firefox can get it but Windows updates can't? This works (for a while) for proprietary software employing security through obscurity, but it could never work for open source software.

    37. Re:English Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about having said database encrypted by a user chosen key? Then the key wouldn't be in the source for the world to see..
      It'd be a pain to install stuff - you'd have to key in your password at least once per session you installed stuff in, but at least it would prevent M$ from pulling this crap..

  2. Huh? by Zumbs · · Score: 2

    The Search Enhancement Pack is a shared component used by the Windows Live Toolbar, MSN Toolbar, and Bing Bar. This component enables toolbar search functionality, like the toolbar search suggestions drop down. It is not the toolbar. It is a component used by the toolbars.

    And this explains why it was silently added to Firefox how? Wouldn't the reasonable way of accomplishing this be to download the pack with the extensions in question?

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, Slashdot is overwhelmingly in favor of automatic updates for security reasons. Not to mention, no users in the world manually update software.

      What if the old MSN toolbar was subject to a vulnerability? Would you still insist Microsoft push out a non-automatic update?

      Seriously. It's 2010. Software either updates on its own, or it doesn't update at all. Asking the user to browse to a website and download the new version (aka, Adobe Flash) is painfully reminiscent of 1990.

      (I'm just waiting for some troll to say that SEP is somehow monopoly-pushed "new software" and not simply a v1-v2 software stack update.)

    2. Re:Huh? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Yes, we are all in favor of automatic updates... for Microsoft Software. This includes Office and Windows and more. But Not Mozilla Firefox.
      2. Firefox does it's own automatic updates. It tells the users when there are updates for addons and for Firefox itself. Let Firefox manage itself! Microsoft only needs to place the update out on the web and tell its own addon where to find them. If people want this addon, they will install it and it will remain updated.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know nothing about this extension, never having installed toolbars in my life... but even I can tell that this update goes beyond just Firefox.

      Search Helper is agnostic, i.e., it isn't just for Firefox. The extension DLL is for Firefox, but this is 99% sure to be a tiny wrapper for the actual system-wide DLL.

      To update this extension, Microsoft would have had three options.
      1) Rely on Firefox update.
      2) Rely on Windows update + Firefox update.
      3) Rely on Windows update.

      #1 can't touch the system DLLs without hell breaking loose. Thus this has no way to actually update the Search Helper.
      #2 Relies on both being done at virtually the same instant. If WU is first, Firefox breaks. If Firefox is first, Firefox breaks again.
      #3 Is the only remaining option to update all components reliably.

      It seems your method depends on the fact that all Firefox extensions are fully self-contained.

    4. Re:Huh? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Troll

      Indeed! It is an application independent of the OS. Let it be self-contained as applications independent of the OS should be. Part of Microsoft's problem is their propensity to integrate and tie things together. This is, was and remains a key problem with their dubious activities and what gets them into legal trouble.

      They haven't yet learned their lesson and need to be broken up so that their OS division only does OS things and not Internet things.

    5. Re:Huh? by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      The toolbars are Microsoft software.

    6. Re:Huh? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Unless I missed something, the "update" doesn't patch an existing piece of software. It *adds* an extension to Firefox where none were earlier. If the old MSN toolbar were subject to a vulnerability, and I had it installed on IE, I would expect Microsoft to update the IE extension, *not* to add a new extension to FF.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    7. Re:Huh? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      As I understand the issue, the "update" added an extension to FF, even if the toolbar weren't installed in the first place. So, the problem you sketch isn't there. MS update can place the dll on the users system, and if the user install the toolbar on FF, the MSN toolbar can simply reference the dll. If the toolbar needs to be updated, Windows Update can handle it.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    8. Re:Huh? by Qantravon · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do update Windows manually. Automatic Updates is turned off, and I check the Microsoft update site about once a week. Why? There have been times that there were pieces that I didn't want to install (such as the Firefox extension they snuck in with another update, a while back).

      I've also had issues with Automatic Updates in the past, where it somehow got to a point where it would download the data, but couldn't actually install. Then I'd restart, and it would stay stuck at the same point. The issue was never resolved on that machine.

      Beyond all that, I just like to know what's on my computer.

      More than just my personal idiosyncrasies, I know of a piece of software that every user in the world must update manually, especially if they want to play new games. Graphics drivers. To my knowledge, no graphics manufacturer has a system to auto update their drivers. Sure, Nvidia occasionally puts new drivers out via Windows Update, but it's always listed under "Optional," which tells me that it probably doesn't get picked up by Automatic Updates.

      This is all just in the interest of full disclosure.

    9. Re:Huh? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It explains why it has a separate install process, and the separate install process makes it more plausible that the update would mistakenly installed in browsers that do not have the toolbar installed, because of some error in the roll out process.

      The outcry-backlash for stuff like this is way too loud for Microsoft to bother trying to 'get away with something', it seems pretty likely that it was a mistake.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, as a web developer, using this stand-alone plugin approach, what happens when I test a webpage after an update to Flash or Silverlight is released? IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera... five independent update downloads, versus the 1 that occurs now?

      Not that Flash can be commended for having a good update model or anything. Google made a good choice in integrating it in Chrome for this reason.

      I realize this suggested model has its benefits, particularly for security. But let's not pretend it doesn't also have its issues. Among them, additional forced maintenance and labor for plugin authors.

    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, barring the existence of the Firefox extension beforehand, this update should have been separated. I didn't know this and wrongly assumed it was already installed. I still don't know whether to reason it as negligence or conspiring intent however.

      ...Yup, knowing Microsoft, I am going to have to say there is one very embarassed and internally berated, under-paid grad student feeling quite stupid right now.

    12. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the exact same thing as you. For pretty much the last 15 years. But, perhaps unlike you, I don't believe people like me to number anything more than 0.1%.

      Windows itself used to default to manual updates. And we all know how that turned out. Graphics drivers are one of the most commonly unupdated products on a Windows machine -- just ask a few game developers sometime. (It was much much worse before Microsoft started including vendor WHQL drivers in WU.)

      I think, perhaps incorrectly, if you have a Microsoft-signed video driver installed, and an update to that driver is released, then it will be listed as "recommended." I have seen important driver updates before, but not after installing drivers from higher-up.

    13. Re:Huh? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      #2 Relies on both being done at virtually the same instant. If WU is first, Firefox breaks. If Firefox is first, Firefox breaks again.

      Then write the modules so that independent updates work. Basically that means to make the browser-independent component's interface stable (Microsoft has plenty of experience with this type of compatibility!), and make new versions of the Firefox extension work with older versions of the browser independent component's interface (new features which need the new system component can safely be omitted for that situation).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    14. Re:Huh? by ivucica · · Score: 1

      So why doesn't the toolbar use Firefox's extension update system to update itself, or the components, or whatever? Seriously, this is either incompetence, or bad intentions. Pick one.

    15. Re:Huh? by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Search Helper is bad engineering, then. Windows is not a platform with one central packaging system a la apt/dpkg, and let's not pretend Windows Update should be that replacement. Not because it's a bad thing, but because nobody expects that.

      When on Windows, do it the Windows way. Each app should stand on its own. What Microsoft is doing in the last few years is just customer disappointments like this waiting to happen.

      Cure is simple: Update system components! Don't automatically update plugins for other software through your own channels, if that software could do a better job at it.

      Hence, to update this extension, Microsoft would have had a fourth option: build in Search Helper into the Firefox extension and just forget about it. In your words, make it "self contained".

    16. Re:Huh? by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      Or they want to use the update infrastructure they control and are familiar with. Not evetything is a conspiracy.

    17. Re:Huh? by Qantravon · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the number of people who update manually was in any way large, I was just saying that it is incorrect to assume there is absolutely no one who does. Although, I do think it is a little higher than you do. Maybe 1%, a little less.

      And I'm willing to believe that graphics drivers go unupdated a lot, however, every one of my friends who games knows enough to check for updates every so often, so I guess I just surround myself with unusual people.

    18. Re:Huh? by ivucica · · Score: 1

      When in Rome, do as Romans do. If they want to create a Firefox addon, they should use Firefox update infrastructure. Otherwise they're just incompetent. (Or it might be a conspiracy.)

  3. dubious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a dubious answer. Why would this "shared component" of the MS toolbars be installed SEPARATELY from the toolbars themselves?
    Do it have any effect on systems that don't have MS toolbars?

    Is this update going to remove this "shared component" where the MS toolbars aren't present? In other words, is it going to fix what it broke, or
    is it just not going to break any more systems?

    This seems like one of those mistakes that work to their benefit since it's safe to assume that unless is removes itself or doesn't have any effect
    it will work to their benefit -- most users it effects aren't going to know about it or do anything about it.

  4. Always pushing... by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why must constant vigilance be required? There need to be fines against companies who install software without consent. It doesn't matter who you are, it should be an illegal act.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Always pushing... by Voulnet · · Score: 2

      The worst part is that you can't find it Control Panel->Add/Remove--> Installed Updates so you can uninstall it. You basically need to hack around to be able to remove it.

    2. Re:Always pushing... by jack2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of that would be a problem if Mozilla had made it so third party programs can't install plugins.

    3. Re:Always pushing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you use Windows Update, then Microsoft already has your consent to install software on your computer. And that consent isn't limited to any particular kind of software, either; by agreeing to the EULA, you've given them blanket consent to install whatever they think you should have.

    4. Re:Always pushing... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Open API's are generally a good thing, although these days you seem to need some sort of user confirmation to stop them from being abused. The open API is not the bad part, the abuse is.

    5. Re:Always pushing... by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      And that would suck for Firefox in the corporate world where they need to apply a company-wide extension.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    6. Re:Always pushing... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's why I've set it to only download the updates, not install them. If MS is doing installing anyways that's not something that can reasonably be considered agreed to.

    7. Re:Always pushing... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      None of that would be a problem if Mozilla had made it so third party programs can't install plugins.

      How would that even be possible for a program where the source code is available, and the 3rd party has admin level access? Even for a close source program it's not possible if you're willing to reverse-engineer the program.

      Not mucking with a program is essentially a gentleman's agreement. We all know Microsoft is NOT a gentleman, so they'll do whatever suits them the best.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:Always pushing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox already sucks in the corporate world due to the lack of a msi and GPO support.

      And people doesn't understand why large corporations rely on IE.

      Suckers.

    9. Re:Always pushing... by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    10. Re:Always pushing... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "by agreeing to the EULA, you've given them blanket consent to install whatever they think you should have."

      That won't matter in a case of Unauthorized Access of a Computer/Misuse of Computer against Microsoft for modifying software that does not belong to them without permission. EULAs can NOT circumvent the law.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Always pushing... by LiquidFire_HK · · Score: 1

      That's not really possible. If you have filesystem access, you can install the add-ons the same way the browser does. How would Firefox stop that?

      However, Firefox does show on startup if any new extensions have been installed - that's the way this thing was spotted.

    12. Re:Always pushing... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      None of that would be a problem if Mozilla had made it so third party programs can't install plugins without express permission from the user.

      There, finished that for you.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Always pushing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla is not to blame. Windows update and Admin access so it can do anything it like to any application that is not running. MS update uses IE so most likely Firefox is not running. This is cracking plain and simple and if any of us cracked a box at MS we would be going to jail for an act of terrisom. Ain't being in the govenments back pocket grand.

      The reason I use Linux plain and simple. It didn't happen on my machine.

      BTW do you work for Microsoft?

    14. Re:Always pushing... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Somewhere along the line, you consented.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    15. Re:Always pushing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you propose they do that? The OS can do whatever it likes with the files on your hard drive including modifying any program you have installed. Do you think Mozilla should follow Google's lead and develop MozillaOS? Because that would be the only way they could stop Microsoft from doing this shit, and even then most people would still use Windows, which would make creating a MozillaOS a pointless exercise.

      Now, can the mods that modded this insightful, please make themselves known so they can be stopped from making stupid moderations in the future.

  5. Typical Microsoft. by jack2000 · · Score: 3

    No excuse, no sir. And here i was foolishly thinking they would make a public apology.

    1. Re:Typical Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does "We apologize" (direct quote from the response) not count as an apology?

  6. Why is this allowed from FF? by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember when this happened with some Silverlight thing in the past, but I can't remember what the reason was the Mozilla devs gave for allowing this type of silent local add on installation.

    Found an old bugzilla debate/bug from 2009 (!) about when this happened previously. It seems some consider it a moot point because Firefox reports add-ons have been installed when it boots. Did this MS update get around that somehow?

    Here's the link: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476430

    And the old story from the last time MS did this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/06/microsoft_patch_to_fix_firefox.html

    --
    meep
    1. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      What's great about Silverlight is that I had to install Firefox on a Windows 7 64-bit computer to get it to work (Netflix). Microsoft Silverlight doesn't currently work with Microsoft Internet Explorer 64-bit.

    2. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a stupid over-simplification. Silverlight has no 64-bit build. Thus it cannot be used with IE64, as 32-bit DLLs cannot be mapped into the address space of a 64-bit application. The only reason Silverlight functions on Firefox for you is because you were running 32-bit Firefox. In other words, your Firefox build is actually worse than IE64. Just more functional (Flash etc).

    3. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not worse, there's no good reason why IE needs to be 64bit native. Nothing that IE does really needs the extensions and you're paying the 64bit toll without really getting anything out of it.

    4. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Windows 7 64 bit comes with IE 32 bit. In fact, it's still the default version of IE to use on Windows 7 64 bit. No one actually uses the 64-bit browser... except you, apparently, not realizing that only the browser marked "(64 bit)" is 64 bit.

    5. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No good reason? You do know that hardware DEP is default-disabled for 32-bit processes, no? Enabling it can cause all sorts of shittily-programmed plugins and applications to fail.

      and you're paying the 64bit toll without really getting anything out of it.

      This makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about and are stuck with a circa 2005 attitude. There is no toll, unless you count literally unnoticeable memory overhead. Performance benefit far outweighs this on average CPU intensive case.

    6. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is no reason that the browser and all plug ins aren't 64-bit native today. There is no "64bit toll", quite the opposite. There is a "32bit toll" when running on a 64-bit OS.

    7. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the extension installer is running with enough privileges, then it will be able to write the necessary files and registry entries; there is nothing Mozilla can do about that. Maybe they could figure out a mechanism to keep track of which extensions are installed inside the browser vs outside the browser, but if the extension installer has enough privileges it would be able to bypass that as well. I think people are confusing the issue. The problem is not that extensions can be installed silently; the problem is that software is installing extensions silently. Don't complain to Mozilla; complain to the authors of the installers.

    8. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "There is a "32bit toll" when running on a 64-bit OS."

      Citation, please. just because you don't use the entire address space doesn't mean it will take a 'toll' on the OS unless the OS has been programmed in the shittiest manner possible in the first place.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sun Java Console extension (included with Java) has the "hidden" property set, so doesn't appear in the extensions list.

      So not only does Microsoft shove their extension down everyone's throats, but they can't even manage to conceal it properly.

    10. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The 32-bit version of IE enables DEP on itself by default (at least since IE8), so that's not much of an advantage.

      A 64-bit version of Windows has both 32-bit IE and 64-bit IE installed, so you can run both side-by-side and compare the performance toll without much issue. That said, there is a 64-bit toll: plugins like Flash and Silverlight that only have 32-bit versions don't work in 64-bit IE. If you hate all plugins, then fantastic; if you ever want to watch hulu, there's your toll.

    11. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "toll" for running 32 bit code on a 64 bit OS is having a 32 bit version of every library needed by the 32 bit program, which usually overalps with the 64 bit ones (both on disk and on RAM)

    12. Re:Why is this allowed from FF? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Again that is just shit programming and software architecture.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. That will happen when you vote for it by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    That will happen when you vote for it, with your dollars.

    MS will get the message when Windows sales drop because nobody buys their bullshit anymore... looks at MS sales figures... not yet it seems.

    Customer: I demand you do what I say or else I will continue to buy your products like the sheep I am.

    Company: Oh look, a talking sheep. Anyone want shiskebab? Dibs on the eyeballs.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by pizzach · · Score: 1

      Unlike most software, it wouldn't surprise me if MS Windows sales mostly follows an inelastic demand curve. People buy it because they need it much like they need gas.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    2. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right cause the other shit they did in the past wasn't good enough, some stupid firefox addon makes all the difference.

    3. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People buy it because they need it much like they need gas.

      People don't *need* it at all. They get it most of the when they purchase a new PC.

      No matter how easy Ubuntu (or whatever flavor of Linux we could talk about) is to install, people have already got an operating system on their PC and won't bother to install another one unless MS does something to truly piss them off. I say this as someone who pretty much immediately installs Ubuntu on any new machine I buy.

    4. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's those few program that only run on windows like Autocad, the statement microsoft made also reminds me of the USSR and the chernobyl incident.

    5. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by pizzach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People don't *need* gas at for transport either. They could just live close enough to work to bike or walk.

      No matter how easy Ubuntu (or whatever flavor of Linux we could talk about) is to install, people have already got an operating system on their PC and won't bother to install another one unless MS does something to truly piss them off. I say this as someone who pretty much immediately installs Ubuntu on any new machine I buy.

      Most people wouldn't change their operating system even if MS pissed them off. Most people don't know they have the option and they don't have a clue how to do it. This is part of the basis for my previous assertion. You might like doing what you do. Some people love biking, too.

      If you look at job descriptions, many are asking for ability to use specific programs instead of generic skills. Many web programming gigs still require testing for older version of Internet Explorer. AutoCAD does not run on linux. Many people don't realize that OpenOffice opens Word documents with high accuracy. Many companies ask that resumes are submitted in specifically doc format. Not PDF. Newer versions of Internet Explorer don't run in Wine. Games are still mostly on Windows. Sometimes there just plain aren't Linux drivers available for some hardware. People like what they know and dislike change.

      These are some of the generic reasons floating in people's minds, even if many are misguided. You can spend your time shooting down a large number of the above down with the people you meet. I am sure someone will do that in a reply to this exact post, even though they are preaching to the choir. There are a lot of people out in the worcld who don't know that they don't need Windows, and they likely won't rethink computer and software purchases that quickly when the correct answer seems simple right now.

      And so, that is why I made the general assertion that Windows sales are mostly inelastic. When the market share of Windows does drop below a certain point, my assertion will suddenly not hold any weight anymore.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    6. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by cynyr · · Score: 1

      autocad, solidworks, ProE, VBA macros in a spreadsheet, VB app from vendor, in house product selection system in VB.Net, A large amount of other business critical windows only software. Home users do't *need* it, but does "$2 pack of games from best buy" work with anything but windows? how about that cursor set from "the Internets"? yep, thats what i thought.

      Any move needs to be tested and verified to work at 100% feature complete or if not 100% the cost in time of moving to the new system needs to be added. Simply moving HR from their IE6 only web page to IE9, costs programing/install time(assuming an update to the ten year old software is available), and retraining time for HR(mind you they are not doing what them normally would be doing during that time). Now if you work at a small company you may only have 2-3 HR people(if you have in house HR). it's still a huge cost to move people.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    7. Re:That will happen when you vote for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful with sharp objects. They might pop the bubble you live in, and you'd have to face the real world.
      Maybe not for you, or your specific situation - but fuel IS necessary for most people.

  8. It was installed on my system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was only able to uninstall this unwelcome extension by thinking in Russian.

  9. So then. Microsoft is packing updates for bing by unity100 · · Score: 1

    with its updates to its oses.

    werent they recently bitchslapped by Eu for doing the very same thing, bundling and pushing their internet browser for decades to unsuspecting users ?

    corporations never learn. apparently it will be up to Eu again to bitchslap them for the sake of justice.

  10. Hand Wave by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This isn't the extension you're looking for."

    1. Re:Hand Wave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, he's right... this isn't the extension we're looking for... Go about your business... Move along, move along.

  11. This made things worse by Posting=!Working · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing was said about silently installing an extension to Firefox being completely wrong. No mention that it won't happen again. They've just about publicly admitting that they see nothing wrong with secretly installing changes to other companies software without need, notice, justification or a way to remove it.

    Fuck Microsoft. Everybody who had this happened needs to file a complaint with the police under the hacking laws, installing unauthorized modifications to software of a competitor without permission is illegal, it doesn't matter if Microsoft does it, it's still illegal. Here in Kentucky, it's either a class A or B misdemeanor, depending on whether your time undoing it can be considered monetary damage.

    Also, we only have Microsoft's word that it just affects search results in their toolbar. For all we know it's logging credit card numbers, recording your webcam, and copying your personal information and contents of your c:/porn folder for public display/blackmail later. They probably aren't, but then again, what have they done that's trustworthy lately?

    "WGA thinks your copy of XP is unauthorized because you added memory and a graphics card. Your credit card has been charged $399.99 for a license."

    --
    This sentence no verb.
    1. Re:This made things worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the article? The update was intended only for people who already had the relevant software installed, there was a bug where it would get installed inappropriately, they fixed the bug in the latest update, and they apologized for the inconvenience.

    2. Re:This made things worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say this BUT, if you are running a Microsoft product, especially Windows, you only actually have a license and under the terms of the license you agree to by using Windows, Microsoft probably has EULA terms that cover this in a manner that allows them to address stability issues of their software in a discrete fashion(if not explicitly, implicitly).

      A solution to this problem could starts with doing a clean install of Ubuntu or some other flavor of Linux.

    3. Re:This made things worse by cynyr · · Score: 1

      did they remove it from those places that it had happened accidentally? provided a 1 click tool to do so? instructions to remove it?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    4. Re:This made things worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You know, all of these questions would be answered if you people read the fucking article. They did provide instructions on how to remove it.

    5. Re:This made things worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a way to remove it.

      BULLSHIT. RTFA.

    6. Re:This made things worse by blankoboy · · Score: 0

      And this is exactly (also WGA) why I am leaving the Windows platform. It has been a long ride with Bill Gates since W3.11 but I am done. I am leaving for greener pastures and never coming back.

    7. Re:This made things worse by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the EULA says all sorts of things. That doesn't make them legal.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    8. Re:This made things worse by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone on this site go full retard when Microsoft is involved? I just looked in my addons/plugins on Firefox and I've got plugins for:

      * Google's Picasa
      * Hulu Desktop
      * Google Update
      * Google Earth
      * Adobe Acrobat


      I didn't specifically install any of those plugins, and yet they are there. Are you going to call out Google, Hulu, and Adobe for installing their plugins "silently"?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  12. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't they do a similar thing with a .net addon?

    Oh yes, they did.

  13. Douchebags by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft wants to make an addon, update, toolbar, or any other damned thing for Firefox, they should submit it through proper channels. If it's alright for them to make updates to Firefox, then it's equally alright for Jumpin' Jack Haxor Flash to start distributing updates for Windows.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Douchebags by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

      You imply that they're *not* the aforementioned J&k H@xx0r?

      --
      Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    2. Re:Douchebags by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I dunno - before I make up my mind, I want to hear them play this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwmuiq4oMYc

      (and I think that baby doll in black is pretty hot - wish I was about 35 years younger!)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  14. i never realized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why they keep saying this things weeks after the problem arose.
    i mean, if you tell me something a day or two after the problem was found, i can take it as explaining/apology, but weeks after?
    It still looks as an excuse even through it probably isn't.

  15. Competition... by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

    Way to go MS. I guess you got jealous that Apple is hogging all the bad press, so you had to do something to prove you're still the original evil company.

    --
    I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
  16. p.s. plugin container SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SUCKS i tell ya its awful
    im now using chrome
    its that bad

  17. This is why I don't use toolbars by FlyByPC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No toolbars installed == no MS update. I don't even use Google's toolbar -- and I more-or-less trust them (at least more than M$, anyway).

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:This is why I don't use toolbars by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Me too, and moreover, this is one reason why I don't use Windows.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    2. Re:This is why I don't use toolbars by rvw · · Score: 1

      Me too, and moreover, this is one reason why I don't use Windows.

      At home OSX, at work Ubuntu, and for testing I use Virtualbox with an XP or 7 VM.

    3. Re:This is why I don't use toolbars by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You think you're safer by using OSX.

      I don't know whether to laugh or cry, knowing the exploits I know about OSX.

      The joys of having been an Apple Laptop repair tech in charge of the image servers - There are SO many vulnerabilities leftover from the days of 10.2 in the codebase that are still present even today. When people bork their Macs, it usually takes me four of five seconds after boot-up to know which exploit was used, assuming it wasn't a hardware issue that caused it in the first place (which was the normal mode of failure for the G3-based iBooks and then-new G4 Powerbooks.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  18. Bogus! by woboyle · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    What cruft! The number one reason why I am boycotting Microsoft and Apple is that they seem to think that they own my computing and communication devices and can install anything they want on them without my explicit permission. To heck with that! When are these pinheads going to get with the program, that doing so compromises the integrity and security of our systems and personal or proprietary information. I can accept auto-updates of already installed components, provided I opt-in to that, but if they are going to install ANY new components for whatever reason, I want to know what and why as well as what the possible side-effects of it may be to the operation and integrity of my system.

    So, I have totally migrated to Linux on my workstations, laptops, and mobile devices. I run Windows XP SP2 in a virtual machine solely to run one stock/options trading application that isn't available for Linux and incapable of running with Wine. I don't update it except infrequently, and then only manually. In any event, there could conceivably be made a case that Microsoft has violated any number of laws related to installation or operation of unauthorized software on a system that you do not own (hacking). That is a criminal offense, and should be treated as such. Fines should be levied and penalties should apply... That's how angry I am about this sort of behavior.

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    1. Re:Bogus! by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know what a boycott is.

      Also, if you manually applied the updates, it seems a bit tough to argue that they did anything unauthorized on your systems.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  19. Auto update by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Another reason to keep your automatic updates DISABLED.

    1. Re:Auto update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another reason to keep your automatic updates DISABLED.

      Then you need to be very quick and diligent about checking for and immidiately installing the important updates.

      Conficker becoming the big problem it became was due to people having automatic updates disabled. Microsoft actually had it patched really early.

  20. To MIcrosoft: Mystery meat is not sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enable the "Uninstall" button on your POS plugin instead of you usual Imperial and intrusive Uncle Fester.

  21. Jackasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the update will no longer be distributed "

    The "oh we won't do that anymore" response is bullcrap. The fact that they _were_ doing it in the first place speaks volumes about how MS conducts business, and they never stop trying to pull these stunts. Do they honestly believe that people aren't watching them closely and that they won't get caught? I don't care _what_ the update is, there is no excuse for trying to sneak it past users. And somewhere in these comments, I will read some M$ defender's assertion that /. bashes M$ just for the sake of bashing M$. But given their track record --over the past 14 years that I've been paying close attention-- of these incessant games, how am I supposed to take them seriously? No company is perfect, but M$ is --and always was-- out of control with this type of garbage. I think I just answered my own question: they'll always be this way; I will never take them seriously [throws chair across the room in digust, realizes that this is how the dark side reacts. Doh!]

  22. Zombie Install? by DaveRexel · · Score: 1

    Bah! Not welcome! Why is the uninstall button broken for this extension Microsoft?

    --
    # ~: no sigs today
  23. Google is just as bad by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I just checked and there's about as many plugins labelled 'Google" as there are "Microsoft'. I don't recall installing any of them.

    But still...this is a a Microsoft bashing board, right?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Google is just as bad by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      No I pretty much hate all megacorps.....

      It's just that my hatred for MS has been burning longer (since the 80s), that's all. I started hating Apple when they started locking-out customers from installing apps or OSes, and making exploding iPod owners sign non-disclosure agreements. And Google..... well just a few months ago actually.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  24. Toolbars? by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are still foolish enough to add them? Wow, I thought they were all mal ware just like all pop ups. Who has time to check which ones aren't?

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    1. Re:Toolbars? by josath · · Score: 1

      I use the one from googlebar.mozdev.org all day long...i like being able to one-click access the many various google searches (maps / products / images / video / web / etc)

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
  25. "Microsoft explains..." by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft has always been under the false impression that just because "Microsoft explains" a bad deed, that the deed suddenly becomes OK.

    1. Re:"Microsoft explains..." by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      And people like you seem to be under the false impression that just because you don't understand something, it is bad.

      I didn't get this installed on any of my computers. Guess what I don't have? The Bing toolbar! Who would have guessed?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  26. The Apple way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they saw that it worked for Apple too push their new software as an update (Safari) and are hoping to take some market share for Bing that way

  27. Meanwhile at Apple headquarters... by cereda · · Score: 0

    ... Steve Jobs is very sad because his brand-new Safari was forgotten by Microsoft.

  28. I love firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love firefox, but for the love of everything , *WHY* not make easy from the program itself to disable *ANY* extension load, even if the extension itself remove way to uninstall itself ??? ?

  29. Here we go again. by penguinman1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    M$ still thinks that they own every PC in the world. It doesn't matter if it even runs Windows or not. They've demonstrated this time and time again. Anyone remember the Suse linux controversy a couple years back? They still haven't gotten the idea through their corporate heads that the end user has a choice now on what to do with their system. Lets say you buy a computer with windows pre-installed. They pretty much say now that by even opening the box you agree to their EULA. Even if the first time you boot is solely to pop open the DVD drive to put in a Linux install CD. Last comp i bought didn't even have a initial "You officially sign your life and your computer over to us" dialog come up. And you know how they supposedly give refunds on the windows tax to ppl who never use it. Good luck on that one. M$ is still the same bully they always were, they just try to put a nice face on it from time to time.

    If i ever get a chance to interview an M$ executive, I'm going to ask if they feel that they have any rights to a comp that was built by me from parts, and had slackware installed as the only OS from the beginning. I think their response would show everyone exactly how they feel. Hell, anything other than a straight "No" would show their true colors.

  30. Re:Always pushing... [frgdqks-anon] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not "without consent." You consent to it by using Windows Update. Don't use Windows Update if you don't want Microsoft installing stuff on your computer.

    "Oh but wate, whinge, whinge. Microsoft is making changes to other non-MS software. That's BAAAD."

    Sure. That means Microsoft shouldn't deactivate viruses or malware either? Or other programs which inadvertently cause damage to the OS by accident? Microsoft should just do nothing about that and won't be blamed for sitting back and letting some other program hose your setup? Yes I know FF isn't malware but the point is that there isn't really a well-defined way to say "Microsoft should under no circumstances do X with an update, but should make sure to protect me from all harm."

    I'll admit Microsoft made a mistake, because I'm not a raving fanboy. But as far as mistakes go, I think this was an honest one and not really of major consequence. It wasn't the end of the world, and it has been easily remedied. Lighten up, Linux/Apple worshippers.

  31. Re:To MIcrosoft: Mystery meat is not sweet! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    They can't do that. The uninstall button being disabled is a design decision by Mozilla. Go bitch to them about it.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  32. Get the crap out by larrythethird · · Score: 1

    Has anyone tried to remove this crap from Firefox? All I can do is disable it.