Slashdot Mirror


Firefox's Blocked-By-Default Java Isn't Going Down Well

JG0LD writes "The Firefox web browser will, henceforth, require users to manually activate Java objects on sites that they visit, Mozilla has confirmed. This even affects up-to-date versions of Java, which you can see on the block list. The change is aimed at improving security and moving away from a dependence on proprietary plug-ins, but critics say it will cause untold headaches for developers, admins and less-technical end-users. "

27 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Users hate authorizing things, and become trained drones blindly okaying everything anyway.

    As security models go, it's a poor one.

    1. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by Doh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So... they should disable all plugins like Java and Flash and not let the user authorize anything? That would never work.

    2. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fortunately it still works, it just won't give a security hole riddled platform automatic access to your PC.

    3. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, never trust basic security to users. Better to keep a your workstations up-to-date & deal with the IT nightmare that is updating rogue workstations than to deal with the IT apocalypse of click monkeys.

    4. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fortunately it still works ...

      But it doesn't just work.

      The browsers installed by default on the OS do. In fact switching back to them is even easier than installing the plugin. And yes some users will install the plugin, but some will change browsers instead.

      This seems a blunt way to audit the security of plugins and one guaranteed to reduce user numbers.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, while I tend to agree with that notion, I also have to remind that this is web Java applets we're talking about. Who does that any more? There are four places where I see that:

      1. Business/Office web based apps (Documentum in my case)
      2. Cisco "web interfaces"
      3. An older HP print server "web interface."
      4. Webmin (optional) controls for telnet/ssh and file management.

      In each of those cases, I am very comfortable making those explicit exceptions. There may be more. Not wanting to speak for the whole world, but at this point, I can't imagine this being a huge problem. So anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong by providing other examples.

    6. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not a security model. It is a responsibility model.
      Now the responsibility lies even less with Mozilla and more with the user who installed Java in the first place.
      If that user can not take hint, and becomes a trained drone, that is his problem. The only more secure thing to do would be to simply refuse running java at all. Obviously that is even less realistic.

    7. Re:Didn't they learn from Microsoft? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Insightful? Really? A locked down control freak company cuts out anything that would compete with their appstore crapstore and you APPLAUD that shit? So by your logic Win 8 would be the most perfect OS evar if they nonly made it so it will only run MSFT approved software from the crapstore? You DO know that the original plan for iOS was to have it so ONLY Apple could have native apps, with everyone else stuck in an HTML ghetto and THAT is why Jobs killed any chance of Flash on iOS, yes?

      As for TFA I was a FF user before it was even called FF, and the suite before that, but no more, its simply a bad idea security wise to run FF any longer from Windows. See my journal for the Yahoo Porn Bug, one of many that will ONLY run on FF thanks to their frankly piss poor security mdoel. Chromium had support for running the browser in low rights mode less than 6 months after Vista was released, this same low rights mode could trivially be added to AppArmor or SELinux yet here it is SEVEN YEARS LATER and FF still makes the browser run with the same rights as the user? Madness!

      People can hate and call me names but that won't change reality and reality is good security practices are good, bad practices re bad, and to run the #1 attack vector on ANY computer at the same permission level as the user is piss poor design. You have several FOSS browsers to choose from that have MUCH better security such as Chromium, I'd recommend using one of those and staying away from FF, especially if you are on Windows where even IE runs at a lower permission level than FF.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Headaches for developers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should probably get their heads checked, why are they making Java apps for webpages still?

    1. Re:Headaches for developers? by Skapare · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sounds like a security hole to me.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Headaches for developers? by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it surprising you can access to hardware features with Java *if you approve it*? I can access hardware with Python after I approve it, and that proves very useful. It's all about granting lower level access from interpreted languages - they already ask when they need these permissions, what else do you want, a human sacrifice?

      I mean, really - you can install a native plugin or you can run a Java applet - both require user intervention for this level of access. Maybe I am underestimating the human population, but when both explicitly tell you exactly what enabling them allows it really doesn't matter - you either allow it or you don't.

  3. Already considering uninstalling firefox by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not a developer, but I'm pretty savvy with computers. So the first time I got that message, I went and updated Java. Fixed it, right? Nope. So I clicked around, and finally accidentally clicked on the little red icon up in the menu bar. Success! Now it gave me an option to run it. Which popped up another window asking for permission. Dear Firefox: You have a small portion of the browser market. Making yourself a nuisance by breaking big pieces of the web is not intelligent. It just drives people to chrome, or IE. Especially everyday users who don't want to screw around and just want things to work.

    1. Re:Already considering uninstalling firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What in the world are you using that requires a Java applet?

    2. Re:Already considering uninstalling firefox by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyway, generally warning people before loading any java applet: "This plugin is insecure" is great.

      No, warning people before loading an insecure plugin that it is insecure is great. Warning people that a newly updated plugin with no known vulnerabilities is insecure confuses them and teaches them that your security messages are worthless and they should just click yes.

      I don't think anyone is claiming that Java is some paragon of Internet virtue that should be trusted without question, or that blocking plugins from unknown sites until the user OKs them is necessarily a bad idea. However, crying wolf and creating obscure UIs and turning everyday software into nuisanceware isn't a good response.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. Most wont work in Firefox anyway by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are coded for IE 6 and maybe up to IE 8 if it is very cutting edge with new css 2.1 glory.

    In other words banks and corporate apps. The rest have moved on to flash and ajax last decade.

    Webapps in java were a way to makup the shortcumings in Netscaoe 3 to imitate html 5 and ajax today. Obsolete and done

  5. Like? by The+Cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    moving away from a dependence on proprietary plug-ins

    Like the browsers themselves?

    Hey maybe we can get all the people at Adobe and Oracle laid off the same week. Wouldn't that be fun?

    Isn't it great how the web is moving away from "proprietary plug-ins" and straight into proprietary mobile devices?

    And look at the web users cheer. The people who built the web would recoil in horror at what you have allowed to happen to the Internet.

    I give it five years, maybe six, and the Internet will be completely walled off by a McDonalds logo.

  6. Untold headaches? by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'll see. I've been running the FlashBlock plugin for years (to manually enable flash elements) with VERY FEW adverse effects. I doubt having to manually activate Java elements will be any worse.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Untold headaches? by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You just succinctly explained why tools like NoScript are so desperately needed, not why they aren't. The real problem is Web design that serves an agenda contrary to the desires and rights of those who use the Web. Fix that problem and annoying tools like NoScript won't be necessary.

      What that means, BTW, is that Web developers need to grow both a conscience and a spine and say NO when they're asked to code Bad Things. It also means that the pushovers and corporate plants over at the W3C need to stop adding crap to the standard that aids and abets these Bad Things.

  7. Improve security?? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are two ways to improve security - lock out the user, or educate them.

    Locking out the user is great - but it only works on NEW products, and if you don't have competitors. The reason it works well on NEW products is that the user isn't conditioned on what to expect. Remember, trying to change how people use their computer is an uphill battle. It works well when the do not believe they have alternatives.

    Educating the user is harder, but that is the real fix. You aren't improving security by saying 'As responsible devs, our software won't do what you want'. Instead, make a two minute video showing them how $technology is flawed, and make them watch it ONCE. Then, let the choose whether to block $technology or live with it. Because right now they get fed up with Firefox (NOT Java), and click the little blue e.

    And yes, it isn't a great hassle to keep using FF when you allow users to "click to allow $applet". But the pain is that I need to look at the little red icon in the address bar to permanently enable something. You might say that if I can't handle this additional step, I shouldn't be making a choice on whether to run an applet or not (but that is a bad road to head down). You could have just made a popup when I run an applet that says "Do you want to remember this setting?" - it doesn't fix the security problem, but the current solution doesn't either. At least this way, I don't feel frustrated at my browser for someone else's (Oracle, in this case) screw ups.

  8. And Java still isn't secure. by Animats · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The whole point of all that byte-code stuff and just-in-time compilation was to keep Java programs in a sandbox where they couldn't affect the rest of the system.

    FAIL.

  9. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oracle Java has ALSO decided, due to the persistent security problems due at least in part to having concurrent (i.e., old) versions installed (and the fact that the largest exploit kits have used Java as one of their main vectors for some time now, alongside Adobe Reader of course) to disable Java plugins in the browser by default in recent updates.

    So, what's the big deal? This is the correct decision from a security perspective. I can't remember the last time I saw someone on the World Wide Web actually USE a Java applet for good, rather than for evil. And I'd have noticed, because even after all these years, it still runs like an absolute dog. It's the kind of thing you might use on a local application (such as Minecraft, which is what I think probably most people who still have it installed use it for now, albeit they'd likely have the 64-bit version which wouldn't have a working browser plugin in a 32-bit browser anyway!) or an intranet site (which is your administrator's problem, to re-enable it for that site only, or to use a different browser for the web and the intranet, which you can totally do and is good practice).

    I've got many other criticisms about Firefox recently from a security and performance perspective - let's face it, it's just not the zippy, efficient browser it used to be, even relatively-speaking, it's lost its mojo and the security team have a reputation for having a slow, and fairly arsey, response - but this seems to be the right decision and they should be lauded for it. IE has also done it, as has Chrome.

  10. Re:What need? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are still developing/depending on applets, 1995 called they want their stupid ideas back.

    Hi 2013, this is 1995 calling. When your new shiny toys have the portability and performance and flexibility that we had nearly two decades ago, and developers can write software using them with a reasonable expectation that it will still be working in 5 or 10 years (or even 1 or 2 years) without needing constant maintenance, then you get a vote. Until then, we'll keep our "stupid" ideas, because they've been helping us get useful work done since before you were born. Kthxbye.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  11. Bad Things require Better Alternatives by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do understand that without those Bad Things you so hate, there probably wouldn't be a Web worth saving, right? Someone has to pay the bills, and if you're not going to pay for content, you're not going to accept advertising, you want full privacy and security when using services you're not paying anything for... Who is going to write the cheque?

    I hate DRM and spammy ads and privacy invasions as much as anyone -- more that most, probably, given that I really do give up on some things most people accept because I refuse to support the intrusions. But still, we live in the real world, and you can't just wish Bad Things away without proposing Better Alternatives. BTW, "everything I want should be free and unencumbered" is not a viable Better Alternative.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  12. Re:Is it time to fork Firefox yet? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The number of support e-mails in my inbox this week from those users suggests that they aren't too happy about being "defended" in this way.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  13. Re:Uses of Java applets by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are you posting in Bizarro land?

    Your own link tells us that over 91% of the users of chrome didn't even encounter a SINGLE java applet in a whole MONTH.

    Thats an absolutely overwhelming sign that java is almost extinction-level rare in the web. Hell, I would bet that the rate of people encountering embedded MIDI files was much higher.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  14. Re:Uses of Java applets by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Depending on who you ask, there are about 2.5B people using the Internet now. If we assume most of them use the Web and we assume that the pattern for Chrome is representative of the general population, that means more than 200,000,000 people used a Java applet at some point in the previous month.

    Even I am surprised by that, but in any case, it seems you and I have very different ideas of what "almost extinction-level rare" means.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  15. Speaking as a professional Java developer... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who the fuck uses applets anymore?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust