After Kosovo, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya, Syria I wouldn't be so sure.
However the USA would probably not prefer war in two theatres but they have done it before.
What you're saying is why Firefox basically sucks. They go too far for security and forget about diminishing returns. You can't deal with a stupid user and the longer you over guard them from their stupidity the longer they stay stupid for. You can never say never. There are reasons an addon might need to override "security". Security is not a magic word for something unobtrusive. It means crippling and limiting everything that might be abused, if not simply removing it. You can't say there is no legitimate use for those things. Security comes at a price, it means making sacrifices and sometimes too many. It is a lost cause to try to make add on development super secure. However the API should be written in a way which makes auditing of add ons relatively simple. Focus on making the risk manageable, not impossible. Otherwise you're making nearly everything else impossible as well.
I have the same problem using FireFox for non-standard roles and have had to role out my own modified version with patch security handling because otherwise FireFox is a lemon and we can't do what we need to do. It has some other problems as well such as many of the up and coming APIs, solutions, etc being immature, not widely used, lacking documentation or up to date documentation, unfriendly to developers outside of the FireFox sphere, etc. They don't have enough contributors and have a lot of large but incomplete or unpolished or mangled or poorly abstracted systems.
There are other ways such as secret codes. Although terrorists aren't always good at this kind of thing.
Your argument is weak because what if they did and they easily could have. What is your argument then?
Mine is simple. There would not have been a Paris attack if there were no Paris.
Slashdot Mirror
After Kosovo, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya, Syria I wouldn't be so sure. However the USA would probably not prefer war in two theatres but they have done it before.
What you're saying is why Firefox basically sucks. They go too far for security and forget about diminishing returns. You can't deal with a stupid user and the longer you over guard them from their stupidity the longer they stay stupid for. You can never say never. There are reasons an addon might need to override "security". Security is not a magic word for something unobtrusive. It means crippling and limiting everything that might be abused, if not simply removing it. You can't say there is no legitimate use for those things. Security comes at a price, it means making sacrifices and sometimes too many. It is a lost cause to try to make add on development super secure. However the API should be written in a way which makes auditing of add ons relatively simple. Focus on making the risk manageable, not impossible. Otherwise you're making nearly everything else impossible as well. I have the same problem using FireFox for non-standard roles and have had to role out my own modified version with patch security handling because otherwise FireFox is a lemon and we can't do what we need to do. It has some other problems as well such as many of the up and coming APIs, solutions, etc being immature, not widely used, lacking documentation or up to date documentation, unfriendly to developers outside of the FireFox sphere, etc. They don't have enough contributors and have a lot of large but incomplete or unpolished or mangled or poorly abstracted systems.
MS stopped being such a security concern once NAT came around then windows firewall as more of a standard apart from MSIE.
There are other ways such as secret codes. Although terrorists aren't always good at this kind of thing. Your argument is weak because what if they did and they easily could have. What is your argument then? Mine is simple. There would not have been a Paris attack if there were no Paris.
Says that scientist that gym company just hired...