You can set browser.ssl_override_behavior to 2 to simplify adding security certificates. Remember that you actually need to verify the certificate to ensure that the encryption will prevent others from decrypting your communications.
You've already admitted you don't verify the certificates. Your encryption is stuffed anyway.
Also, a fixed seed need not be insecure. If it is a different random seed for each device, it is just as secure as the random seed used to generate certificates when you manually generate them. Of course, you wouldn't be able to generate a new certificate if the original one was compromised, but you don't seem concerned about security anyway.
The bottom line is that what you are doing is insecure. Firefox is trying to help by getting you verify the certificates to keep you secure. If you decide that Firefox is needlessly nagging you, switching to another browser seems like a reasonable course of action. Lots of users seem to like Opera.
I've had NAT working with Fedora 8 and Fedora 9 with VirtualBox 1.6.0 and 1.6.2 on my Windows XP laptop. I set up both of those for PCnet-FAST III (NAT) on Network Adapter 0 and have had no problems. I've had some problems with the guest additions in both versions, though.
If Windows is crashing, that's a problem with Windows, drivers, or hardware. An application should never be able to cause a BSOD if those are working correctly.
SVG animation is available in Firefox using JavaScript or HTML. I suppose you mean SVG animation using SMIL? That's planned for Mozilla 2. I think some SMIL support is needed to pass Acid3, so I would suspect some SMIL support would be coming soon after Firefox 3.1 (in other words, next year).
How would you (or Firefox) be able to determine what the capabilities of the attacker are? The bottom line is that if you do not validate a security certificate, you are potentially vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. If you have a physically secured office and the embedded device is on your desk next to your computer, perhaps you are safe. But how could Firefox possibly know that?
To avoid the problem with the certificate changing every reboot, all the embedded device would have to do is generate self-signed certificates from a fixed seed rather than from a random seed. That way, the self-signed certificates would be the same each time, and the device would not need any electronically writable storage for the certificate. Or you could add the signing certificate the device uses as a trusted certificate authority in Firefox.
If you still think there's a problem in Firefox, could you offer a concrete suggestion that would fix this problem and not introduce security issues for other users?
You need to look a bit longer next time. It's in the Options tab in the Print dialog. I suppose the UI could be improved, but the option took me only a few extra seconds to find.
As has been pointed out on Slashdot many times before, encryption does no good if you don't know who you're talking to. In that case, you're vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
Canvas is part of HTML5, which was created by WHATWG. WHATWG is now part of the W3C, so canvas is a specification coming from the W3C. If you don't want canvas in web browsers, take it up with WHATWG and W3C, not Mozilla developers.
Why would an embedded device generate a new self-signed certificate each time it is started? That's insecure, unless you verify the self-signed certificate each time it changes. The fact that Firefox requests that you do that helps you to be more secure. If for some reason there's no need to verify the self-signed certificate, then there's no reason the embedded device needs to generate one, so the problem lies with the device.
This is apparently just an example of trying every known chemical to see if it modifies every known disease. If it works, fine, but it is not an example of science; it is apparently only an example of somewhat blindly trying everything. How is that a "treatment specifically designed"?
In what way is this not science? Hypothesis 1: Compound A is effective against disease X. Falsified. Hypothesis 2: Compound B is effective against disease Y. Falsified. Hypothesis 3: Compound C is effective against disease Z. Not falsified. Perform double-blind tests and find a dosage that is safe and effective. Sounds like science to me.
How would you conduct a search for safe and effective drugs? If you have a better way, I'm sure pharma companies would be all ears!
I'm not arguing for dictatorship. I'm just saying that in many cases, regulation is called for. Sometimes committees come up with arbitrary rules that everyone needs to follow for the good of the whole. In the US, we're forced to drive on the right side of the road to avoid traffic collisions. It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits. Maybe taxes should be based directly on spending to avoid any deficits in the first place. Any elected official who wanted to not raise taxes would have to not raise spending.
This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice. The tragedy of the commons says that what's good for each individual is often not good for the group as a whole.
There's a display of how the Internet works at our local children's museum. It actually is a series of tubes that balls travel through. They even allow you to send black and white balls that represent zeros and ones, and a chart of some common ASCII characters so you can actually send messages. The only silly thing about the model is that each individual bit (ball) can take a different path. Other than that, it demonstrates a packet switched network rather effectively.
No, it's improvements on the models that have correctly predicted global warming, especially nearest the poles, for decades. Is there a climate model that predicts a cooling trend? If so, I haven't heard about it.
CPU prices don't come down because Intel makes better ones every year. They come down because increased demand means that the fixed costs can be spread among more units, making the unit cost lower.
It's similar to why books with a very limited market (for example, specialized textbooks) are expensive and popular books (for example, Harry Potter novels) are cheap. If increased demand alone led to higher prices, textbooks would be cheap and Harry Potter books would be expensive. I think you need a few more seconds of studying economics.
Sounds like it's due to increased solar output. In that case, does it sound wise to massively increase the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, knowing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Remember that slightly warmer temperatures are not the only effects predicted by increased global temperatures. More intense tropical storms, droughts, and rising sea level are also predicted.
The best way to offer scientific "proof" is to set a controlled experiment. That is, an experiment that can be repeated as many times as desired, and in which all the independent variables can be controlled. With the Earth, we have only one chance. The closest we can get to "proof" is the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide causing global temperatures to rise was predicted over fifty years ago. The best climate models we have today and the data we've collected indicate that this is in fact what is happening and will continue to happen. Moreover, the models predict increased severity of hurricanes and droughts. I'm not sure how many people have to die before you'll admit there's "harm in the long run." Care to give us a number?
Slashdot Mirror
You can set browser.ssl_override_behavior to 2 to simplify adding security certificates. Remember that you actually need to verify the certificate to ensure that the encryption will prevent others from decrypting your communications.
You've already admitted you don't verify the certificates. Your encryption is stuffed anyway.
Also, a fixed seed need not be insecure. If it is a different random seed for each device, it is just as secure as the random seed used to generate certificates when you manually generate them. Of course, you wouldn't be able to generate a new certificate if the original one was compromised, but you don't seem concerned about security anyway.
The bottom line is that what you are doing is insecure. Firefox is trying to help by getting you verify the certificates to keep you secure. If you decide that Firefox is needlessly nagging you, switching to another browser seems like a reasonable course of action. Lots of users seem to like Opera.
I've had NAT working with Fedora 8 and Fedora 9 with VirtualBox 1.6.0 and 1.6.2 on my Windows XP laptop. I set up both of those for PCnet-FAST III (NAT) on Network Adapter 0 and have had no problems. I've had some problems with the guest additions in both versions, though.
If Windows is crashing, that's a problem with Windows, drivers, or hardware. An application should never be able to cause a BSOD if those are working correctly.
SVG animation is available in Firefox using JavaScript or HTML. I suppose you mean SVG animation using SMIL? That's planned for Mozilla 2. I think some SMIL support is needed to pass Acid3, so I would suspect some SMIL support would be coming soon after Firefox 3.1 (in other words, next year).
No crash for me on Windows XP with Firefox 3.1 alpha 1. Looks like they fixed the bug.
How would you (or Firefox) be able to determine what the capabilities of the attacker are? The bottom line is that if you do not validate a security certificate, you are potentially vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. If you have a physically secured office and the embedded device is on your desk next to your computer, perhaps you are safe. But how could Firefox possibly know that?
To avoid the problem with the certificate changing every reboot, all the embedded device would have to do is generate self-signed certificates from a fixed seed rather than from a random seed. That way, the self-signed certificates would be the same each time, and the device would not need any electronically writable storage for the certificate. Or you could add the signing certificate the device uses as a trusted certificate authority in Firefox.
If you still think there's a problem in Firefox, could you offer a concrete suggestion that would fix this problem and not introduce security issues for other users?
You need to look a bit longer next time. It's in the Options tab in the Print dialog. I suppose the UI could be improved, but the option took me only a few extra seconds to find.
Yes, it's why Opera and WebKit (Safari) also support the canvas element. I suppose singling out Firefox for criticism will never go out of style.
As has been pointed out on Slashdot many times before, encryption does no good if you don't know who you're talking to. In that case, you're vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
It has to because it has to? Talk about begging the question. Why would it have to?
That was fixed two weeks ago in Firefox 3.0.1.
Canvas is part of HTML5, which was created by WHATWG. WHATWG is now part of the W3C, so canvas is a specification coming from the W3C. If you don't want canvas in web browsers, take it up with WHATWG and W3C, not Mozilla developers.
Why would an embedded device generate a new self-signed certificate each time it is started? That's insecure, unless you verify the self-signed certificate each time it changes. The fact that Firefox requests that you do that helps you to be more secure. If for some reason there's no need to verify the self-signed certificate, then there's no reason the embedded device needs to generate one, so the problem lies with the device.
In what way is this not science? Hypothesis 1: Compound A is effective against disease X. Falsified. Hypothesis 2: Compound B is effective against disease Y. Falsified. Hypothesis 3: Compound C is effective against disease Z. Not falsified. Perform double-blind tests and find a dosage that is safe and effective. Sounds like science to me.
How would you conduct a search for safe and effective drugs? If you have a better way, I'm sure pharma companies would be all ears!
I'm not arguing for dictatorship. I'm just saying that in many cases, regulation is called for. Sometimes committees come up with arbitrary rules that everyone needs to follow for the good of the whole. In the US, we're forced to drive on the right side of the road to avoid traffic collisions. It may be wise for the US to implement a regulation that politicians have a spending limit to avoid building up huge deficits. Maybe taxes should be based directly on spending to avoid any deficits in the first place. Any elected official who wanted to not raise taxes would have to not raise spending.
This is exactly why democracy and freedom don't always work well in practice. The tragedy of the commons says that what's good for each individual is often not good for the group as a whole.
There's a display of how the Internet works at our local children's museum. It actually is a series of tubes that balls travel through. They even allow you to send black and white balls that represent zeros and ones, and a chart of some common ASCII characters so you can actually send messages. The only silly thing about the model is that each individual bit (ball) can take a different path. Other than that, it demonstrates a packet switched network rather effectively.
No, it's improvements on the models that have correctly predicted global warming, especially nearest the poles, for decades. Is there a climate model that predicts a cooling trend? If so, I haven't heard about it.
CPU prices don't come down because Intel makes better ones every year. They come down because increased demand means that the fixed costs can be spread among more units, making the unit cost lower.
It's similar to why books with a very limited market (for example, specialized textbooks) are expensive and popular books (for example, Harry Potter novels) are cheap. If increased demand alone led to higher prices, textbooks would be cheap and Harry Potter books would be expensive. I think you need a few more seconds of studying economics.
Then how about:
The InterAcademy Council
The National Academies
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The National Research Council
The Federation of American Scientists
The World Meteorological Organization
Need I go on?
Sounds like it's due to increased solar output. In that case, does it sound wise to massively increase the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, knowing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Remember that slightly warmer temperatures are not the only effects predicted by increased global temperatures. More intense tropical storms, droughts, and rising sea level are also predicted.
The best way to offer scientific "proof" is to set a controlled experiment. That is, an experiment that can be repeated as many times as desired, and in which all the independent variables can be controlled. With the Earth, we have only one chance. The closest we can get to "proof" is the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide causing global temperatures to rise was predicted over fifty years ago. The best climate models we have today and the data we've collected indicate that this is in fact what is happening and will continue to happen. Moreover, the models predict increased severity of hurricanes and droughts. I'm not sure how many people have to die before you'll admit there's "harm in the long run." Care to give us a number?
Uh, umm, the cost will be reduced sharply as demand grows?