Firefox 3.6 Locks Out Rogue Add-ons 265
CWmike writes "Mozilla will add a new lockdown feature to Firefox 3.6 that will prevent developers from sneaking add-ons into the program, the company said. Dubbed 'component directory lockdown,' the feature will bar access to Firefox's 'components' directory, where most of the browser's own code is stored. Mozilla has billed the move as a way to boost the stability of its browser. 'We're doing this for stability and user control [reasons],' said Johnathan Nightingale, manager of the Firefox front-end development team. 'Dropping raw components in this way was never an officially supported way of doing things, which means it lacks things like a way to specify compatibility. When a new version of Firefox comes out that these components aren't compatible with, the result can be a real pain for our shared users ... Now that those components will be packaged like regular add-ons, they will specify the versions they are compatible with, and Firefox can disable any that it knows are likely to cause problems.'"
I want a mechanism for pluck-outs... (Score:2, Interesting)
At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat. Is there a way to do this, easily?
Also I have the SmartQ 7 and SmartQ 5 MIDs which are basedon the ARM processor. Thedefault browseris Midori... can I get a Firefox compiled for the ARM to run on that?
I hink firefox shoudl focus on these and similar issues...
Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that, how about a spell checker? Hang on.... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The pony should be a plugin
Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs... (Score:5, Funny)
The mental image that came to mind when I saw that convinces me that I watch WAY too much porn...
Re: (Score:2)
Preferably with 144 TiB of RAM.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok i understand not reading the article. I understand not reading the summary. But not reading the post you're replying to?
slashdot gets more progressive every day.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Have you considered trying the new browser Midori [twotoasts.de]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. I'm quite happy with Midori [twotoasts.de].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
At my company I would like a stripped-down Firefox without features like awesome bar and other bloat.
What is the other bloat? On the default install please list everything you'd like to have removed.
Re:I want a mechanism for pluck-outs... (Score:5, Interesting)
The awesome bar, and most of the other firefox bloat, should be plugins. Firefox had this great plugin architecture which everyone and their dog used- except the firefox devs.
Why doesn't firefox ship with an array of "default" plugins, all of which can be disabled? There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Most of those features like 'the awesome bar' should be config items not plug-ins/add-ons. So if someone wants a lean FF they can enable/disable those features in config. I would much rather some features be built in rather than a downloadable add-on, but being able to configure the browser without having to go into the about:config system would be something I very much appreciate.
Re: (Score:2)
notice, this wasn't his suggestion (which seems good).
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
Maybe the full set of functionality isn't required to be in the "core", but I think that you'd have to have some sort of location bar in the core.
Then, you end up with an add-on either extending or duplicating the existing functionality, either of which can become a problem.
I think it would be far easier to have the full "awesome bar" as part of the core, but have a real UI that allows users to enable/disable every feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the awsome bar is effectively free give firefox now uses sqlite to store bookmarks, as it can be disabled easily (or you can have an addin to re-theme it to the oldway, but getting rid of the "bloat" can be done with a gui setting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
Apparently, this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and, indeed, many do. When used properly, the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history. I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.
If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension [mozilla.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure you can. You can wipe sites from the history (and thus from the location database) relatively easily.
You can begin typing, highlight a search result by hovering over it with the mouse, then press the Del key to remove that result.
You can also open the history tab, type something in Search, tab into the search results list, Ctrl-A to select all, and press the Del key to remove all of them.
Finally, you can add the HistoryBlock [mozilla.org] extension which silently prevents certain sites (domains or subdomains) from b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The code is available and forkable. Why not fix it to your liking and then submit patches?
Re:That was the idea behind Firefox/Firebird/Phoen (Score:5, Insightful)
Tired of reading these sorts of comments. Sure there's some "bloat", but what that bloat is varies by opinion. I've read where supporting CSS is "bloat". Graphics are "bloat". tabs are "bloat". RSS. etc.
My understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is the point of Firefox was to supply a WEB BROWSER. Back then when you downloaded it you also got an email program, news reader, wysiwyg website builder, etc. Firefox was JUST a browser. Still is.
If you REALLY want where everything is an option go build it yourself. Have something where you choose which renderer you want (Moz's, Webkit, etc), whether or not to have tabs, allow plugins, command line version, etc. Hit next a few times and presto your very own browser.
This is one that really needs to come as default: (Score:3, Funny)
Christian Anti-Porn 1.0.5 [mozilla.org].
Flee sexual immorality (1Co 6:18). Christian Anti-Porn will filter links and alert the user if any porn websites are clicked. This will not block but warn every Christian that he is going to crucify Jesus Christ again if he proceeds to such websites.
.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last February, and again in May, Firefox users complained when they found that Microsoft had pushed the .Net Framework Assistant add-on and the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in to their browsers as part of the .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 (SP1) update, which was delivered via Windows Update.
That's the first thing I thought of when I read the summary.
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean? As far as I know, in all the instances where a toolbar is bundled with some other software, the toolbar installation is clearly mentioned in the software EULA, so each time the toolbar is installed, the user agreed that he wanted it. As a developer for a Web optimizer plugin, this Firefox change will make it much harder for us to reach our users.
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
the toolbar installation is clearly mentioned in the software EULA, so each time the toolbar is installed, the user agreed that he wanted it. As a developer for a Web optimizer plugin, this Firefox change will make it much harder for us to reach our users.
I fail to see the downside for anybody but you, and you make it sound like you clearly deserve it.
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
> What do you mean? As far as I know, in all the instances where a toolbar is bundled with some other
> software, the toolbar installation is clearly mentioned in the software EULA, so each time the toolbar
> is installed, the user agreed that he wanted it. As a developer for a Web optimizer plugin, this Firefox
> change will make it much harder for us to reach our users.
Q. What's the difference between a 'trojan' and 'malware'?
A. Malware has a EULA.
I can't even *begin* to emphasize how badly it pisses me off when some app tries to sneak BHOs and plugins into their installer... almost always in ways that someone in a hurry to install the app that's actually *desired* will overlook. I flat-out refuse to ever use Yahoo and Google's toolbars, *precisely* because they have so many people trying to ram them down my throat and trick me into installing them.
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's "mentioned in the EULA" it might as well be "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'". About the same amount of people will be able to read & understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
So true. Foxit was good for a while, but it got as bad as Acrobat.
Yahoo! and Adobe are two companies that can't fall off the face of the earth fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Ninite installs only programs you pick? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).
Re: (Score:2)
Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).
Firefox (or any other browser) should have only one place for addons and plug-ins and this location should be locked with a password, like the OS devices.
Right now any program (or virus) can add addons to our browsers.
I'm sick of getting my browser hijacked every time I install a program.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should stop installing malicious software, then.
There's a perfectly good reason why these apps need to look in multiple locations: different users have different setups.
It's all well and good to have "one location", until that one location on one person's machine is an administrator-only location that non-privileged users can't edit, meaning they have no ability to customize their use of the software. I don't give a crap what p
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick of getting my browser hijacked every time I install a program.
Maybe you should stop installing malicious software, then.
But.. but.. how else will I see the dancing bunnies?!?!?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1407593&cid=29776261 [slashdot.org]
link, because "plain old text" turns urls into links
Re: (Score:2)
they said they would have a solution, and this is a viable one. That is exactly what I had in mind as well. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest.
Re: (Score:2)
you know, I actually wonder what mozilla will do it microsoft tries it again at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I think that's pretty much what they're taking aim at. They already specifically blacklisted the add-on a while ago, causing huge cheer as well as huge backlash. It seems that with this approach they want a more flexible solution by making sure people can disable stuff they don't want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is different from that. Those are actually packaged as add-ons so this change wouldn't affect them at all.
What Mozilla should do about those IMO is one of two things: 1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accounts (in Windows; root on Linux... assuming Linux has global extensions) 2) Take steps to prevent or discourage apps from trying to plop extensions down and install them in Firefox without the user's consent. The "official"
Re: (Score:2)
1) Enable the uninstall button for globally installed extensions (IE installed for all users) on Administrator accounts (in Windows; root on Linux... assuming Linux has global extensions)
I think the majority opinion about Linux administrators is probably still that you shouldn't run X as root. Have the button there and use kdesudo / whatever the GNOME equivalent is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that's the first thing everybody here thought of.
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as no one reads the article, this doesn't concern .NET update in any way:
In actuality, Microsoft did not drop its code into Firefox's components directory, Nightingale confirmed. "The .Net Framework and WPF use our existing extension/plug-in mechanisms, that's why we were able to disable them when they were found to be vulnerable," he said in a follow-up e-mail. "They aren't impacted by this change."
Re:.NET Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In my opinion, the missing uninstall button is a Firefox problem. How could they let you install software and list it as is installed software, but provide no method to uninstall?
Simple. Go to your FF address bar and type file:///C: then click on Program Files. You will be faced with a long list of software that FF is claiming is installed on your system, but can't just uninstall. I find it odd that you seem to think a few developers of a piece of software should be able to override the makers of the operating system. Maybe you also think that all the viruses and rootkits and trojans Windows gets from the web is a Firefox problem too?
A while ago there was a fuss about the Dalai Lama
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a textbook example of a strawman argument! Firefox was not intended to manage software installed to "C:\Program Files\" an
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... they pissed off so many people that they finally rolled out an update to the .NET assistant just to make it possible to uninstall it.
The problem, IIRC, was that it installed in the Program Files folder, which meant that only an administrator can uninstall it. Firefox knew this and greyed out the uninstall button if you weren't an administrator. The update moved the addon to the user's application data folder (where most plugins are stored) so that it can be uninstalled by limited users.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is, I certainly hope that gets changed in 3.6 too. Every plugin and extension ought to have 'Disable' and 'Remove' buttons, no matter what.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an artifact of supporting system wide extension installation, rather than per user. Microsoft probably should have used per user installation of the plugin (even though .NET is arguably a system wide update). Removing the support is probably overkill, as I imagine it is useful in managed environments.
User perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
From a user perspective, this sounds like a good move. Stability problems in Firefox always seems to stem from add-ons or extensions. Lock that crap down, and make the devs code the right way.
Re:User perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
From a user perspective, this sounds like a good move. Stability problems in Firefox always seems to stem from add-ons or extensions. Lock that crap down, and make the devs code the right way.
Correction - stability problems in Firefox have always been blamed on add-ons or extensions. Of course the developers always became deaf when people having issues with no plug-ins installed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because --safe-mode is too much?
To get help all I've ever had to do is run the program in --safe-mode and see if the bug is still there (often it's not), personally i like keeping a blank profile and launching it with --no-remote anyway, but --safe-mode isn't that much to ask, given they are normally caused by addons
Effects on Add-on Development (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is this just a method to lock out some Add-on with already known problems?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Effects on Add-on Development (Score:5, Informative)
The MS plugin is not effected by this. It did things in the proper way, the documented method for adding system wide extensions rather than user level extensions. That is why Mozilla could easily disable the insecure version of the plugin, because it actually followed the rules.
MS just added a registry key that pointed at the files for the extension, which is well documented and used by many other pieces of software to allow plugins to be installed even before Firefox, and allowing any version of Firefox (or Thunderbird or whatever) to find them, even after installation into some random directory.
If you bother to read the article, it says the same. Google Desktop Search on the other hand, doesn't follow the rules and will be blocked unless Mozilla makes a work around for them or Google updates GDS to follow the rules.
This is essentially like not allowing code from anyone other than MS to be dropped into the Windows directory, and requiring it to be put somewhere else and properly registered with the system rather than throwing it in the system32 directory and loading it as if it were trusted code from MS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with the "proper way." I do not use .NET and have no wish for that to be in a competitor's browser. To me the proper way is for me seek out a download, preferably through an XPI, but definitely not through Windows/Microsoft Update.
Although I thought I read it, I didn't see the link to the second page to TFA, so thanks for redirecting me back to it.
Re:Effects on Add-on Development (Score:4, Insightful)
but it isn't a .NET addon. Its a Firefox addon.
So you should be perfectly able to install any .NET update from WU safe in the knowledge that it is not affecting your non-.NET applications, like Firefox.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what would be the effect on Add-on development? Would it make it more difficult to develop them? Would it constrain the Add-on developers?
Its the same reason why IE made it easier to develop web pages by tolerating broken HTML code.
People were using unintended features to make their work easier, but then when the unintended feature was removed then it breaks a lot of things.
In that respect, the developers should have wrote to spec in the first place rather than taking advantage of loopholes because it mi
Re: (Score:2)
Net effect: Slight increases in development effort.
As I understand it, you can install additional functionality into Firefox in one of two ways:
1. Use the built-in installer. This is the "countdown box" that confirms that you want to install what the software is asking to install. It checks compatibility, and offers the capability of checking for updates and validating compatibility when a new version of Firefox gets installed (and disabling software that has NOT been tested with that specific flavor of
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't effect that at all. Microsoft used a specific method available to Firefox plugins to add a reference to the Microsoft plugin. MS did not drop their extension in the firefox directory, they just added a registry key (in the documented way) to point to where their extension was.
You can still do that.
Marketshare Issues. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a halfway knowledgeable user that uses adblock, noscript, betterprivacy, use privately encrypted TOR when about (Iron Key) and only allow certain cookies.
Do you really feel this is necessary? Sounds like you are jumping through a lot of hoops and degrading your browsing at the expense of a tin-foil hat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I only use the TOR on my ironkey when I'm say at class on an open wifi signal.
What are you doing at class that needs privacy/security from those around you on wifi, but not from an unknown party (the TOR nodes you're routing through)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really feel this is necessary? Sounds like you are jumping through a lot of hoops and degrading your browsing at the expense of a tin-foil hat.
If you are doing anything of importance with your browser, yes. If all you do is surf the web all day, then usually, no.
If you work with online banking, do other forms of commerce online, then you need to treat your web browser like your bank should because it is, by extension, your bank. If any form of VPN connections are used to your work, then you need to treat your computer as a work computer and secure it appropriately. Also, if you surf for porn, you really need to use this as the most nasty ex
Re: (Score:2)
I am a halfway knowledgeable user that uses adblock, noscript, betterprivacy, use privately encrypted TOR when about (Iron Key) and only allow certain cookies
And here are us uninformed louts who somehow manage to squeak by without any of these - and no A/V or software firewall to boot - and haven't gotten compromised in over 20 years...
It's not that simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting one option: Just because they think they have not been compromised in 20 years does not mean that they haven't. The best exploits are the ones the user never sees. If they don't run any of these tools or their equivalents, how would they ever know if they were compromised unless they were hit with a bad quality exploit (I admit, there's a lot of these) that made itself obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Expecting every user to whitelist all of their web content is certainly the most impractical plan ever (and doesn't address the real problem of social engineering anyway).
Using things like Tor isn't just impractical, it's paranoia.
How about browser vendors getting their shit together instead? Firefox is a prime example, loudly promoted as "secure", but actually a cheap whore for any DLL someone decides to throw onto your computer. If they focused on building effective sandboxes first rather than "developmen
Re: (Score:2)
First time I've heard of betterprivacy, which is VERY cool. Thanks for the tip. (Just a note: it seems, according to the BetterPrivacy addon summary, it will help ALL your browsers because LSO's like flash cookies are cross-browser, so deletion of these will generally make you much harder to track on all browsers as long as y
Components specifying version compatibility ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Works great, till you have someone like myself, who just specifies that my components are compatible with Firefox 2.* to 10.* so I don't have to worry about a new version claiming my plugin isn't compatible even though it is, which has happened enough in the past that I just don't care anymore.
Am I wrong? Yes. Is Mozilla wrong? Yes, you never trust the external code to tell you the truth, basic programming 101.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I wish Firefox gave you the user the option of "Yes, install this extension even though it's not marked as compatible, I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY." It's a pain opening the archives and updating the version compatibility values manually.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The addon Mr. Tech Toolkit has this option. Under its options Misc -> XPI install options -> Enable Addons Compatibility checking
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give it a shot, thanks!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FF less than 3.6
1. Right-click -> New -> Boolean
2. Name: extensions.checkCompatibility
3. Value: false
FF more than or equal to 3.6
extensions.checkcompatibility. is used instead (bug 521905). "" is the application version, including alpha and beta releases but excluding minor version updates. For example: Firefox 3.6b2 -> extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6b Firefox 3.6 -> extensions.checkCompatibility.3.6 and Firefox 3.6.1 -> ext
Re: (Score:2)
So, you just have it assume that it's compatible in perpetuity? Even though it might not be? Surely you can see why Mozilla thinks that defeats the whole purpose of having add-ons declare compatibility.
Anti-competitive?.. (Score:2)
Not that I disapprove of this particular decision, but imagining the Slashdot's reaction to Microsoft implementing a thus-describable feature makes my head spin...
Re: (Score:2)
IE and extension blocking (Score:2)
Anti-competitive my ass (Score:2)
What, you mean, MS prevent programs from being installed or even piggybacking on other installs?
I don't know of anyone who'd be against that except the sales/marketing assholes of the world.
But that's ok. You seem to have a straight head judging from your sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla isn't a monopoly, unlike Microsoft's operating system business.
Doesn't extend to all externally-installed add-ons (Score:4, Insightful)
I notice this doesn't extend to plug-ins and extensions found via the various plugins directories and registry keys. If it were me, I'd extend this feature to include saving a list in a locked-down location of all known extensions/add-ons found via the plugin directories and via registry keys. Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not. That way nothing can get added to the browser without the user knowing and approving of the change.
Down in the advanced options I'd add a setting to give expert users the additional option of removing the plugin by either removing it's files from the plugins directory it was found in or removing it's registry keys depending on how it was found.
Re:Doesn't extend to all externally-installed add- (Score:3, Informative)
You do get notified when at least some of those methods are used the next time you start Firefox. Pretty sure it's been that way since shortly after the MS plugin fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.
Don't ask me anything. Add-on's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on. There won't be any stealth additions, and if people really want some plug-in they'll figure it out, and the vendors will help by giving instructions.
Also, don't ask me about upgrades. Just upgrade the plug-in when starting (and restart if you must), and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version.
The actual problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The acutal problem is that firefox blindly loads whatever is in that directory. .NET framework firefox extension did).
Locking the directory is a hack of a solution that others, especially Microsoft will easily find a way around. The proper answer is that Firefox needs to compare components it finds by their signature (checksum and name combo or whatever) with a secure list of components it is authorised by the user to load, before it loads them.
The other fix firefox needs is to deny installed extensions the ability to prevent the user from uninstalling them (like Microsoft's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> they should have an "approved" list within the browser's data
That's precisely what this fix does.
> as opposed to a "disabled" one
I have no idea why you decided there's such a list. Was it something in the article?
That's assuming you're talking about component loading, not add-ons; from the latter part of your comment it sounds like you're talking about add-ons...
Re: (Score:2)
It'd also be nice if verified plug-ins were signed by Mozilla, so the user knew they were safe. Perhaps make use of some of that peer-review that all the OSS folks claim is constantly happening? If it looks kosher, bless it with a digital signature like Microsoft does? Firefox has become a victim of lots of crappy add-ons. Keeping a list of unsafe add-ons would also be helpful (again list MS does).
nethack (Score:4, Funny)
If it doesn't allow rogue add-ons, does it allow nethack ones?
Will this keep out Adobe's crap? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not: Firefox still has to handle platform-based plugins written for APIs that predate the Firefox extension framework. I'm sure that Acrobat will keep reinstalling itself, too. :(
Um, what's this then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't disable installing the plugins, they disable installing them the wrong way.
And of course, you can always get the Firefox source and disable the check, if you really want.
Re: (Score:2)
Spies [tf2wiki.net] do it from behind, pretending to be someone else!