Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
LandzDown Lounge / Re: The Atlas Game
« Last post by Pierre75 on Today at 03:54:28 AM »
Townsville
2
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by siljaline on May 29, 2015, 10:13:12 PM »
Spotted & Tweeted - perhaps Mozilla is out to force some love on it's users in the wake of recent negative press.
https://twitter.com/randyknobloch/status/604304388400766976
3
Analysis and Malware Removal / Re: Tab redirect on a Windows 8.1 computer
« Last post by Meta on May 29, 2015, 08:55:31 PM »
Thanks Corrine,

Your comments make a  lot sense.


I have used uTorrent in the distance past on an old desk top,  I thought I might give it a try last month but I don't  need it.

4
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by Digerati on May 29, 2015, 03:09:24 PM »
Quote
There has long been the procedure in place where add-ons are submitted by the developer for testing.
But according to the guidelines, developers didn't have to submit them for review and that is where the problem was.

And again, with this new policy, this will be an automated process and only if that fails, will "people" get involved so until then, bias "should" not be an issue. It is all about ensuring the add-on does nothing without the user's awareness/consent and/or without being able to undo/uninstall. If the automated process cannot verify those requirements, then humans will get involved.

At least that is how Mozilla claims the process will work.

As far as the review team being biased, I guess only time will tell. I sure hope not. I also hope they make no modifications to the code, other than signing it. If they deem it necessary to make further changes, they need to reject the submission and return it to the developer rather than modifying it and then signing it.

As far as Moonchild's complaint, that is way beyond my level of expertise, but if Mozilla is only "signing" the extension, then even though that is technically modifying the code, I don't see the problem if it, in no way, modifies the function of the add-on.

To be sure, I respect the developer's rights to develop their own code, but when it comes to consumer security, the consumer's right to security trumps the developer's rights.

Freedom is NOT free and unfortunately, it is the honest people who must bear the burden and costs of those who would be dishonest. :(
5
WinPatrol Help & Information / Re: One question survey
« Last post by v_v on May 29, 2015, 03:05:51 PM »
If I had had one more character I could have gotten in the word "protection" too! (Smile)

Anyway, I took it that Brett was not looking for full fledged reviews, evaluations, and/or experience comments.  I thought he was just trying to get a feel for the main reason that people used WinPatrol.  So I think that he had in mind one, two, or three word answers.

But not to worry, 'verbosity' is still ready when needed!  (Smile)

v_v
6
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by Corrine on May 29, 2015, 02:18:07 PM »
IMO, the path forward on this new FF practice depends on the "review team".  Is the review to eliminate rogue/malware add-ons?  There has long been the procedure in place where add-ons are submitted by the developer for testing.  Not all add-ons pass review and get added to the official channel so what is new?  Does anyone recall rogue FF add-ons?  Will this "review team" be biased in any way?  Will the "review team" modify the code beyond signature?  By Moonchild in the above-linked topic:

Quote
Mozilla signing the extension would be a direct violation of the extension's freeware license, because they would be altering the xpi, which is explicitly not allowed.
7
Analysis and Malware Removal / Re: Tab redirect on a Windows 8.1 computer
« Last post by Corrine on May 29, 2015, 02:03:48 PM »
Meta, here's my thoughts about uTorrent and other P2P software:

P2P programs form a direct conduit on to your computer. They have always been a target of malware writers. P2P security measures are easily circumvented and if your P2P program is not configured correctly, you may be sharing more files than you realize. There have been cases where people's passwords, address books and other personal, private, and financial details have been exposed to the file sharing network by a badly configured program.

With P2P file sharing, what means do you have of identifying or authenticating the source of the download? In addition, a file can be distributed among many hosts, and peers will provide for download the sections that they have already downloaded. This results in the distinct possibility of a distribution method in which malicious bits are mixed with with good files.
8
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by Digerati on May 29, 2015, 01:42:51 PM »
Quote
I don't know that my post actually offered an "opinion" on the matter.
It didn't. I was just wondering because you included the link to Moonchild's PM post and that clearly suggests disapproval of Mozilla's "unscrupuled tactic". 
9
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by ky331 on May 29, 2015, 01:14:55 PM »
I don't know that my post actually offered an "opinion" on the matter.   It was simply meant as a statement of events, alerting users to "ongoings" at Mozilla.

I would agree with you that limiting FF to signed add-ons certainly has the potential to enhance FF's security, by eliminating/blocking rogue/malware add-ons.   That's assuming that "politics" and matters of professional rivalry don't come into play in Mozilla's decision-making process.

On the other it, it's clear that MoonChild --- the developer of PaleMoon --- blatantly DISapproves of Mozilla's action, referring to it as "draconic 'sole arbiter' nonsense ".   [That's HIS quote/opinion, not necessarily mine.]
10
General Software News, Updates & Discussions / Re: Firefox's "signed-addons"
« Last post by Digerati on May 29, 2015, 12:54:21 PM »
I am not sure of your opinion here. Are you saying FF's new policy is good or not good?

I see it as a good thing.

As I read the new Extension Signing policy which is based on the new Add-on guidelines, the "automated" approval process protects FF users from unwanted, unexpected, and non-reversible changes to their systems. Again, I see that as a good thing.

Only the submitted add-ons that don't pass the "automated" review processes, (either submitted for hosting on the AMO or submitted via developer accounts) will go through the "review team" to ensure the add-on meets the guidelines.

Again, I see this as a good thing for FF users. While it may impose an extra hoop for some developers, FF is not for developers. It is for us Internet users and I see nothing in the Add-on guidelines that is bad for us users.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10