| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Yahoo unveils test toolbar for Firefox | |
|
||
| Time: 14:44 EST/19:44 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Yahoo said late Wednesday that it has released a test version of its toolbar for the Mozilla Firefox Web browser. Toolbars from companies such as Yahoo enable users to go directly to particular services, such as e-mail or Web search, by simply clicking on an icon. Yahoo says on its download page that people can customize and access the toolbar from any PC. Amazon.com's A9.com search unit also offers a toolbar for Firefox, an open-source browser that is gaining in popularity as an alternative to Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 363 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:59:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3653 (68.54.224.219) at 2/10/2005 10:02:44 PM |
|
Onslaught - "If it required just as much user interaction, how would it be any faster?"
I would assume the exploit doesnt force a user through a wizard with EULA, etc... thus FASTER. But perhaps I'm wrong and the nice hacker put that in there for Yahoo too. |
| #27 By 29903 (4.245.182.111) at 2/10/2005 10:18:26 PM |
|
mooresa56 wrote:
Onslaught - "If it required just as much user interaction, how would it be any faster?" I would assume the exploit doesnt force a user through a wizard with EULA, etc... thus FASTER. But perhaps I'm wrong and the nice hacker put that in there for Yahoo too. *Which* exploit? The one you imaged in your head? And if it installed with no EULA, then what would it be installing with? Instead of typing senselessly, would you just put up a demo of this exploit which you seem to think you know about? This would really be the most sensible thing to do, unless you know that this exploit is a product of your imagination. |
| #28 By 29903 (4.245.182.111) at 2/10/2005 10:27:41 PM |
|
LinuxIsTheft wrote:
"I find it interesting that secunia.com doesn't appear to be interested in this "exploit."" Then you can't read. I can't read because you fail to realize that there is no exploit that will download a .gif onto my PC that is really a .bat file and automatically run it? If this exploit existed, do you not think that Secunia would have it marked as Extremely critical? Or are you making some other claim? As I just requested, would you be so kind as to stop typing endlessly and prove that this exploit exists with a demonstration? I see you failed to do this upon my first request. I wonder why. Feel free to provide your excuse, as well. |
| #29 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/10/2005 11:03:26 PM |
|
All these wonderful topics to post about and discuss and we all migrate like demented moths to the cat fight that the FF -v IE has become - and speak not one word about the truly interesting stuff going on. See....I'm guilty, too...
Wait just a little bit longer - it will all be irrelevant. |
| #30 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/10/2005 11:15:12 PM |
|
"Mozilla and Firefox patch fixes exploit, 12 hours later"
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/08/mozilla_and_firefox_.html |
| #31 By 135 (199.107.157.252) at 2/10/2005 11:43:37 PM |
|
tgnb - So let me get this straight.
In order to patch it, I have to download the latest beta version of Mozilla? And now you know why Mozilla/Firefox isn't ready for real users. I'm going to uninstall it from my girlfriends computer this weekend. |
| #32 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/11/2005 12:24:31 AM |
| Sodablue, nobody suggested for you or anyone to download the latest beta. But feel free if you really want to. |
| #33 By 29903 (4.245.182.111) at 2/11/2005 1:11:30 AM |
|
LinuxIsTheft wrote:
#38 "I can't read because you fail to realize that there is no exploit that will download a .gif onto my PC that is really a .bat file ..." The CNET article references SUNBELT software. I was confusing it with the exploit on secunia that downloads an image file that a person has to open. But then again, thats what social engineering does. http://secunia.com/advisories/14160/ http://www.mikx.de/firedragging/ I'll wait until Bugzilla "unhides" the thread on the SUNBELT threat. It isn't mentioned on the Mozilla "known security issues" site either. From http://www.mikx.de/firedragging/ "Drag and drop this image to your desktop. Double click (open) the dropped file." is far, far, far different from "the vulnerabilities which allow Web sites to install spyware/trojans/etc, without user interaction." If I understand this right, I not only have to save the file onto my desktop, but I must double click the file and execute it myself. It is no wonder that Secunia has this rated so low (Less critical). (I can't test this myself as I've been using recent builds for quite a while. "en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050209 Firefox/1.0+" and it doesn't seem to be working with later versions.) Also, if this was the best "exploit" you were able to come up with, it looks like mooresa56 and AWBrian will have to retract their claims. This is nothing like what they seemed to be claiming. I'd guess that most of the people who'd fall for this are the same type who directly accept viruses through MSN. Again, the only way to stop things like this would be to disable all downloads/file-transers and the ability to open files. Also, I believe it was MS's idea to hide file extensions by default. (I do not hide file extensions.) Though, I am not anti-Microsoft at all. I use Windows XP and believe it is currently the best desktop Operating System, even with it's lesser security problems. Does this even work in other operating systems? It sounds like it might be a bug in the Windows Operating system that makes this possible: "The windows batch file parser is pretty forgiving. It just ignores the first line of "gif trash" and executes whatever you append to the end of the hybrid file." It seems we've gone from something that would require no, or less than the normal, user interaction, to a download that will execute after it has completed, to a download that you will have to go to your desktop and execute yourself. I'd have to agree with Secunia that this is "Less critical." I also don't think that this qualifies as the existance of some major problem that others seemed to be inferring. It appears that my original assertions still stand. |
| #34 By 29903 (4.245.182.111) at 2/11/2005 1:15:58 AM |
|
sodablue wrote:
tgnb - So let me get this straight. In order to patch it, I have to download the latest beta version of Mozilla? And now you know why Mozilla/Firefox isn't ready for real users. I'm going to uninstall it from my girlfriends computer this weekend. No, you don't have to download a beta version. This should be just fine: http://friedfish.homeip.net/extensions/no-idn.xpi (You can download it and view the source by opening it in winzip/winrar.) If it doesn't work, there are quite a few other ways to accomplish this, as you can see on the mozilla forums. I haven't used it myself because, as I've already mentioned, I'm using a later build where this is not an issue. I think that the developers should have released a quick fix, by simply disabling the IDN service, and later came up with a fix that was more appropriate. It is very likely that they will do this anyway. This isn't even a Firefox exploit really, which is why it affects Opera also. The only reason it doesn't affect most IE users is that they never bothered to implement this poorly thought out standard (which in this rare case was beneficial). There are IE users who are vulnerable though: http://secunia.com/advisories/14209/ But I guess you could blame the plugin. |
| #35 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/11/2005 8:55:29 AM |
|
"Judge smacks down SCO on lack of evidence"
"From the judge's ruling, it appears he is well aware of the gaping holes in SCO's case. "Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgment," Kimball wrote Wednesday. "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities." To quote a 1980s commercial for a large fast-food chain, "where's the beef?" http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050210-4600.html |
| #36 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 2/11/2005 10:36:33 AM |
|
#42: So let me get this straight. In order to patch [Firefox], I have to download the latest beta version of Mozilla?
I download the previous nightly build just about every morning. The version 1.0+ nightly builds have been completely reliable. |
| #37 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 2/11/2005 10:52:03 AM |
| Consumers don't want beta builds...and consumers don't want to install nightly builds. No time for that. |
| #38 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/11/2005 1:01:28 PM |
| How does ch downloading the latest nightly equate to there not being a reliable patching mechanism? |
| #39 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 2/11/2005 1:47:52 PM |
|
#52: Consumers don't want beta builds
Yet you and the other MS apologists insist upon considering pre-1.0 Firefox security issues as indicative of the 1.0 release quality. #52: consumers don't want to install nightly builds Who said anything about install? I download the zip file and extract into the emptied Firefox directory and start browsing again. No scan, downloading of patches, rebooting, etc. #53: No reliable patching mechanism, lots of security holes. #54: Don't start getting logical with these MS zealots or you'll wind up like Onslaught... :-) I download nightly builds because I'm interested in the potential changes that are coming in the next regular release. |
| #40 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 2/11/2005 2:16:43 PM |
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again...
What's the score. About 9 to 32,652 ? TL |
| #41 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 2/11/2005 3:55:15 PM |
|
#55: Yet you and the other MS apologists insist upon considering pre-1.0 Firefox security issues as indicative of the 1.0 release quality.
When did I say that? Please provide a cite from me. #52:Who said anything about install? I download the zip file and extract into the emptied Firefox directory and start browsing again. No scan, downloading of patches, rebooting, etc. Ok...customers don't want to download, extract zips, locate folders and begin browsing again. No time for that "non-installation". Should be "autoupdated". |
| #42 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 2/11/2005 3:56:41 PM |
|
#57 " Yeah, that Anti-Spyware and MSN Search Beta is stuff nobody should ever use. That's the point of a beta! "
Beta's should never be loaded on production machines, only test machines. MOST consumers don't have test machines. I figured you of all people knew that. |
| #43 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/11/2005 4:44:12 PM |
|
"Didn't ch say that downloading the full install daily was the only way to be sure you get an up to date version of Firefox? "
Nope he didnt say that. All he said was: "I download the previous nightly build just about every morning. The version 1.0+ nightly builds have been completely reliable." He only spoke of himself and no one else and didnt suggest others should do the same. That was only your twisted wishful thinking, Parkker. |
| #44 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 2/11/2005 5:03:23 PM |
|
#60: Didn't ch say that downloading the full install daily was the only way to be sure you get an up to date version of Firefox?
Nope. I just said that is what I choose to do and I explained why in a later post. Actually, I do that on my main work PC. The other two are still running the earlier 1.0 release of Firefox. #58: Please provide a cite from me. Actually, just doing a quick search uncovered two gems from you: "Since day one (and even now), Firefox advocates have been saying "Firefox is secure", which is obviously not a true statement about Firefox." "Nope, not kidding at all. Firefox is insecure, slow, unstable and renders pages poorly. If not for that, I would use it." "Since day one" surely means the pre-1.0 release days, while "even now" implies the 1.0 release. But a more interesting (and humorous) trend was discovered: You repeatedly push back in your arguments by requesting your adversary "provide a cite from me". I got a chuckle after seeing it several times. I don't think you win debates by saying "prove that I said that" when everyone knows your position and how you feel. Sure, we may paraphrase your Firefox opinions, but no one is stating your position on Firefox in any significantly altered or misrepresented way. If the search was up to snuff on ActiveWin then playing your little game of "cite me" would be easier. Wait. Don't you have access to the database while we don't? Maybe you can retrieve the quotes for us... |
| #45 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/12/2005 9:35:14 AM |
| I couldn't tell ya Hal...I am talking about production machines...and MOST consumers I know don't load betas on production machines...only the computer hobbiests etc. actually load betas and patches, etc. |
| #46 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/12/2005 9:36:16 AM |
| #62. Since you can't quote me on saying such a thing, I will take that as a no. Exactly what I thought. |
| #47 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/14/2005 12:27:31 AM |
|
"Tell me, where does a normal Firefox user find the mythical patches? "
Nowhere. They are not yet available to them. Nobody here is claiming that they are. |
| #48 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/14/2005 2:13:53 AM |
|
Hal, there is a serious flaw in your logic.
I know you agree that most every decision is about choice. This is true of SW as well. The figures you site for the surface area for IE reflects the entire IE base - not what the result would be if the measurements were based upon similar choices. Cull out IE on XP SP2 and compare it to FF. It's a slaughter. IE wins and decidedly so. The choice being the same - to run the latest versions available. |
| #49 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/14/2005 6:39:52 AM |
| lketchum you are forgetting about the people who run Windows 2000 |
| #50 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 2/14/2005 10:34:09 AM |
|
#68: So what exactly did you mean by saying, "Since day one (and even now), Firefox advocates have been saying 'Firefox is secure', which is obviously not a true statement about Firefox." if not to show the quality of security in the pre-1.0 builds of Firefox to the 1.0 release? I'm confused. "Since day one" with "and even now" implies a timeline. If we are discussing a product with two effective versions, a pre-1.0 and 1.0 version, and states that are similiar between versions, then you are describing a trend. Trends are predictive. So, if I am not accurately summarizing you view on pre-1.0 and 1.0 Firefox security, then please tell me what you meant by saying, "Since day one (and even now), Firefox advocates have been saying 'Firefox is secure', which is obviously not a true statement about Firefox."?
And one more thing: would you care to explain the need to excessively use "cite me" requests? I am curious since most everyone here tends to stand behind their opinions without having people look up quotes and then balk if the exact wording is not found. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 363 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:59:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
