Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: polonus on March 14, 2008, 09:57:35 PM
-
Hi FF users,
Seen this: https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b3/firstrun/
This is through jar.mn
pol
click pic for animation
-
I'm currently running FF 3.0b4 on Ubuntu 8.04. I offer a one word review:
WOW!
When it all shakes out, FF 3 is really going to be something.
-
You're right about this my friend. Firefox was always kind of repulsive to me and that was only because of the aggressive methods of advertising by Firefox fanboys... I still don't like that... but I have to say that version 3 Beta 4 works so good it is simply incredible. I don't even pay attention to those verbal fights between Firefox users and every other browser users out there. Can't wait to see the final release, final version 3.
Version for Windows is not that nice looking, they screwed a lot trying to mimic that overused glossy Vista look, but the version for Mac is something to talk about. It looks so good, and now it even has that native OS X look so it blends into the OS like never before. My primary browser is Safari (Mac), but after testing this Firefox 3 beta 4, I am sure both will serve me equally from now on. Speed ? I am amazed with how it renders pages, especially how it deals with Flash content (very important to me since I'm Flash developer).
This is how it looks like on Windows (not mine, someone else has posted this image in some other forum):
(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6853/1470mg0xj6.th.jpg) (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1470mg0xj6.jpg)
And this is how it looks like on Mac (click on thumbnail to see full size image):
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/583/picture1ya4.th.jpg) (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1ya4.jpg)
-
Eh, who cares about stupid fanboys, just use what you like the most. If thats IE7, so be it :) Why not. If you prefer something else, then use that. It's very simple. ;D
-
You're right about this my friend. Firefox was always kind of repulsive to me and that was only because of the aggressive methods of advertising by Firefox fanboys... I still don't like that... but I have to say that version 3 Beta 4 works so good it is simply incredible. I don't even pay attention to those verbal fights between Firefox users and every other browser users out there. Can't wait to see the final release, final version 3.
Agreed. I'm hooked to a 10/1 broadband connection, and on Hardy, FF3 really flies. I would expect similar performance on other OS's.
By the way, I had an opportunity to use a Mac this week while visiting a client for a couple days. Very impressive indeed. If it wasn't for my commitment to FOSS, which is why Firefox is my browser of choice, I think I'd buy one of those pretty white boxes.
-
Hi OrangeCrate,
But do not run FF 3.0b3 without NoScript, because the old NoScript silently does it's work in the background preventing this, where the FF 3.0 devs left this hole:
it looks like the ever popular -moz-binding css attribute is now rendered a little less useful. It is now impossible to load off-site XBL via this method.
However, all is not lost. For in patching one of the biggest holes in Firefox’s security model, the infinite wisdom of the FF devs is that it is now possible to embed a -moz-binding URL tag inline, like this:
<img src=”blah” style=”-moz-binding: url(data:text/xml;charset=utf-8,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%3F%3E%3Cbindings%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A//www.mozilla.org/xbl%22%3E%3Cbinding%20id%3D%22loader%22%3E%3Cimplementation%3E%3Cconstructor%3E%3C%21%5BCDATA%5Bvar%20url%20%3D%20%22alert.js%22%3B%20var%20scr%20%3D%20document.createElement%28%22script%22%29%3B%20scr.setAttribute%28%22src%22%2Curl%29%3B%20var%20bodyElement%20%3D%20document.getElementsByTagName%28%22html%22%29.item%280%29%3B%20bodyElement.appendChild%28scr%29%3B%20%5D%5D%3E%3C/constructor%3E%3C/implementation%3E%3C/binding%3E%3C/bindings%3E)” />
Using this method provides for no use of a fragment identifier, indeed it is only possible to use the first element. The above XBL decodes to:
<?xml version=”1.0″?><bindings xmlns=”http://www.mozilla.org/xbl”><binding id=”loader”><implementation><constructor><![CDATA[var url = “alert.js”;var scr = document.createElement(”script”);scr.setAttribute(”src”,url);var bodyElement = document.getElementsByTagName(”html”).item(0);bodyElement.appendChild(scr);]]></constructor></implementation></binding></bindings>
which essentially creates a nice new DOM script element that loads alert.js.
NoScript completely protects you against this,
polonus
-
But do not run FF 3.0b3 without NoScript...
Of course.
:)
-
But this NoScript is so annoying that's incredible. Bugging with all kind of questions, and on the top of all those Vista's most annoying security questions it throws at you all the time, browsing and using PC computers became nothing else but answering those questions most of the time. I don't even use NoScript anymore, couldn't stand it's nature and behavior. That's the main reason I completely switched to Safari on my Mac. But Firefox 3 looks so promising and nice, I will use it again for sure... what's beyond me is why Mozilla team did not solve that problem and implemented NoScript into the main code of Firefox, so there would be no need of installing third party plug-in such is NoScript in the first place. Plus, maybe make it little less aggressive when it comes to asking all those questions...
On my PC machine (Vista) I never had NoScript installed (I had it while I was still on XP) and see no problems at all. ::)
-
Then don't use it.
But, I wouldn't be without it and I get no questions at all, I have the Show message about blocked scripts unchecked I also have the Audio feedback when scripts are blocked in the Notifications tab of the Options.
-
Hi DavidR,
I agree totally with you. NoScript handling is so simple now, just click if you trust for instance to play a certain video, and it is allowed to run. The times that you need specific script to do something are that very rare. I cannot see what annoyance that is. If this annoys you you get even annoyed by pre-scanning a link not to land on a malicious site or pre-scan a download or have a drive-by download have its malicious way. If you only assume what you do is secure, you live out dangerously and treats the Internet like a Russian roulette - hoping the bullet does not come at you, and the next round is for the other guy. Because it is too much of a hassle, you can rely on the security after you run into malware, and hope the av scanner saves you and will solve the problem for ye, and if not you security programs are too blame, the lack of prevention did not bring you there. For me that is to live in ignorance of the real facts and just the same behavior like some driving around without a safety belt because it is so inconvenient to wear it or put it on even.
polonus
-
Does anybody know what happens with the FF McAfee Site Advisor extension in FF 3b4. I keep installing it but it simply goes away upon rebooting the pc. I liked it a lot especially for the advises on the Google and Yahoo searchs. Can AILWIL think of a gadget like SiteAdvisor for us? 8)
-
Hi gdiloren,
You could try what is proposed here:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=33717.0
pol
-
Hi DavidR,
I agree totally with you. NoScript handling is so simple now, just click if you trust for instance to play a certain video, and it is allowed to run. The times that you need specific script to do something are that very rare. I cannot see what annoyance that is. If this annoys you you get even annoyed by pre-scanning a link not to land on a malicious site or pre-scan a download or have a drive-by download have its malicious way. If you only assume what you do is secure, you live out dangerously and treats the Internet like a Russian roulette - hoping the bullet does not come at you, and the next round is for the other guy. Because it is too much of a hassle, you can rely on the security after you run into malware, and hope the av scanner saves you and will solve the problem for ye, and if not you security programs are too blame, the lack of prevention did not bring you there. For me that is to live in ignorance of the real facts and just the same behavior like some driving around without a safety belt because it is so inconvenient to wear it or put it on even.
polonus
This has absolutely nothing with wearing a seatbelt. I have never ever even started my car without my seatbelt fastened, so for sure it can not be compared to this situation. It looks like no one can have his own opinion in this forum. After one say something, there is at least two on his back. I don't like it and I don't use it, so what's wrong with that ? It's not like I refuse to install and use firewall and antivirus on my PC machine and putting other people at risk by possibly spreading those nasties around.
OK, let's put it this way... it is so good I use it and can't live without it. Happy ?
-
Hi >,
It is a free world after all, and you are free to say that NoScript is a nuisance for you, and you are not the only one... I would like to say that a lot of IE users that understand the risks they are running would be glad if Mr Giorgio Maone had a similar protection developed to run inside IE.
And yes script inside a browser is the number ONE malware vector, and this will be so for a long, long time to come.
But it is the users that decide. Who knows that there will be a day very soon that FF 3.0 and IE8 look so identical, that FF will be phased out. Functionality and security often conflict, but they also can go hand in hand. Using it or not is your personal decision, I am not gonna comment there. On a Mac the story is quite something different. What I say is for FF on Windows...
pol
-
damian my friend i will wait until (http://i27.tinypic.com/zn1rvr.png) says final version ;)
and yes i do see your garfield jpg under your first post ;)
click on toon below to supersize ;D
-
Howdy Dan,
How did you know I that I would be doing the same? I have been testing the Firefox 3.0 on a user rights only account for some time, but because all my favorite extensions would not run as I liked it, and it is a developer and beta-tester version only, and they state so explicitly, I now run a normal FF build next to the latest normal Flock version. IE is exclusively for downloads (IE7). But I report here for the others that like to test it out, and wanna know what FF will have in store for us in the foreseeable future, maybe they come with a special Garfield version, although I doubt that, click the pic to see what Garfield does..
Damian
-
special Garfield version,
wouldn't SpeedyPC be jeolous ;)
-
Hi >,
It is a free world after all, and you are free to say that NoScript is a nuisance for you, and you are not the only one... I would like to say that a lot of IE users that understand the risks they are running would be glad if Mr Giorgio Maone had a similar protection developed to run inside IE.
And yes script inside a browser is the number ONE malware vector, and this will be so for a long, long time to come.
But it is the users that decide. Who knows that there will be a day very soon that FF 3.0 and IE8 look so identical, that FF will be phased out. Functionality and security often conflict, but they also can go hand in hand. Using it or not is your personal decision, I am not gonna comment there. On a Mac the story is quite something different. What I say is for FF on Windows...
pol
My point was not that NoScript is not useful, I was just saying that even without it I have never had any problems... maybe I was just lucky then I don't know. What I was trying to say is that it was annoying with questions. I don't want to set it to silent mode, because there is no way I would ever let any application even if it's some security program, to make decisions without me knowing what is it doing behind my back. Blocking all kind of content that sometimes maybe shouldn't be blocked (in some specific situations) is not something I want to see.
The other thing... isn't blocking of scripts on IE even easier than on Firefox ? You have to install some third party plug-in for Firefox, but with IE, you just have to turn off scripting.
In Internet Explorer, click the Tools menu and select Int.Options.
Click the Security tab.
With the Internet zone selected, click the Custom Level button.
Scroll down to the Scripting section.
Select "Disable" (or you can select "Prompt" if you need to allow active scripting on some pages that you know you can trust, just like I need it).
Click OK.
Click OK again to close the dialog box.
Isn't that effect pretty much the same ?
-
Does anybody know what happens with the FF McAfee Site Advisor extension in FF 3b4. I keep installing it but it simply goes away upon rebooting the pc. I liked it a lot especially for the advises on the Google and Yahoo searchs. Can AILWIL think of a gadget like SiteAdvisor for us? 8)
Hi polonus, I did exactly as you said and while it worked for drweb link checker extension it didn't work for the McAfee SiteAdvisor extension for FF. It simply disapears upon a pc reboot. While I know the FF 3 b4 version has a feature warning you on bad sites (a bit like McAfee) you have to actually click them to know it. :o
-
Hello gdiloren,
As siteadvisor won't take hold, just install scandoo for a search engine, does actually the same or install finjan: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4892
pol
-
Thanks polonus, Finjan seems OK, even better than SiteAdvisor! ;)
-
This is my personal preference but I don't use Distrust and Stealther, instead, I simply turn off history, hard disk cache and password manager through options and about:config for speed and privacy.
The other thing... isn't blocking of scripts on IE even easier than on Firefox ? You have to install some third party plug-in for Firefox, but with IE, you just have to turn off scripting.
In Internet Explorer, click the Tools menu and select Int.Options.
Click the Security tab.
With the Internet zone selected, click the Custom Level button.
Scroll down to the Scripting section.
Select "Disable" (or you can select "Prompt" if you need to allow active scripting on some pages that you know you can trust, just like I need it).
Click OK.
Click OK again to close the dialog box.
Isn't that effect pretty much the same ?
No. Anyone who actually browsed a bit with NoScript would see the difference. He/she could check what is blocked by the indicator at the bottom of the page rather than annoying prompts and decide what to do with the blocked scripts. He/she could temporally allow them and/or put them to whitelist. This kind of whitelisting in IE is much more troublesome. In fact, in my routine browsing, I don't need to touch anything while I can choose what I would do with new sites. For example, here (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=12640.msg283539#msg283539), Bob appears to have seen something he wouldn't like to see but I didn't because the browser didn't read scripts. Of course, domain-based blocking is not perfect since "trusted" ones may be contaminated but NoScript author is aware of it and I take my precautions, too.
-
Thanks polonus, Finjan seems OK, even better than SiteAdvisor! ;)
I follow this.
Of course, domain-based blocking is not perfect since "trusted" ones may be contaminated.
For these ones, rests the antivirus and Script Blocker (Pro version for IE).
-
This has absolutely nothing with wearing a seatbelt. I have never ever even started my car without my seatbelt fastened, so for sure it can not be compared to this situation.
Well, a big indicator that you are talking to someone who is pretending to be knowledgeable about computers is when they start drawing vague analogies, about "cars and seatbeats"... They think it makes them sound clever, when in fact it merely shows they lack the technical chops to explain what is happening...
It looks like no one can have his own opinion in this forum. After one say something, there is at least two on his back. I don't like it and I don't use it, so what's wrong with that ?
Nothing wrong. Except a couple of people here think they are the only guys who know anything and that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong or foolish....
-
They think it makes them sound clever, when in fact it merely shows they lack the technical chops to explain what is happening...
Do you really think that Sasha do not have technical skills?
C'mon master, is it funny to be a troll in the forum?
Except a couple of people here think they are the only guys who know anything and that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong or foolish....
You're the first one? Who's the second?
-
"This has absolutely nothing with wearing a seatbelt. I have never ever even started my car without my seatbelt fastened, so for sure it can not be compared to this situation."
Well, a big indicator that you are talking to someone who is pretending to be knowledgeable about computers is when they start drawing vague analogies, about "cars and seatbeats"... They think it makes them sound clever, when in fact it merely shows they lack the technical chops to explain what is happening...
Very funny. I second Tech's comment. Sasha know his stuff. Being able to boil technical concepts down to simple analogies, is a skill in itself.
"It looks like no one can have his own opinion in this forum. After one say something, there is at least two on his back. I don't like it and I don't use it, so what's wrong with that ?"
Nothing wrong. Except a couple of people here think they are the only guys who know anything and that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong or foolish....
There's probably a bit of truth in your statement, but not necessarily in the way you meant it. There are a lot of people who frequent this forum, that have a lot of knowledge about computer security. It is inevitable that there would be disagreements sometimes in threads, but the benefit to the original poster, is that he has more than one option to pick from. A good thing in my mind.
There have been instances in the past, where members have gone into a feeding frenzy in response to someone's posted question, and as a collective group, they resemble the Keystone Kops, but those have been few and far between.
As an interested spectator, I'm personally impressed, and humbled by the collective knowledge of the members here.
-
Can we keep on track please, arguing over what seems to me like nothing seems pointless guys.
--lee
-
seems pointless guys.
Lee, we're interested on forum atmosphere... we need air to breath. Respect, in one word.
-
In case you missed the news...
Mozilla Says Firefox 3 Ready For Prime Time
The program's creators told Reuters on Thursday that the privately-held company's trial version of Firefox 3 browser is ready for the masses to use after months of development.
Until now, the company has discouraged average Internet users from moving on from Firefox 2, which was launched in October 2006.
"In many ways it (Firefox 3) is much more stable than anything else out there," Mozilla Corp Vice President of Engineering Mike Schroepfer said in an interview.
http://www.internetnews.com/breakingnews/article.php/3735786
-
FF3 might be ready for the masses, but I doubt the extensions are ready for FF3, many wil not be compatoble.
-
FF3 might be ready for the masses, but I doubt the extensions are ready for FF3, many wil not be compatoble.
Siteadcisor is one ;D
-
FF3 might be ready for the masses, but I doubt the extensions are ready for FF3, many wil not be compatoble.
That's true, though many are. Some developers won't update until a RC. But, the only two I'm really concerned about are NoScript, and AdBlock Plus, and both of them have been updated. Though I don't, you can have both versions installed side-by-side if the extensions are a big deal. Probably more concern for some extensions on Windows, than on Linux. I can't remember...
-
Hi DavidR,
There is a way around that to make some critical extensions run inside FF:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=33717.0
Some hang to certain security add-ons. SiteAdvisor for me is not one of them. There are better alternatives.
But I would not like to miss for instance DrWeb's av hyperlink scanner plug-in, Stealther, JSView, Error Console, R.I.P. to mention just a few. And not to forget the most important of them all NoScript. I would not like to touch FF or Flock without Mr. Maone's extension -
polonus
-
...And not to forget the most important of them all NoScript. I would not like to touch FF or Flock without Mr. Maone's extension.
As I mentioned in the post right above yours, NoScript is working fine.
-
Hi DavidR,
There is a way around that to make some critical extensions run inside FF:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=33717.0
Some hang to certain security add-ons. SiteAdvisor for me is not one of them. There are better alternatives.
<snip>
Personally I would rather not modify firefox and wait for the official release and the support for my extensions. I have in the past hacked the extension where it was no longer supported, changing the from and to version support. but that effects only one particular extension and doesn't disable compatibility checking for all extensions.
-
Personally I would rather not modify firefox and wait for the official release and the support for my extensions. I have in the past hacked the extension where it was no longer supported, changing the from and to version support. but that effects only one particular extension and doesn't disable compatibility checking for all extensions.
That's always the prudent choice. My reason for posting the news, was to simply let people know, who are biting at the bit to try FF3, that they shouldn't be afraid to try it, even with it's Beta designation.
-
I began to use Firefox 3 Portable (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable/test). I simply copied profile folder under "FirefoxPortableTest\Data" but it works fine with some minor tweaks. As for add-ons, beside the add-on compatibility check workaround (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.checkCompatibility) polonus mentioned, check the add-on developers' sites for newer versions of their add-ons. For example, I found Tab Max Plus dev-builds here (http://tmp.garyr.net/dev-builds/). This is one of my must-have add-ons and 0.3.6.1.080324 works well with FF3 at the moment. About FF3, itself, I like "the feel" when I am browsing, it definitely feels lighter.
-
Good review here (as in good for Firefox):
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7764475172.html (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7764475172.html)
-
Hi users of FF,
Beta5 will be out in May, you can test the RC1, FF 3.0 will be out somewhere in June:
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9072680&intsrc=hm_list
RC's can be tested, and developers like to get the feed-back from it,
polonus