Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 11:04 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Thread beginning with comment 366576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Thom sounds like a fanboy
by WorknMan on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 00:09
in reply to "RE[6]: Thom sounds like a fanboy"
How *can* Firefox prevent it? How can Firefox distinguish between an extension installed through the Firefox interface, and an extension installed through something writing the exact same content to disk?
I don't know? Perhaps it could have a list of installed extensions in a file that was encrypted, so that outside apps couldn't write to it? Of course, it might get corrupted, but hey... there are smarter people than me to figure these things out
RE[8]: Thom sounds like a fanboy
by Almindor on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 14:06
in reply to "RE[7]: Thom sounds like a fanboy"
So let me get this straight. An Microsoft installer inserts an unwanted firefox extension which is also a security hole and it's firefox that should "protect" against it?
Yeah right, why don't we tell application programmers to "protect" against malware abusing their programs via OS security holes huh?
Seriously Thom? Wtf is this? It's an obvious move by Microsoft and you're defending them?




Member since:
2008-08-19
How *can* Firefox prevent it? How can Firefox distinguish between an extension installed through the Firefox interface, and an extension installed through something writing the exact same content to disk?