To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Plugins are like Java, Flash, etc - they are not the same as Firefox extensions. Basically if you run into a website that demands you install some plugin, you should maybe think twice, since you're trusting a piece of software that is not sandboxed.
In any case, I notice Firefox now disables the WPF plugin "for my protection" 
That is not the problem, as usually nobody will have all of the plugins installed, and NONE of the plugins will be there without his knowledge.
What MS did here, was BY FAR worse, than what google does.
If you come across a website, which requires the chrome plugin in IE, you get asked a nice question, if you want to install that plugin or not. You have to explicitly say "yes" to get the stuff installed.
Whereas in the current situation, you run an update on WINDOWS, and it installs a backdoor into software hich should be out-of-bounds for it's update scope.
Instead they should do the same as google does with the chrome plugin: Put up a plugin for download, that is installed (or not) by the browser, once it comes across a website which says it needs it.
Microsoft seems to be at it's old dirty tricks again: Make sure EVERYBODY who is on Windows can interpret THEIR closed, patented version of web protocols. Then luring web designers into designing EXCLUSIVELY for this warped web protocol, thereby creating a bad web experience for non-Windows users.
The google chrome plugin is doing the exact opposite: Enabling IE for standardized, international and platform agnostic web protocols, thereby enabling those standards to be used by EVERYBODY, including operating systems which have only one user on the whole planet.





Member since:
2005-09-27
So let me get this, Firefox can be exploited via pluggins? there are hundreds of pluggins for Firefox and everyone one of them its a potential hole, scary.