How Can I Trust Firefox? 1464
TheRealSlimShady writes "Peter Torr (who?) from Microsoft invites a certain flamewar with his essay 'How can I trust Firefox?' He raises some interesting security related points about the download and installation of Firefox, some of which should probably be addressed. The focus is on code signing, which Microsoft is hot on. Of course, the obvious question is 'Do I trust Firefox less than IE?'"
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello? Microsoft? 99% of the stuff on the Internet is unsigned. Downloading software from DePaul University's FireFox mirror doesn't scare me.
What scares me are those freaking awful dialog boxes that IE allows. The ones that say "You MUST click okay to use this site!" or "Do you want to set CrappyAds.ru to be your homepage?".
And even if I press no, I *still* get spyware. Why? IE Sucks.
After I finally got rid of my beloved CoolSearchWeb installations, I installed FireFox for good. I've been spyware free ever since, and I download a lot of unsigned data. No IE, no spyware.
Microsoft is never going to get it.
IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read and compile??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IE? (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone in the slashdot community... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also noticed this comment:
"and not caring if my Virtual PC image dies a horrible death"
(emphathis added)
Could this person be having a virtual pc problem?
Code signing (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it's signed... (Score:3, Insightful)
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point?
This guy is right. Listen to him. (Score:4, Insightful)
One approach might be to have users download an small installer from "firefox.org" (only!) which then verifies the downloaded file (which can come from anywhere). The download site on "firefox.org" should have an SSL certificate good enough for code signing.
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:2, Insightful)
A good starting point might be for www.mozilla.org to host unmirrored checksums for itself and its plug-ins.
Worrywart (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:2, Insightful)
Trust is earned.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can I trust FireFox? Basically, I only trust it because other people who came before me reported back on their success with it, and in my own trials, it has done well for me. (The fact that the source code is available for open examination is a comforting factor too, of course.)
Ultimately, I think almost all of us choose the software applications we run based on how satisfied we are with the results they give us. The fact that a package is "signed" or "unsigned" has very little bearing on my confidence in using a particular program.
Re:IE? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it looks good, it goes in. If it's bad, or blatantly obvious malware, it won't.
In theory you might be able to run across a rogue dev with enough access to bypass this process -- yet OSS is based on trust; unlike getting your product out quickly to keep your job, it's done by people who love the project or cause.
Could it be a problem? Yeah, in theory. But without the source, how would we ever know how many times this has gone on at MSFT, signed code or not?
Valid Points (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't make the same errors again - if the designers of SMTP had thought about the users rather than the implementers, they woudl have built signature/encryption/sender authentication straight into the protocol and prevented the spam issue from ever arising.
Logical Error (Score:4, Insightful)
That would mean that every piece of software not signed would be bad. The logical definition of necessary is not "provides some evidence", but is a strict conditional. In other words software can be trusted only if it is signed. This is obviously false, there are clearly ways one can trust a piece of software without requiring a digital signature.
Re:IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two sides to the coin:
- Firefox is generally trustworthy because a lot of eyes look at the code and changes are logged in public view. Most developers are benevolent. People have tried to create exploits with the Linux kernel, but they have been weeded out.
- Ideally, Internet Explorer would be generally trustworthy because as a business, Microsoft's reputation rides on the quality of the program. In a capitalist society with an element of competition, commercial demands would force Microsoft to close exploits. However, Microsoft lives in a monopolistic universe. And as we all know, companies that live with little competition generally aren't benevolent and don't give a rip about corporate reputation. When a company has 90% market share with a web browser, they often rest on their laurels and get sloppy about it. Until a vastly superior browser like Firefox effectively turns the tables - say 60/40 - Microsoft probably feels no obligation to react and will continue to act like Firefox is no threat.
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:5, Insightful)
secure?
You can know that it is an official binary and
hasn't been tampered with. However, I can
accomplish this without paying Verisign money
using a standard fingerprint.
When you sign it with a Verisign certificate, the
trust then moves up the chain. So, the question
becomes, do I trust Verisign?
No.
In my opinion, this isn't even a problem. I make
sure I download files for sources that I trust,
and they make sure that those files remain clean
as a matter of site security.
It all boils down to this:
1) Normal users don't care about signed code, as
they happily click on "Yes, download this!"
without bothering to check anything.
2) Power users can verify the integrity of their
code without shelling out big bucks to Verisign.
Re:Security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Redirection is the newest flaw in browsers (Score:3, Insightful)
Legitimate but GENERIC issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
The average user is placed in situations, probably several times a week, where in theory he is voluntarily authorizing something but in practice has virtually no way to know whether it is safe to click OK or not.
Today's software is constantly giving you scary warnings about things that are perfectly OK, while constantly encouraging you to OK things which are not at all in your best interests to OK.
My favorites are all the Microsoft uninstalls which ask me whether I want to delete QQXXZZ.DLL, without telling me what QQXXZZ.DLL is or what it does or what other applications might be using it. (In fact, it seems to expect me to know that. Hey, the OS might be in a position to know whether some other application uses that DLL, but I certainly am not. And my wife, of course, doesn't even know what a DLL is...
(Now, about that pageful of medium-gray type on a light-gray background that's on the back of the car rental agreement you are presented with, in the airport, with a line of irritable people behind you...)
Open Letter to Peter Torr (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust is not a universal concept. Some discretion is required. If you do not trust Firefox, that is your choice. You are not willing, in your mind to take a risk. Personally, I do not trust Microsoft. Despite years of press releases and keynote speaches promoting security as 'Job 1' I have lost all trust in them.
Personally, I see little value in a so called 'signed application'. If I visit my bank, I want to see a 'padlock' icon so that I know the data is not being 'sniffed' en route. Other than that, the certificate is not important to me. But that is the level of trust I am comfortable with. My concept of trust includes the concept of established relationship and earned respect. The value of Microsoft signing something doesn't mean anything to me. They are not trustworthy. After using Firefox for several versions, getting a feel for the neighborhood, I trust it.
I understand that websites use mirrors -- thats normal and doesn't normally raise a red flag. I can verify a file contents with an MD5 checksum if I need to.
Each user should has to establish their own level of trust and should not blindly rely on a certificate to tell them if they trust someone/something.
You ask 'How Can I Trust Firefox'? Well you can't blindly. You have to take a risk. I can only tell you that it works fine for me. Regular backups and common sense go a long way.
There is another reason however--Trust is not as important with Firefox as it is with Microsoft IE. The engineers of IE decided to integrate IE into the operating system with Active Desktop, ActiveX, etc. These made IE much more vulnerable. Firefox doesn't do this. It just tries to be a web browser - not a remote code execution environment.
How can I trust Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Missed an important detail in his criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, FireFox won't install any extension downloaded from a site not explicitly whitelisted. It should also be noted that the only site that is whitelisted by default is update.mozilla.org. If Mozilla.org was going to pwn you with a Firefox extension, why wouldn't the save themselves some trouble and just pwn you with TrojanFox?
Was this a deliberate omission? Probably.
Also, complaining about MessageBoxes not working when running software in a non-standard environment (virtual machine) is silly. Odds are that the problem was display driver-related anyway.
Re:Do I trust Firefox more than I trust IE? (Score:2, Insightful)
My firefox was signed.. (Score:3, Insightful)
it was signed by Red Hat, and it had an automatic signature verification built into the Yum install.
Ok, move along... nothing more than FUD to see here.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
When are they going to learn that IE isn't "The Internet"? When are they going to replace a bad tool with a good one. Stupid blurbs like this one keep the doubt in uninformed peoples minds and keep IE on top of the pile. Microsoft gets it just fine.
Re:Read and compile??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this dude hasn't heard of the first amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IE? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
My finilization of this "update" is installing Mozilla Firefox, and replacing the Firefox icon with the IE icon. He will never notice, but it will save me the hell of "fixing" his computer in a couple of months.
Logical fallacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgive my cynism, but he is ass|u|me|ing that people trust Microsoft in the first place? Does the guy not live in the real world? The reason that I trust Firefox is because I don't have any of the problems that I have with Internet Explorer. I liked IE until my computer became overran with spyware and trojans. Code signing would be nice. But didn't the guy find the feature that only allows software installations from certain sites. I am very trusting of Mozdev, and Mozilla.org. But I am quite glad that www.hijackyourbrowser.com isn't allowed to install software. Code signing is a nice idea, but I trust a whole lot of software that isn't signed. And Microsoft should know that code signing is often ignored. I ignored the driver signing last time I updated my NVidia drivers. Just because something is digitally signed doesn't mean that I should trust it. Heck, according to Microsoft's arguments I should get a new anti-virus (even though I am running Norton Antivirus Corparate Edition) because it doesn't report itself to the OS. And what is to prevent someone from cracking the way things are digitally signed? Again, I get back to the logical fallacy -- he is assuming that people inherently trust Microsoft.
Re:IE? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Valid points are starting to look a lot like FUD these days.
The guy missed something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I've never had Firefox do that.
Really, what the hell does it matter if the software is signed? Some spyware/adware is signed so it looks "safe" by this guy's standards, and some of it just installs without telling you. If your core browser isn't safe from exploitation, there's really no sense in going any further. If you train users to say no, spyware just exploits the holes and installs itself without asking, problem solved. 90% of users are just going to click "Ok" anyway, no matter what it tells them, and no matter how much you try to teach them.
He does have two interesting points, though, that perhaps we shouldn't trash with the rest. Maybe something beyond MD5 hashes should be provided for FF. My dad runs Windows, has no idea how to do an MD5 sum on a file, nor does he particularly need to know that. I hate even suggesting that Verisign is some bastion of legitimacy, because, well, just no. However, we're probably the biggest cooperating group of smart people (okay, some of you may be excused) the world has ever seen - surely there's a way to do it that is both easy for regular users and doesn't support V-evil.
Also, being able to turn on and off various plug-ins wouldn't hurt. Sure, I know about the extension manager, but I'm talking things like Flash and Acrobat (the two things that screw me over most often). It'd be nice if I could just turn them off temporarily. Acrobat the Plugin has to be one of the #1 things that crashes on my Win32 boxes.
Hashes on the download site (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He doesn't care. (Score:3, Insightful)
SP2 for XP, is signed and all, downloads from random sites without telling you the ownersihp, then destories the XP loaded, to the point of wiping the drive and reloading.
XP can not be moved from one machine, even using the tools Microsoft gives you, so they message of "Buy new hardware" when you have the above problem, is still a full reload.
Lastly his blog is comments are now under moderation, so you can not talk about bad.
I guess that is what MS is calling Marketing, Security these days. Does save on build costs.
Re:Answer: Openness Trust (Score:2, Insightful)
And why would Taiwan plant a trojan in IE that sends SSNs to bejing? That would be like North Korea putting a trojan in IE that sends the US super secret data. Why?
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's called "Internet Explorer". It's got the keyword - internet. That's what they're looking for. How in the nine hells are they supposed to know what "Firefox" is (most of them do not read the times). Firefox is not an intuitive name. It gives the average person absolutely no idea what it does by just looking at what the name is.
People *MIGHT* start using something other than IE when this stops being the case. Most people want something they can understand. They don't want to feel stupid by having no idea what to do or what tools to use in order to do it.
Not to mention the fact that they all KNOW about Microsoft. They know the name. They know it's been around for quite a while. Therefore it must be good, right? (not my opinion, but it is the view of people that I have known)
Just my opinion as a tech with "normal" relatives and clients.
Re:I agree ... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you didn't miss anything, because the Nanolimp appologist didn't address that. He was writing FUD to keep people from downloading and installing Firefox because he knew he'd be laughed at if he claimed Firefox isn't better than IE.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: You're not doing any great service by tricking someone into thinking that IE is now somehow safe. A much better option would be to be honest and say "I had to clean up way too many things on you PC because of IE. I've installed Firefox - it's much safer than IE and you'd be better off using it". Not to mention that fact that you'd be giving credit where it was actually due.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft does get it. They get it very well, and in large sums. Here they are providing scathing yet legitimate criticism, and all you can do is get defensive and arrogant. The only people who dont get it are posters like you.
"He brings us love, lets break his legs so he can't get away"
another demonstration of Microsoft's ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox on Windows does not have code signing because the real world has not demanded it so far. If there were enough attacks for which it turned out that code signing was the right solution, then Firefox would use code signing.
Code signing, at this point, is a gimmick because it does not address the major security problems that Microsoft has. It's a solution to a problem that is not at the top of the list of problems with Microsoft software. And because Microsoft focuses on gimmicks, Microsoft keeps failing to address the real security problems Microsoft products have.
Maybe Microsoft will eventually get serious and real about security, but Peter Torr's commentary illustrates that ignorance still reigns supreme at Microsoft.
Name: GAIN / Publisher: Claria Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
Publisher: Claria Corporation
The publisher was verified so you should install and run this software.
I fail to see how signatures fix anything that is wrong with Internet Explorer. Automated downloads via ActiveX are going to be a problem if they are signed or not. What a moron this guy is (and I'm normally a MS softie). He should be fired if he works for MS as he is exactly the type of thinker that got us into this problem.
He's addressing the wrong issue here. (Score:3, Insightful)
ActiveX (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy is right. Listen to him. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, for you and me all this is not only easy, it's become second nature, but for the average Joe this sounds like a foreign language. Please try to wake up and smell the reality. You either want OSS products like Firefox to succeed and be addopted by a large mass of users - or not, in which case I don't want to hear any complaints about how your favorite application is not supported by some random vendor or service provider
Re:Verisign Code Signing Certificate (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you can do better (or perhaps not, since you seem to think that Verisign == trustworthy).
Re:I agree ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone should tell guy about the signature files that go right alongside the setup exe.
dot dot dot (Score:2, Insightful)
He encountered a very rare problem installing Firefox, all of which could have been faked. Who cares? Internet Explorer has FAR too many problems reguarding security. People get spyware by just VISITING web pages, you prick. I mean seriously, how many of you have ever went to a webpage in IE and a box popped up asking if you wanted to install 'spyware.omg.kill.computer'? NEVER. EVER. In my LIFE. Internet Explorer is a piece of crap. Microsoft needs to stop pretending IE is worth half a shit (please excuse the language).
Microsoft needs to get their crap together and build a web browser with security as the primary focus. Forget UX (User eXperience) and all that other fancy crap, just get the code secure and then work on the beautification.
My two cents.
-rico
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
They have had a sketchy track record with security, but, until recently, they haven't really cared, so you can't blame them for just now trying to come up to speed. Besides, software is complex. Linux has bugs. IE has bugs. Firefox has bugs. Windows has bugs. The better developer is the one who can patch their bugs more quickly without breaking other things in the process (sometimes Microsoft is first to the punch, but they don't seem to always test their patches thoroughly).
They also are a damn good business. Many computer hobbyists really dislike the idea of large businesses being heavyweight players in their field of interest, because it means a stupendously-increased prevalence of things like patents, trade secrets, proprietary interfaces, non-disclosure agreements, and licensing fees.)
There are a few points I have to raise with this:
Mirrors are a *good* thing. The only thing that should possibly be changed is that links to mirrors should all have
I've never seen firefox spit out dialog boxes like that before. I don't know what this guy did (what variant of Windows is he running on this Virtual PC, exactly?), but, I've installed many versions of Mozilla and Firefox to many different operating systems and can't recall seeing any bizarre things like that since the beta / pre-1.0 days.
Signed software is a good idea, but, MD5 hashes aren't a bad alternative for people who aren't willing to shell out cash. Since he proclaims that IE is very good about checking the identity of files it opens, perhaps IE should include a plugin to check a file against its
"Install Now" shouldn't be the default, I agree (except perhaps if it comes from a known trusted domain).
He implies that there shouldn't be a "Do not ask me this again" option for "Are you sure you want to run this random downloaded executable?" I think this is perhaps a useful feature (what about trusted corporate environments where Firefox only accesses internal sites?) for saving a few seconds, although maybe putting the option in a config file somewhere would be wiser.
Flash is also _not_ an extension---it's a plugin. Perhaps Firefox does need a plugin manager; he raises a good point with that.
He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of extensions. Firefox is an attempt to just focus on streamlining the main part of webbrowsing, and leave it up to side projects and third-party developers to add little features via extensions; it's more of a community thing than an all-from-one-vendor thing, so of course a lot of good extensions come from other vendors. If he doesn't trust a certain vendor, he should test an extension under a different user who has no access to anything important, use a personal firewall that handles both incoming AND outgoing connections, and/or use an operating system that can lock a program into just a subtree of the filesystem (I don't know if NT or 2K can do this, but UNIX can chroot, and VMS can do even more specific things than this).
I also like this: "If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer any more." IE comes packaged with Windows. It's hard to remove from it. Things stop working if you try to remove IE from windows. I don't trust the writers of IE. So, based on what he says, my computer is only mine if it's not running Windows---sounds good to me!!
Re:How I can trust Firefox, by TWX (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missed an important detail in his criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
What scares me most is that these people are probably designing the OS that >90% of the world uses.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
They dont know what "IE" is. They dont know what "Firefox" is. And the worst part is they dont care.
I do exactly what parent said, install Firefox and remove all IE icons, and tell them the icon to get on the internet looks different now.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not totally convinced by this argument. After all what does an "iPod" do? Does a "Ford Focus" give you a very sharp river crossing? What on earth has "Google" got to do with searching?
There are ways other than naming to successfully reach a broad consumer market. Firefox isn't a bad name: its reasonably memorable and its very different from IE which is an advantage for building the brand.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon
yahoo
msn
google
etc...
None of these mean anything but they are all sucessful none the less. It's just a marketing issue.
"HEY GRANDMA!!! Try the NEW and _improved_ internet! It's called Firefox, blazing hot internet!!" :P
Besides whenever the 'internet' comes up in a conversation I point people to mozilla.org, not only for their sanity but also their security. They will do the same after they experience no popups and no spyware. Word of mouth will make this spread to the next generation. Maybe the grandma's won't use it but in ten years, that will be a whole new ballgame.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:1, Insightful)
better do it before Microsoft have a trademark on the word internet or browser
Who pays attention to this? No, who really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But clearly, users don't give a shit.
Ever install any freakin' piece of hardware on Windows? Nothing is signed. I've seen printed instructions that show a pretty picture of the unsigned-code warning dialog box, and tells the user to press the yes please install this dangerous driver that might destroy my computer button.
This is not from Bob's Network Adapters 'n Peat Moss. This is Samsung. Lexmark.
So, as far as Joe Average is concerned, that dialog box is just another stupid thing getting in the way of scanning these nice pictures to send to Aunt Tillie. He's being trained to ignore security warnings.
Re:Most Spies for Beijing are Taiwanese (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a subtle Point (Score:3, Insightful)
He knows that Firefox isn't going to be installed by default on new computers anytime soon, and you have to download it for all your older computers. So the 'trusting where your download from' issue will be there up to the point when they release their next browser in Longhorn of 2006 (well, maybe 2006).
So, this will be an issue that they will attempt to exploit in the meantime, as they try to catch up in the other areas that they lag. They have so few other advantages to go on, this will probably be one of their primary ones. The only other advantage they appear to declare, is that they can run the ActiveX packages out there. It seems to be a well thought out piece of FUD.
I personally don't think it would work. Especially when the community finds a way to elegantly tackle most of the issues that he laid out.
--
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a bookmark? What's a webpage? What's an application? If people think the internet is inside of a blue "e" none of these kinds of issues matter, they just need to know where to click.
It's name recognition, that's all. Once they know that if you click on the pretty fox icon instead of the blue "e", that's all the matters. If the general public can learn that a big blue "e" means the internet, then they can learn another way, especially after the 3rd time of bringing their box to Best Buy and paying $150 to some techno-snobish teen to clean off the spyware and viruses.
Getting these people to download and install Firefox, that is the real challenge.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
This was done as a security measure to prevent malicious attempts to install unwanted (spyware) XPI files on sketchy sites, which started to happen. I wish to god IE would do the same thing with Browser Helper Objects, and any ActiveX objects for that matter.
The obvious question is the dumb question. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, asking your self this question is just down right stupid. This is the same as saying I do not trust something, but accept that level of trust because one of your other options is less trustful.
If you can't trust something DONT trust it. Im fucking suck of this American style of thinking our goverment and the media has us stuck on, the fact that if you have only shitty choices (presidents, tv, music, etc) then you should only choose from the shitty choices.
In fact the best choice in most cases is to not choose at all.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Comments of a happy IE user... (Score:5, Insightful)
But this blog entry is beyond ridiculous.
First, I have installed Firefox on a number of ocassions, recently and beta builds in the past. I have done so on a couple of different versions of Windows, a few Linux versions some of which were running under VMWare. I have NEVER had ANY problem installing it. Certainly I've never seen a blank dialog like this guy claims to have.
He raises some interesting concerns about the download locations I think, legitimate concerns, but beyond that it's a bunch of obvious FUD drivel. The security warning dialogs he mentions, while legitimate issues for novice users, are a result of the way IE handles potentially unsafe content, NOT the fault of Firefox. I would bet most people downloading a new browser can probably handle these dialogs without too much trouble, and again, they are from IE, not Firerox. He's right, signing the Firefox download wouldn't be a bad idea, but it's hardly the big deal he seems to think it is.
Look, I think there are legitimate gripes about Firefox (just like there are about IE by the way)... I don't think either side needs to be making stuff up. I find myself sometimes defending MS against what I see as unfair assessments by the OSS community, but seeing posts like this blog entry makes me feel like an ass for doing so. BOTH sides need to be mature and compete fairly, may the best product win. It's annoying when crap like this sneaks through.
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This guy is right. Listen to him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. Fact is, if even 0.1% of the downloaders check, any compromised original will be detected in just a matter of minutes - hours at the worst. Mother at home will grab it... then the media the next day will loudly announce the problem, the antivirus companies will tear the binary apart and release updated signatures in a few days, and her virus scanner will tell her about the problem in about a week. This does assume she runs a virus scanner... but if she doesn't, she's probably compromised already.
What the Slashdot crowd seems to be missing is that we don't need everyone to follow the MD5 signature. We just need an informed and vocal minority - e.g. Slashdotters - to detect the problem and pick up the pieces afterwards.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, like www.windowsupdate.com [windowsupdate.com] points to v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com?
Firefox isn't perfect but please, bitch about one of it's few real problems and some bullshit ones. Someone please show Mr. Torr a clue-by-four please?
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't Firefox's code signed by VeriSign? It may seem frivolus but the average user wont MD5 it until hell freezes over.
http://www.verisign.com/products-services/securit
There, its $695 dollars for the premium version with a $50 000 gurantee. The Mozilla foundation can afford that. And it really would re-assure those non-tech users. It may not matter for us geeks, but it can only do good, so we might as well.
Trust IE more? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) At least when you post, do a similar comparison between both browsers. I want IE so when I search Google for download internet explorer, then the first link is "www.microsoft.com/ie/" which REDIRECTS me to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.htm which again REDIRECTS me to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx
Can someone tell me if that is the same Internet Explorer? After all, Microsoft is a big company. I just wanted the regular IE.
2) Watch what you quote - when you wisely point out that Secunia [secunia.com] has found (gulp!) 3 security advisories, did you know that only one was moderately critical and the rest were minor? Then, I noticed the advisories for Internet Explorer 6 (the most secure IE browser) - only 53 advisories from 2003-2004 (same timeframe), of which 42% (or around 24) were either highly or extremely critical! Oops, let's not compare using that website.
3) Then, there's the whole issue with downloading extensions - when I click on a link to download my XPI (no clue what it is, as naive user), it waits a few seconds (no surprises) and then asks me to install now or cancel. Oh, and horror of horrors, the Install Now is default! That's what I wanted anyway...and this isn't ActiveX that installs/runs immediately or whenever, but explicitly states that it starts on restart of Mozilla. So, I can even uninstall before reloading Mozilla if I have second thoughts! Hmm, sounds secure to me.
4) I've seen too many web sites that have Versign and a bunch of other BS images that give me no more trust than another site without them. So, I create a spoofed website with Verisign pictures and have no problem fooling users. But with a Firefox plugin, I'll know I'm on a spoofed website. Personally, word of mouth is the biggest way to increase trust, and that's why I recommend Firefox using word of mouth the most - I'll tie my name to Firefox because I use it and trust it. (Even carry it on my USB drive).
5) Why not fight for some real change and migrate AWAY from ActiveX controls and Microsoft-specific mangled HTML code (and even links) that I can't even run in Firefox? And build in some Firefox-like security rather than pretending the fire is under control!
Unreal Wave of Hype (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there's a problem with this. What about the people that don't have someone to do that for them be it relative or IT person? The ones that just buy a Dell, Gateway, etc and go from there. These are the same types of people that don't apply patches because they either don't know about them or don't care because the computer "just works" the way that it is.
And the people you rename it for can't tell their friends about the program because they now have absolutely NO idea of what it's name is because the shortcut is labeled "The Web" so that they know what it does.
It's sort of a no win situation...
Until you get to the "problem" people, you're still going to have a problem.
Re:I agree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why do they have to pay verisign? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Why can't they just whip themselves up a self signed root CA with openssl, call themselves the firefox signing authority, and use it to sign extensions that way?"
They can, and they should. But this is perceived in the marketplace the same way as you setting up a folding table on the street corner with a cashbox and calling yourself a "bank."
Verisign got early market mindshare. I was urging people, such as my employer at the time (a large internet service provider on the west coast who I will not name but whose color was Purple), but nobody seemed interested in setting up a CA when the timing would have been perfect.
All anyone seemed to care about in those days was that the little gold key icon lit up in the Netscape window
Re:IE? (Score:2, Insightful)
md5 summs from DIFFERENT mirror sites when multiple sites are
available.
not sure it really improves security, but it gives me a warm fuzzy
feeling... oh wait, that's my bladder again
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've obviously never used slime on Emacs. Come to think of it, unless you feel like doing everything in basic or C++, Visual Studio pretty much sucks...
Re:I agree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? I got firefox on my distro's CDs. CDs which passed:
* bittorrent's inherent hash checks
* an md5sum comparison from the official distro's website
* gpg signature on the ISOs
as well as the subsequent updates to the browser that were downloaded from the distro's official yum server and had a valid GPG signature.
What were you saying about unsigned, unverified, untrusted code?
Re:Most Spies for Beijing are Taiwanese (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comments of a happy IE user... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agreed with you, up until this:
BOTH sides need to be mature and compete fairly, may the best product win.
Why does one side need to "win"? 50/50 market share (or close to it) would be ideal for everyone, surely?
I have a bright idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Pride comes before fall ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's make no mistake: IE is a mess and does a lot of things wrong. Firefox makes a fairly good attempt at avoiding IE's errors. However that doesn't mean that it can't be making other mistakes.
The original article is by a MS employee, and there is no doubt that he has his own agenda. Notwithstanding that, he's made some valid criticisms and to ignore them would be downright stupid.
I guess that the use of mirrors is unavoidable. Given the demand for Firefox, it could not be hosted in a single place. However it does create a possible security problem. How does a (possibly non-technical) user know that a mirror is safe? This is particularly troublesome if the mirror has only a numeric address (like 207.126.111.202).
If any mirror is untrustworthy, they could easily produce a hacked version of Firefox and distribute it widely.
There are many possible approaches to this problem, but it is certainly worth some research. Users need to know that they are getting a safe version of the software.
The dodgy dialogs sound like bugs. Rather than getting offended, it would be better to contact the author and try to repro the bugs. Maybe the bugs are in IE or in Virtual PC, but they might be in Firefox. It would be foolish to say that Firefox has no bugs.
One of the biggest criticisms of MS is their arrogant (lack of) response to user feedback.
Let's not be like them.
Re:Whoa, whoa... what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I agree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I only scanned the article quickly (its late), but it seems to me his points are all from the perspective of what "we" think is correct. The "we" being Microsoft. Is Microsoft correct? Debatable. He also is quick to point out problems with mirror sites (his gripe about the 403, for example), and does so in such a way as to imply it is Mozilla/Firefox's fault, when it obviously isn't.
Mirror sites are not controlled by the primary vendor. When you consider all of the software downloaded every day from mirror sites (iBiblio, all of the Apache mirror sites, etc) without issue, I'd say beefs about mirrors and not recognizing FQDNs are irrelevant. That leaves his points about signing the code.
When you consider other ways you can verify code (he never once mentions doing a MD5 checksum and verifying the result, for example), I consider his further points about verifying the code to be almost non-issues as well. Is signed code automatically trustworthy? IE is signed code...do you trust it? I don't. So what does the signing do for me?
He also gripes about Firefox's preferences and settings not being in the same location as IE's (his remarks about Tools->Options, etc), yet never points out where to actually find the settings.
All in all, his article doesn't impress me one bit from a debate perspective. It only makes "sense" if you are him: an employee of Microsoft who wants to imply, using open-ended questions and personal innuendo, that anything other than Microsoft is dangerous and risky.
I think it is ironic that he gloats about what his team is doing. How long did it take them? Years. How long did it take Microsoft to get SP2 out for XP? Years. Yet his article acts like the state of Microsoft's software today (fully patched, because retail versions don't have the updates) is the state its always been in, which is false.
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Installing Firefox requires downloading an unsigned binary from a random web server
It's a web server that mozilla.org directs you to. If you're downloading Firefox, you need to trust mozilla.org. Likewise, if you're downloading Internet Explorer, you need to trust microsoft.com.
Installing unsigned extensions is the default action in the Extensions dialog
There's also a two (three?) second timeout and this dialog only appears when either the site is whitelisted by default (only updates.mozilla.org is) or by the user, or if the user clicks the yellow bar at the top to specifically access this dialog.
There is no way to check the signature on downloaded program files
Boo hoo. Authenticode isn't that big of a deal when ActiveX isn't turned on in the first place, considering that that's where 95% of Authenticode is used.
There is no obvious way to turn off plug-ins once they are installed
This one is just uneducated. Tools -> Extensions. Wait... that's, um, more obvious than IE. Oh well, someone wasn't wearing their glasses.
There is an easy way to bypass the "This might be a virus" dialog
There is an easy way to do that on IE as well. It's called clicking Run. Seriously, you're going to quibble over IE having one more warning than Firefox? Go develop a decent browser first and call me when you do.
This statement is built upon previous assumptions that are false (such as Firefox being downloaded from a "random website", see above). Firefox is demonstrably more secure than IE and has far fewer vulnerabilities [secunia.com] than Internet Explorer [secunia.com].
To the Microsoft employee who created the original article: Rather than trying to convince people that something they know is inferior that it is not, why don't you try to make it... not inferior? Innovation speaks louder than marketing. Surely you can do better than a bunch of geeks spread across the globe, right?
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was his argument, alright. Appear secure. Sell security. Yep, that's what MS is doing, too - selling products that appear secure. They'll be selling Palladium next, too. Not that it would be a lot of help, but that's not the point, as it's pretty much meant to help their bottom line.
This is by now already redundant, but a signed binary is nothing to the average user. Heck, Verisign means nothing to the average user, either. They will happily check the "always trust" option for self-signed AX controls without wondering what it means.
On the other hand, if you do understand a little about security, you have the option of getting the (in this case win32) binary together with the
I agree, however, that unsigned extensions don't seem trustworthy. However, until some peer review mechanism is adopted for "official extensions", this is again a rather moot point. Do you trust an extension that's signed by foo@bar.com? even if this is somehow endorsed by mozilla.org (key signing, etc.) how do you know that foo does follow at least minimal security practices? and so on. It all depends on your paranoia level. Luckily, with javascript extensions, at least some people have the time/interest to unpack it and pore over the code to make sure it isn't trojaned. For stuff like flash, you have to trust the vendor, which makes it about on the same level of 'security' as claria et al.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
How can I trust ActiveX? (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to help protect customers, the default install of Internet Explorer will completely block the installation of ActiveX controls that are not signed, and it will suggest that you do not install any unsigned programs that you might try to download.
An ActiveX control with no signature can also be harmless and useful. Most are actually unsigned and most aren't spyware-related. And I'm sure companies like Gator, or whatever they're called today, have already made the money to be able to sign their ActiveX controls. I can't see how these are related to security at all. It's more related to money than anything else.
How are you supposed to tell which are harmful or not until after they're installed? Wouldn't it be best to make them able to do less? You don't *have* to use ActiveX for stuff like Windows Update hardware identification. Why not replace it with a standalone installer app?
Re:Most Spies for Beijing are Taiwanese (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's okay. The geocities page was digitally signed.
End User License Agreement
i. By reading this text, you agree to mod it as insightful due to its illustration of the problems with the argument against unsigned media.
ii. By reading this text, you further agree that it is relatively entertaining material, given the number of hours the posting individual has been online without rest, before contriving the post.
Re:uninstalling extentions (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox's extensions however seem to be controlled totally from the browser itself, which means that the browser controlls what's installed and uninstalled, and therefor is theoretically safer. Of course anytime that you allow third party sites to install software there's always a danger that someone'll write something nasty, it just seems a little safer with Firefox.
Re:I agree ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum (I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.)"
Bad Latin. You mean "Cogito me cogitare, ergo cogito me esse".
However the ie site. (Score:4, Insightful)
But then who is going to apply the ditital signature, is there still someone who understands ALL of foxfire's code? No jsut as there is noone who understands all of i.e. code.
Do you trust mozilla foundation more than MS? As ptorr explains there is no reason to. So what is this signature worth in the end?
But he does have SOME valid points.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you uncheck "Allow websites to install software"? The whitelist is already plenty secure, as we have just been discussing. If you uncheck that box on purpose, then you have no right to complain when Firefox doesn't allow you to install Flash from the web. Of course, an error message would be nice, but the plugin installer has always been flaky; it is one of the worst parts of Firefox IMHO. Hopefully it will be fixed up in 1.1.
1 very good reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Here one very good reason why we can "trust" firefox over IE
We have the source code - and as such it gives confidence that the firefox team have no evil to hide - and that any software bugs can be repaired by anyone who cares.
Re:Fun Facts Time! (Score:3, Insightful)
So? Just because a school may be flawed, that is no excuse not to get a degree.
If FF wants to be a real player, it has to play by the established rules many organizations follow.
I know of quite a few firms, financial institutions, and state government offices which do not allow employees to use anything other than IE; much of the reasoning coencides with what this article is saying. They all use intrusion prevention services and just have the helpdesk clean up the occasional mess caused by a sneaky spyware install or virus infested laptop trying to vpn in. This, in conjunction with AV protection (which you need regardless of IE), make for a feasable solution to these guys. They aren't getting hacked into, the employees don't worry about their workstations and the companies go make money like they should be focused on doing.
Even the lowliest of helpdesk personnel had best know how to remove any spyware which exists. I know this is mostly a Linux board, but some of us started with Linux and had to learn Windows so we would understand the IT world better so we could move above the limitations imposed by a "wINDOWS THE SUCK. LOONIX RULEZ!!!" mentality. Back to the topic at hand: There are only a few places in the Windows registry where Spyware and other malware can load upon boot and from the browser. It takes about a minute to flip through them all, disable the ones which don't have anything "extra", remove the associated files, reboot.
I know, I'll get modded a troll even though I just made clear a rare point on
Fix those registry entries here: HiJackThis [spychecker.com] (that is, if you work with Windows and are too lazy to RTFM)
Re:The 10 immutable laws of coporations (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... you're right.
He is totally unfair. (Score:2, Insightful)
The empty Firefox dialog he showed has never appeared for as long as I use Firefox (from version 0.7 and onwards).
I never had any problems with Firefox extensions, simply because I never needed one. The most important "extensions", popup blocking and the search engine bar are intergrated in Firefox.
Microsoft must really feel the heat of open source software...some may say that Microsoft has the right to complain, just like the rest of the world is complaining about their products. The difference is that open source supporters complain because they like quality software and Microsoft isn't of the expected quality; Microsoft complains because it sees profits going down and market share lost...
Re:I agree ... (Score:2, Insightful)
er, i think you'll find that marketing speaks louder. Betamax, anyone?
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Other points:
Re:IE? (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as no long-standing, intentional security holes have been found in any reputable open source project, I'd say that the argument that "anyone could insert a security hole" is bogus. Not anyone can modify the code of "official" distributions, those who can are long-time contributors (not your random "anyone") and when accepting patches from other people, they verify the changes.
Note that one previously closed project even had a long-standing backdoor exposed the moment it was open sourced.
Code Signin=SQUAT (Score:3, Insightful)
WoW (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that all they have?
This makes about as much sense as a Word review that criticizes scroll bar dimensions.
Virtually irrelevant to the subject. It's great to hear MS whine about well executed free software, they truly have no ammunition against it.
Verifying Firefox via GPG/PGP (Score:2, Insightful)
A few people have pointed out that there is a way to verify the Firefox download via GPG/PGP. How usable is this method, though?
I am mainly familiar with GPG/PGP from apache.org and all the developer tools I download from there. Take ant.apache.org, for instance. Their "Binary Distributions" link goes to a page that begins with a suggestion to verify the download, a link to instructions on how to verify, and a link to the main distribution directory where the keys and signatures are available.
So let's say I download Firefox and expect the same kind of experience. www.getfirefox.com takes me directly to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ where I am given a big "Free Download" link.
Clicking the link immediately gives me firefox-1.0.installer.tar.gz from a mirror site, and my current Firefox browser prompts me to save it. So the download link doesn't point to anywhere with keys or signatures. The page text itself doesn't mention keys or signatures.
Well, there is an "Other systems and languages" link, so perhaps that has a more detailed download page where the keys and signatures are. The link takes me to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html, where I am given a table of "Download" links for different languages and platforms. Clicking any of the "Download" links again immediately gives me the installer file for download rather than directing to a page that might have keys or signatures. And the whole download page has no text about keys or signatures either.
The Firefox download experience seems to totally ignore GPG/PGP. I understand that the necessary info is accessible somewhere on the mozilla.org site, but the point is that the site doesn't relate the tasks of downloading the app and verifying it at all.
Though you can argue that
A) software publishers and users shouldn't buy into the whole commerical Verisign digital certificate thing and should instead use GPG/PGP verification, and/or
B) automatic PGP/GPG verification by the program doing the download isn't necessary, or feasible to apply to every download program,
I don't think you can argue that mozilla.org is effective at supporting PGP/GPG verification of the software it publishes.
So why not:
1. Have the mozilla.org site make the PGP/GPG verification of Firefox and other products as visible and clear as the product downloads themselves? They've done an excellent job with the download process, why not bring the verification process up to the same level?
2. Work on a Firefox download feature that automatically attempts to PGP/GPG verify the download when a signature is available on the server? No matter how the Cancel/OK/Accept/Install/Ignore options are laid out or defaulted, the user would at least get worthwhile info. The browser would say that either "Hey! You have one of mozilla.org's keys and your download checks out according to them!" or "This download is signed by mozilla.org's keys, but you don't have any of them, maybe you should ask somebody for mozilla.org's keys and add them so you can check downloads!" or "This download isn't signed at all, maybe you should ask the publisher to get keys and sign it so you can check his downloads!" or "This download is signed by one of the mozilla.org keys you have, but it doesn't check out according to them, maybe you should check what site you are downloading from!"