Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mozilla Releases First Beta of Firefox 4
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is there no way to have coverflow history show a thumbnail for ssl'ed pages?
No those are 2 different bug. The bug with the 2 windows (homepage & link) has nothing to do with the crash protection which currently causes the 2 dock icons (and is scheduled to be fixed before the final release). I haven't checked whether FF4b1 has fixed this bug with external links when not running but in the 3.7 releases this wasn't fixed so I doubt it will be in b1.
The 1Password guys are already working on a plugin for FF4b1 so that leaves firebug. Mind you, this still is a beta, things can change and it's been out for less than 2 days (i.o.w. it's not very realistic that every plugin has been updated to work with this version, expect updates in the coming days/weeks for some plugins).
No because that would be a very big and stupid security bug. In order to create the thumbnail you need to have access to that site. Getting access means knowing the login for that site which means storing login credentials and such within Firefox. This causes a major security bug where other people can gain access to such sites by "hacking" your Firefox or by simply starting it. The same goes for other secured pages.
Uh ? There is no login requirement to view SSL pages. SSL/TLS is an encryption and identity verification mecanism, it has nothing to do with usernames and passwords. All it requires is that the site serving the content first provides you a certificate, which it happily does for everyone on the Internet, barring any access lists.
Very big misunderstanding about what SSL is in your post dyn.
BTW, Firefox already stores login credentials, so that makes your point moot. If someone gets access to your account on your computer, you're done for, SSL thumbnails or no SSL thumbnails (which again, have nothing to do with login credentials since there is no login requirement over SSL).
If I break the statement up it says h.264 supported now. Webm supported via the early release channel. Not h.264 supported for now.
Looks like I'll have to repeat myself. It says supported now when the wording was previously not there. Whether or not there is a preposition in between those two words is irrelevant given the fact that the text was not there prior to the WebM support. So them saying something like "now supporting h.264" would make zero sense when they supported it way before WebM.
I never talked about SSL nor TLS so asuming I did is an unbelievable misunderstanding from you. In this case I was thinking as a helpdesk guy/sysadmin talking to some average user and trying to visualise what he (or she) is seeing. When users refer to SSL sites they mostly refer to sites that are secure by a login and SSL. You need to have credentials for that. Only using SSL for a site seems quite pointless to me since everybody is able to view the site (as you pointed out); maybe it's useful for people who are paranoid about the data retention law in the EU. SSL is used as part of a package of security measures in order to make something "secure".
Firefox has the option to store login credentials. Users are asked if they want to store stuff or not, they even have the option to not bug them again for a certain site. Users can also permanently disable the password manager which is very useful if you use other software (like KeepassX or 1Password) for things like this. Users are also able to enter a master password so they don't have immediate access to the credentials. This makes your point above moot. Your point is only valid for a certain usecase where the user has stored the credentials in Firefox without using a master password. This, however, is not an unusual usecase.
In the end Firefox does not store thumbnails for secured sites due to things like logins. You have to be logged in in order for Firefox to generate thumbnails in some cases and there could be information on the site you don't want others to see. They consider this to be a security risk and thus they don't allow this. These sites are secured because this is necessary for whatever reason. If the browser creates thumbnails of such sites this obviously is the exact opposite of what the site owner is trying to accomplish, it renders the taken security measures useless.
This. And password storing is alarming by itself. I would say that storing passwords the way FireFox does is the most alarming thing, not SSL thumbs.
There are arguments that the Acid3 test isn't actually relevant to the future of the Web, at least not as much as it used to be... so it may not matter in the end. Also, in what ways is Firefox 4 lagging in HTML5 support? Mind you, the standard is still a draft, and is probably years away from ratification.
SSL pointless ? Yeah, I guess only logins and passwords are sensitive enough to require end-to-end encryption.
Hey, once your password and login is sent, no need for that pesky encryption uh ?To not thumbnail SSL sites because of "some login issue" is plain wrong. There is no login requirement over SSL, and that was the basis of discussion.
And it has nothing to do with paranoia. Graduate from helldesk before you want to pretend yourself knowledgeable about doing real sysadmin work.
I don't get it. Firefox uses less RAM and CPU than most other browsers. 50 tabs in safari/chrome/opera to 50 in firefox. 720p Flash in safari/chrome to firefox.
Add in the thousands of addons and it's a no-brainer. I use both chrome and firefox daily. Chrome is used for light unimportant stuff. As soon as you start adding chrome addons like adblocker and flashblock the entire UI starts slowing down.
Safari likes to randomly take 2-3 minutes to open a new tab sometimes. Though this has gotten better in safari 5. If you only have 2-3 tabs open on a regular basis though, I can see why you wouldn't care about the advanced features of firefox.
I really don't think that is right. In any case, Firefox suffers from sever instability when you install anything over 5 plugins.
In Firefox, ad blockers actually prevent the browser from downloading ads. This saves time and bandwidth.
In Chrome, the plugins can only hide the ads, after they have been downloaded.
This slightly extends the time a page takes to load in Chrome.
Nope, firefox is still technologically irrelevant.
Please wake me when it catches up to WebKit.
Please wake me when it catches up to WebKit.
Ah, just implement ssl and everything is secure, things like logins are obviously unnecessary because ssl fixes everything. Yes, ssl is THE answer to everything, who cares about 42. </sarcasm>SSL pointless ? Yeah, I guess only logins and passwords are sensitive enough to require end-to-end encryption.
In other words: you might want to start reading a post properly and use the feew braincells left. Ssl in itself is NOT a way to secure something. If you want to secure something you need to do an awful lot more. Ssl is one of the many things you need to do, credentials is one of the other things. It is the combination of ssl and credentials that makes login in "secure". Unfortunately ssl has been proven not to be 100% safe. There is this problem with ssl on the server where you can hack it and still evesdrop.
Not quite. You need to try to comprehend what somebody is asking. You need to know what ssl is used for and how such sites look like. If you did just that you'd have known ssl is used as one of the many security measures for securing a website. Understanding what somebody wants or means is actually a crucial part of security. Most ssl websites have a lot of other security measures like a login. You do not want things like that to be stored permanently.
Yes it does because using only ssl means you're only encrypting the connection between two endpoints. This is only useful to stop eavesdropping which is quite useless for a website. The intention of nearly every website is to make it available to everyone out there. It becomes more useful when it is part of a set of security measures because it's your webmail or the online banking site. In both cases you'd want and need to use a login as well. You also want some security when doing payments because if you don't everybody who can hack your account or has access to it can do payments. Using just ssl for a site like that makes it insecure, using ssl for a normal website would be paranoid. Why would you want to use only ssl on a website?
It is very obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you have 0 experience in security and absolutely none being a sysadmin. This is basic sysadmin and security stuff, especially the part where you try to understand what somebody is saying. Taking things literal is the worst thing a sysadmin and anybody who has got something to do with security can do. This attitude is what makes things insecure. You seem to completely lack the understanding of what ssl actually is and does and why you'd want to use it. You seem to think that ssl is the holy grail and the answer to everything regarding security. It really isn't. Encrypting the connection is just 1 part of the story, not the entire story!
Tip: look up ssl vpn's and make a list of the advantages and disadvantages. You'll understand why you'd want more than just ssl after you've done that...
And again, it is Mozilla's decision to not include ssl sites, not mine
Where did I claim that ? Obviously, you just don't want to be wrong. Sorry, I'll stop playing your game now. Rest of your post is much of the same, putting words into my mouth and ignoring plain as Jane facts like the one that Mozilla already has facilities for storing Logins/Passwords (be it cookies or their password manager).
Next time you want to debate on something make sure of the following :
1- You know what you're talking about.
2- You reply to people without putting words into their mouths
3- You actually know what is being discussed.
If you really knew what you're talking about you'd have responded to my points. Since you're not replying to anything I said and only repeat your first reaction it's obvious you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. Simply admit you started something that was miles above your head. This isn't the first time you're doing this...
Just one last thing: the reason why Mozilla doesn't include ssl sites is because they don't know if it's only ssl or if the site is more than just that. They're being very very cautious. If you want something like the previews to work you need to store some stuff on the hdd. Security people get really edgy about this.
That is good advice you giving yourself there, now it is time to put that into practice since this isn't the first your doing this. Wishful thinking since you're nothing but a troll anyway.
Strange, I have 63 addons on my firefox(just checked) and I haven't had a crash in months.
Right, chrome extensions can only hide them but I just tried disabling adblock and flashblock and the slight stutter when loading long pages is no longer there.