News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Firefox 38 released by nominated1 on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @03:58PM (#9534436)
I'm approaching it like this - I need to execute unsigned binaries from a location that does not have execute permissions. How can I manage this? The lack of a signature is at best an administrative burden and at worst an attack vector depending on how the Admin handles it ("let's just add a wildcard exeception"). Mozilla should recognize this and sign the dll's. I still haven't seen a reason for NOT signing them. We don't use WebRTC so ignoring gmpopenh264.dll was not a problem. However, now we're talking about "necessary" Adobe code. Need I say more? Chrome performs the same functions and adheres to common sense. This is one of those things that gets a package removed from offering. I like and use Firefox myself but I don't like the position Mozilla has put me in. Should I open a bug report or do you speak for Mozilla in an official capacity?
Re:Firefox 38 released by hsivonen on Wednesday May 13, 2015 @01:22PM (#9540488)
Please open a bug report and CC :hsivonen
Re:Firefox 38 released by cpeterso on Thursday May 14, 2015 @01:58PM (#9546522)
I filed Firefox bug 1164948 for this issue:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164948