Re: Firefox advantages

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Melchert Fruitema-2
On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
> Don Nickell wrote:
>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>> since Goliath!
>
> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?

Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?

Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.

--
Kind regards,
Melchert

(MacOS 10.3.9 / Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
Melchert Fruitema wrote:

> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>> since Goliath!
>>
>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>
> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>
> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>
Melchert,

Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry about
IE or active-X.

Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and can
never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so unsecure that
a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while and design a way
to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the ability to send a
signal to wipe out your hard drive without your knowledge. So Apple made
a conscious decision not never let it work on a Mac. They came to this
conclusion back when netscape came out with an Active-X Plugin for the
first version of Communicator.

Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.

It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Don Nickell-2
In reply to this post by Melchert Fruitema-2
Melchert Fruitema wrote:

> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>> since Goliath!
>>
>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>
> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>
> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>

Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the features of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the information, eh.  ;-)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Tarkus-2
In reply to this post by Melchert Fruitema-2
Melchert Fruitema wrote:
> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>> since Goliath!
>>
>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>
> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?

Internet Options > Security > Custom Level

I've never messed with the options on this machine, since I don't use
IE, and it appears that IE7 already has every ActiveX option either
disabled or set to prompt you, by default, unless you've already given
permission.

IOW, ActiveX is no longer an issue, unless you make it one.  Just like
you can download a virus or worm with Firefox, if you choose to be careless.

I use Firefox, so please, no IE fanboy labels.  I'm just stating facts.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Tarkus-2
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.

At least in Vista, Windows Update now runs as a separate program, not
through IE.  Perhaps older versions still use ActiveX through IE, but
again, it's trivial to disable ActiveX for all but trusted sites, if
it's not already done so by default (as in IE7).
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Tarkus-2
In reply to this post by Don Nickell-2
Don Nickell wrote:

> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>>> since Goliath!
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>
>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>
>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>
> Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the features
> of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the information, eh.  ;-)

Presumably, you wouldn't be able to read the information with Firefox
then.  Might be a good idea to stay away from those sites, unless you
know they can be trusted (like a banking site, for example).
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Don Nickell-2
Don Nickell wrote:

> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>>> since Goliath!
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>
>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>
>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>
>
> Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the features
> of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the information.


That's True but that just means that folks that stick to using it are
out of touch with the realities of the world.

I don't even consciously use Applescript. I know Apple uses some
Applescript's in OSX. But its use reacted to only area of the OSX that
can not be used for destruction of the OS. There is no such oversight at
MS for active-X.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Tarkus-2
Tarkus wrote:

> Don Nickell wrote:
>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>
>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>
>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>
>> Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the
>> features of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the
>> information, eh.  ;-)
>
> Presumably, you wouldn't be able to read the information with Firefox
> then.  Might be a good idea to stay away from those sites, unless you
> know they can be trusted (like a banking site, for example).

Banks know the risk of using applescript and don't.

I can get in and use online banking at Suntrust using FireFox, SeaMonkey
with the use of UserAgent Switcher, and Safari. no of which even vaguely
use Active-X. I also go into Franklin Income of Fidelity, with those
same Browsers.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

> Don Nickell wrote:
>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting
>>> statement:
>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the
>>>>> lack of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the
>>>>> biggest threat since Goliath!
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>
>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>
>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the
>> features of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the
>> information.
>
>
> That's True but that just means that folks that stick to using it are
>  out of touch with the realities of the world.
>
> I don't even consciously use Applescript. I know Apple uses some
> Applescript's in OSX. But its use reacted to only area of the OSX
> that can not be used for destruction of the OS. There is no such
> oversight at MS for active-X.

*supposed to be:*

I don't even consciously use Applescript. I know Apple uses some
Applescript's in OSX. But its use *restricted* to only area of the OSX
that can not be used for destruction of the OS. There is no such
oversight at MS for active-X.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

> Tarkus wrote:
>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>>
>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>
>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know it can be turned off, but when a web site uses the
>>> features of ActiveX turning it off means you can't read the
>>> information, eh.  ;-)
>>
>> Presumably, you wouldn't be able to read the information with Firefox
>> then.  Might be a good idea to stay away from those sites, unless you
>> know they can be trusted (like a banking site, for example).
>
> Banks know the risk of using applescript and don't.
>
> I can get in and use online banking at Suntrust using FireFox, SeaMonkey
> with the use of UserAgent Switcher, and Safari. no of which even vaguely
> use Active-X. I also go into Franklin Income of Fidelity, with those
> same Browsers.
>

*supposed to be:*

Banks know the risk of using *Active-X* and don't.

Gee I need to hire me a good proof reader. :-(
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Terry R.
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:

> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack of
>>>> personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest threat
>>>> since Goliath!
>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>
>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>
> Melchert,
>
> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry about
> IE or active-X.
>
> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and can
> never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so unsecure that
> a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while and design a way
> to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the ability to send a
> signal to wipe out your hard drive without your knowledge. So Apple made
> a conscious decision not never let it work on a Mac. They came to this
> conclusion back when netscape came out with an Active-X Plugin for the
> first version of Communicator.
>
> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>
> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>

Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision" to
not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken precedence
over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think it may have
been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of their features
couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X "plugins" were of
limited capabilities.

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Melchert Fruitema-2
In reply to this post by Tarkus-2
On 04-05-2008 17:42 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:

> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
> Internet Options > Security > Custom Level
>
> I've never messed with the options on this machine, since I don't use
> IE, and it appears that IE7 already has every ActiveX option either
> disabled or set to prompt you, by default, unless you've already given
> permission.
>
> IOW, ActiveX is no longer an issue, unless you make it one.  Just like
> you can download a virus or worm with Firefox, if you choose to be
> careless.
>
> I use Firefox, so please, no IE fanboy labels.  I'm just stating facts.

Thanks for the information. (Yes, I do use Windows XP and Vista, but
infrequently.)

--
Kind regards,
Melchert

(MacOS 10.3.9 / Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Terry R.
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
> C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>
>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>
>> Melchert,
>>
>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry about
>> IE or active-X.
>>
>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and can
>> never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so unsecure
>> that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while and design
>> a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the ability to
>> send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your knowledge. So
>> Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work on a Mac. They
>> came to this conclusion back when netscape came out with an Active-X
>> Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>
>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
>> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>
>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
>> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>
>
> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision" to
> not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken precedence
> over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think it may have
> been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of their features
> couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X "plugins" were of
> limited capabilities.
>

I've found one reference that appear to say Active-X doesn't work On
Macintosh

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106874

I'm not sure how to word the query.

other variations shows documents related to quicktime on windows but
none on Mac.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Terry R.
The date and time was 5/5/2008 4:52 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
>> C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>
>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>>
>>> Melchert,
>>>
>>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry about
>>> IE or active-X.
>>>
>>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and can
>>> never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so unsecure
>>> that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while and design
>>> a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the ability to
>>> send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your knowledge. So
>>> Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work on a Mac. They
>>> came to this conclusion back when netscape came out with an Active-X
>>> Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>>
>>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
>>> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>>
>>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
>>> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>>
>> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision" to
>> not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken precedence
>> over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think it may have
>> been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of their features
>> couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X "plugins" were of
>> limited capabilities.
>>
>
> I've found one reference that appear to say Active-X doesn't work On
> Macintosh
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106874
>
> I'm not sure how to word the query.
>
> other variations shows documents related to quicktime on windows but
> none on Mac.
>

You didn't really answer the question.  I wasn't asking you to prove
Active-X didn't work on Apple's, I asked you to substantiate your
comment that Apple "made a conscious decision" to not let Active-X work
on a Mac.

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Melchert Fruitema-2
In reply to this post by Terry R.
On 05-05-2008 15:51 CET, Terry R. composed this enchanting statement:

> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M.
> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>
>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>
>> Melchert,
>>
>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry
>> about IE or active-X.
>>
>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and
>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so
>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while
>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the
>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your
>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work
>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out
>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>
>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
>> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>
>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
>> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>
In Vista I had to deal with MS 'Active-X operation mode' to be able to
download and install some MS support's executable code. (I'm afraid
that's all I remember of the procedure, that I was 'challenged' to follow.)
>
> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision"
> to not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken
> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think
> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of
> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X
> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.
>
Is it not Apple but MS that decided not to introduce an IE version with
Active-X on the Mac, or would Apple MacOS block its Active-X execution,
anyway?

You may be interested to read this Mozilla (Firefox) support article
about Active-X:

    <http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/ActiveX>.

--
Kind regards,
Melchert

(MacOS 10.3.9 / Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Tarkus-3
Melchert Fruitema wrote:
> In Vista I had to deal with MS 'Active-X operation mode' to be able to
> download and install some MS support's executable code. (I'm afraid
> that's all I remember of the procedure, that I was 'challenged' to follow.)

That's interesting, considering Windows Update is now a separate program
in Vista.  I've been running Vista for months, and don't recall ActiveX
ever even coming up (and I use Firefox as my browser).

Having said that, if you trust Microsoft to run your computer, I'm not
sure why you'd have an issue with allowing them to use ActiveX.  (Again,
it's disabled by default in Vista, unless you expressly give permission.)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Terry R.
In reply to this post by Melchert Fruitema-2
The date and time was 5/6/2008 1:41 PM, and on a whim, Melchert Fruitema
pounded out on the keyboard:

> On 05-05-2008 15:51 CET, Terry R. composed this enchanting statement:
>> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M.
>> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>
>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>>
>>> Melchert,
>>>
>>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry
>>> about IE or active-X.
>>>
>>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and
>>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so
>>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while
>>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the
>>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your
>>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work
>>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out
>>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>>
>>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET
>>> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>>
>>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of
>>> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>>
> In Vista I had to deal with MS 'Active-X operation mode' to be able to
> download and install some MS support's executable code. (I'm afraid
> that's all I remember of the procedure, that I was 'challenged' to follow.)
>> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision"
>> to not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken
>> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think
>> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of
>> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X
>> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.
>>
> Is it not Apple but MS that decided not to introduce an IE version with
> Active-X on the Mac, or would Apple MacOS block its Active-X execution,
> anyway?
>
> You may be interested to read this Mozilla (Firefox) support article
> about Active-X:
>
>     <http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/ActiveX>.
>

I think it was MS, that's why I asked Phillip to back up his comment.  I
couldn't see why MS would code A-x for Mac, or any other OS for that
matter. Since the components A-x calls aren't available in other OS's,
it would take a customized version.  OS's are better off without it
anyway.  MS didn't think that one out too well.

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Firefox advantages

guzarva16


> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:09:13 -0700> From: [hidden email]> Subject: Re: Firefox advantages> To: [hidden email]> > The date and time was 5/6/2008 1:41 PM, and on a whim, Melchert Fruitema > pounded out on the keyboard:> > > On 05-05-2008 15:51 CET, Terry R. composed this enchanting statement:> >> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M. > >> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:> >>> >>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:> >>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:> >>>>> Don Nickell wrote:> >>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack > >>>>>> of personal security from using IE? To me that's the biggest > >>>>>> threat since Goliath!> >>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?> >>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?> >>>>> >>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.> >>>>> >>> Melchert,> >>>> >>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use > >>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry > >>> about IE or active-X.> >>>> >>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that > >>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and > >>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so > >>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while > >>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the > >>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your > >>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work > >>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out > >>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.> >>>> >>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and cNET > >>> news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.> >>>> >>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update of > >>> the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.> >>>> > In Vista I had to deal with MS 'Active-X operation mode' to be able to > > download and install some MS support's executable code. (I'm afraid > > that's all I remember of the procedure, that I was 'challenged' to follow.)> >> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision" > >> to not let Active-X work on a Mac. Now that security has taken > >> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think > >> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of > >> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X > >> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.> >>> > Is it not Apple but MS that decided not to introduce an IE version with > > Active-X on the Mac, or would Apple MacOS block its Active-X execution, > > anyway?> > > > You may be interested to read this Mozilla (Firefox) support article > > about Active-X:> > > > <http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/ActiveX>.> > > > I think it was MS, that's why I asked Phillip to back up his comment. I > couldn't see why MS would code A-x for Mac, or any other OS for that > matter. Since the components A-x calls aren't available in other OS's, > it would take a customized version. OS's are better off without it > anyway. MS didn't think that one out too well.> > -- > Terry R.> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.> _______________________________________________> general mailing list> [hidden email]> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
_________________________________________________________________
แบ่งปันช่วงเวลาพิเศษของคุณด้วย Photo Gallery
http://get.live.com/photogallery/overview
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Terry R.
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was 5/5/2008 4:52 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
> C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M.
>>> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>>>
>>>> Melchert,
>>>>
>>>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>>>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry
>>>> about IE or active-X.
>>>>
>>>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>>>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and
>>>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so
>>>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while
>>>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the
>>>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your
>>>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work
>>>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out
>>>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>>>
>>>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and
>>>> cNET news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>>>
>>>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update
>>>> of the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>>>
>>> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision"
>>> to not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken
>>> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think
>>> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of
>>> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X
>>> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.
>>>
>>
>> I've found one reference that appear to say Active-X doesn't work On
>> Macintosh
>>
>> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106874
>>
>> I'm not sure how to word the query.
>>
>> other variations shows documents related to quicktime on windows but
>> none on Mac.
>>
>
> You didn't really answer the question.  I wasn't asking you to prove
> Active-X didn't work on Apple's, I asked you to substantiate your
> comment that Apple "made a conscious decision" to not let Active-X work
> on a Mac.
>
If I could have remembered how to word the question about that. I would
have given you that as well because at one time it was in the apple
support documents.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB  Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Firefox advantages

Terry R.
The date and time was 5/6/2008 6:53 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was 5/5/2008 4:52 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
>> C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M.
>>>> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>>>> of personal security from using IE?  To me that's the biggest
>>>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Melchert,
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>>>>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry
>>>>> about IE or active-X.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>>>>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and
>>>>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so
>>>>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while
>>>>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the
>>>>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your
>>>>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work
>>>>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out
>>>>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and
>>>>> cNET news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update
>>>>> of the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision"
>>>> to not let Active-X work on a Mac.  Now that security has taken
>>>> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think
>>>> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of
>>>> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X
>>>> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.
>>>>
>>> I've found one reference that appear to say Active-X doesn't work On
>>> Macintosh
>>>
>>> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106874
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how to word the query.
>>>
>>> other variations shows documents related to quicktime on windows but
>>> none on Mac.
>>>
>> You didn't really answer the question.  I wasn't asking you to prove
>> Active-X didn't work on Apple's, I asked you to substantiate your
>> comment that Apple "made a conscious decision" to not let Active-X work
>> on a Mac.
>>
> If I could have remembered how to word the question about that. I would
> have given you that as well because at one time it was in the apple
> support documents.
>

I believe you are mistaken about Apple's stance.  It was MS dictating
the implementation of it.

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general