Mozilla Firefox Updates
- Thread starter Sushubh
- Start date
- Replies 2,434
- Views 408,314
just looking at the name of the extension gives me a hint that it is an official add-on 
---------- Post added at 06:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 AM ----------
from what i see, that extension was not hosted on the official google chrome extension gallery.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 AM ----------
In fact, I didn't even upload this extension to the Google Chrome repository. I have only tried this extension on myself, just to test and see if it works.
now i cannot say for sure if this would have been blocked by the google validation process. i doubt it would have... because google does not do thorough testing from what i have heard. same is the case with apps that are made available on the android market.
---------- Post added at 06:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------
1793 downloads of the firefox extension. now that is a scary thought. hard to imagine how much data was stolen through it.
---------- Post added at 06:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 AM ----------
Mozilla Sniffer was not developed by Mozilla, and it was not reviewed by Mozilla. The add-on was in an experimental state, and all users that installed it should have seen a warning indicating it is unreviewed. Unreviewed add-ons are scanned for known viruses, trojans, and other malware, but some types of malicious behavior can only be detected in a code review.
whoa. it was not even on the public site! and still a lot of people installed it.
---------- Post added at 06:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 AM ----------
from what i see, that extension was not hosted on the official google chrome extension gallery.
---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 AM ----------
In fact, I didn't even upload this extension to the Google Chrome repository. I have only tried this extension on myself, just to test and see if it works.
now i cannot say for sure if this would have been blocked by the google validation process. i doubt it would have... because google does not do thorough testing from what i have heard. same is the case with apps that are made available on the android market.
---------- Post added at 06:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------
1793 downloads of the firefox extension. now that is a scary thought. hard to imagine how much data was stolen through it.
---------- Post added at 06:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 AM ----------
Mozilla Sniffer was not developed by Mozilla, and it was not reviewed by Mozilla. The add-on was in an experimental state, and all users that installed it should have seen a warning indicating it is unreviewed. Unreviewed add-ons are scanned for known viruses, trojans, and other malware, but some types of malicious behavior can only be detected in a code review.
whoa. it was not even on the public site! and still a lot of people installed it.
yes it WAS very clear on their website that this is experimental and UNVERIFIED addon.that too in light red color instead of generally dark green color that add-on button has.inshort, whoever downloaded it were clearly warned.
hehe. you still cannot deny that it was very wrong for mozilla to have allow a third party app to use the term mozilla in the name of the extension! i cannot think of any other third party extension that uses the term mozilla or firefox in them. 
but then i do not use firefox a lot.
but then i do not use firefox a lot.well there are so many extensions that are not owned by Google and yet uses words like Google and Chrome in their name
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=google
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=chrome
the point is, if word Mozilla was not used, then that person cud have used any other words to lure people to install it.
infact use of WORD Mozilla shud have RAISED EYEBROWS of normal people.
because first thought that wud come in mind is, if its by mozilla how come its not reviewed?!!
---------- Post added at 06:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------
and if person is not that smart then i am sure his account wud anyway get compromised by one way or other.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=google
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?q=chrome
the point is, if word Mozilla was not used, then that person cud have used any other words to lure people to install it.
infact use of WORD Mozilla shud have RAISED EYEBROWS of normal people.
because first thought that wud come in mind is, if its by mozilla how come its not reviewed?!!
---------- Post added at 06:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------
and if person is not that smart then i am sure his account wud anyway get compromised by one way or other.
most of the apps that includes the term google are in fact by google.
https://goo.gl/c8Rr is an exception though.
not defending google here. but the situation sucks overall.
the reports about Apple safari extensions is that apple would not host them but would direct the user to the developer's website. if these reports are true, it would suck badly for the end user.
apple requires digital certificates. i am not sure how it would prevent the users from installing malware infested extensions.
---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 AM ----------
and if person is not that smart then i am sure his account wud anyway get compromised by one way or other.
i bet most folks are using firefox because they are told that it is safer than internet explorer.
and i bet a lot of people become less careful while using firefox. i know i do!
i tend to click on malware infested sites in chrome to see what the entire problem is because i assume that chrome would not automatically start installing shit without asking me first (something IE used to do in some versions ago).
in fact i would not stop myself from doing the same in IE8 hoping that the browser or the antivirus on the machine would come into action and prevent any shit from happening.
i know, i am crazy!
my neighboring uncle rushed to my place yesterday after he landed on some malware site that ran an animation of an antivirus. the ending of that animation warned him that his system has these viruses and he should click on the remove button to get rid of them.
he rushed to me instead of clicking on that button (hah!).
i actually clicked on the button to see what it would do. sadly the page it took me was down at that point of time and i could not demonstrate to uncle what that piece of shit was trying to do.
took me a while for me to explain to him how this fake antivirus shit works.
he still does not understand that the antivirus process was an animation that was running inside a web browser. he does not really understand what a web browser is. though he manages to do fine. and he was smart enough to call me up when he was being victimized by that fake antivirus shit!
https://goo.gl/c8Rr is an exception though.
not defending google here. but the situation sucks overall.
the reports about Apple safari extensions is that apple would not host them but would direct the user to the developer's website. if these reports are true, it would suck badly for the end user.
apple requires digital certificates. i am not sure how it would prevent the users from installing malware infested extensions.
---------- Post added at 06:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 AM ----------
and if person is not that smart then i am sure his account wud anyway get compromised by one way or other.
i bet most folks are using firefox because they are told that it is safer than internet explorer.
and i bet a lot of people become less careful while using firefox. i know i do!
i tend to click on malware infested sites in chrome to see what the entire problem is because i assume that chrome would not automatically start installing shit without asking me first (something IE used to do in some versions ago).
in fact i would not stop myself from doing the same in IE8 hoping that the browser or the antivirus on the machine would come into action and prevent any shit from happening.
i know, i am crazy!
my neighboring uncle rushed to my place yesterday after he landed on some malware site that ran an animation of an antivirus. the ending of that animation warned him that his system has these viruses and he should click on the remove button to get rid of them.
he rushed to me instead of clicking on that button (hah!).
i actually clicked on the button to see what it would do. sadly the page it took me was down at that point of time and i could not demonstrate to uncle what that piece of shit was trying to do.
took me a while for me to explain to him how this fake antivirus shit works.
he still does not understand that the antivirus process was an animation that was running inside a web browser. he does not really understand what a web browser is. though he manages to do fine. and he was smart enough to call me up when he was being victimized by that fake antivirus shit!
yes point is even google is not restricting the use.thats good. what if there is extension which enhances Google Search.So obviously a general term called "Search Enhancer" wud not be correct one but "Google Search Enhancer" wud be appropriate.Same way Mozilla word shud not be restricted there may be some uses for it in Title.
well both mozilla and google should make sure that apps using their branding should have clear warning that they are not from the company/organization.
i have seen plenty of apps on the android market that uses google trademarked terms. there is an app named fake google chrome on the android market! Fake Google Chrome v4.0 Application for Android | Lifestyle
i have seen plenty of apps on the android market that uses google trademarked terms. there is an app named fake google chrome on the android market! Fake Google Chrome v4.0 Application for Android | Lifestyle
well if thats the claim... then tomorrow Google will ask Mozilla that whichever addon has term Google shud show that its not owned by Google. Microsoft will ask whichever addon has term hotmail shud show its not owned by MSN. so on....it wud just never end. its just impossible.that is why best solution that it suggested by all security ppl is to self-awareness.i think mozilla did enough by showing it in RED and clearly writing add-on is NOT REVIEWED and additional FORCING USER to CLICK A CHECKBOX that he has sure he wants to install addon.what more do u expect?
i expect copyrights and trademarks to be treated properly?
no third party twitter app is allowed to use twitter in its name. it is a generally accepted fact.
trademarks are treated very seriously. it is a known fact that if you do not defend your trademark properly, you can lose the right over it.
adobe created a controversy once by enforcing a rule that if you happen to write Photoshop anywhere, it has to feature the (R) symbol. i think that rule is still applicable.
Adobe Systems Incorporated Permissions and Trademark Guidelines
You may not incorporate or include any Adobe trademark in your company name, product or service name, or domain name.
An appropriate generic term must appear after an Adobe trademark the first time it appears in a printed piece and as often as possible after that. See examples of appropriate generic terms for use with Adobe trademarks.
I believe Google, Chrome, Gmail, Firefox, Mozilla are trademarked terms.
no third party twitter app is allowed to use twitter in its name. it is a generally accepted fact.
trademarks are treated very seriously. it is a known fact that if you do not defend your trademark properly, you can lose the right over it.
adobe created a controversy once by enforcing a rule that if you happen to write Photoshop anywhere, it has to feature the (R) symbol. i think that rule is still applicable.
Adobe Systems Incorporated Permissions and Trademark Guidelines
You may not incorporate or include any Adobe trademark in your company name, product or service name, or domain name.
An appropriate generic term must appear after an Adobe trademark the first time it appears in a printed piece and as often as possible after that. See examples of appropriate generic terms for use with Adobe trademarks.
I believe Google, Chrome, Gmail, Firefox, Mozilla are trademarked terms.
