41–50 of 76 posts
browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled=false
And if you don't want phishing warnings either: browser.safebrowsing.phishing.enabled=false
If only the voting public understood about statistics, false positives, and false negatives. Even if Firefox did a full virus scan, there would still be false positives and false negatives in the results. The system designer always has to put their reporting threshold somewhere, and that always means making a decision to bias towards false positives or false negatives. Eliminating false positives means exploding the…
It's just a huge annoyance with no considerable benefit.
If only the voting public understood about statistics, false positives, and false negatives. Even if Firefox did a full virus scan, there would still be false positives and false negatives in the results. The system designer always has to put their reporting threshold somewhere, and that always means making a decision to bias towards false positives or false negatives. Eliminating false positives means exploding the…
And if only developers understood UX. The "lie" the author was complaining about was that Firefox is miscommunicating what it did: It warned that a concrete file was containing malware when it actually found a suspicious domain. Depending on context, that might make a huge difference - e.g., if a user got such a warning for a file they uploaded themselves, they might get the wrong impression that their system is comp…
I've upvoted you, since I think your point is good, I'd just add that as a developer, I've found myself on more than one occasion pushing for the type of UX being advocated here, and getting pushback from designers/PMs. Typically, the issue I run into is a desire for the UX to be "simple", sometimes simpler than the system underlying it actually is (or is even capable of being), and so instead of clear and correct messaging, you get simplified and incorrect messaging.
(My current example of this would be ZIP codes. People like to simplify them to a geographic area in their heads, and then think of them as polygons, and then from there, think you can ask "is this lat/lng inside this ZIP?"; ZIP aren't polygons (they're defined as segments of roads) so answering that question requires approximations; those approximations are sometimes wrong.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or misleads users". As a user, I want to be better safe than sorry - but would perhaps be happier with a finer classification than "no problem/OMG VIRUS!"
Until the moment where you really need that file.
There are several ebooks that have been uploaded to libgen that contain PDF exploits, and from what I understand there's no way to remove them. The way that their library database works is by linking a book number to a file's md5 sum. On the filesystem they are stored something like `$drive:\$batch\$sum` where `$drive` is a Windows drive letter, `$batch` is the primary key of the document rounded to the nearest 1k, 1…
If only the voting public understood about statistics, false positives, and false negatives. Even if Firefox did a full virus scan, there would still be false positives and false negatives in the results. The system designer always has to put their reporting threshold somewhere, and that always means making a decision to bias towards false positives or false negatives. Eliminating false positives means exploding the…
And if only developers understood UX. The "lie" the author was complaining about was that Firefox is miscommunicating what it did: It warned that a concrete file was containing malware when it actually found a suspicious domain. Depending on context, that might make a huge difference - e.g., if a user got such a warning for a file they uploaded themselves, they might get the wrong impression that their system is comp…
If your machine gets infected you format all because it is insecure by definition. You might even need to throw out physical machine...
If you get one it downloads ten other and you don't know which one will pass your virus scanner.
It is not fun and games anymore, silly nerds having fun are not doing it. It is actual crime and really bad guys that would kill you without blinkink an eye are doing malware.
If there is one infected file on your domain you consider whole domain compromised.
There are several ebooks that have been uploaded to libgen that contain PDF exploits, and from what I understand there's no way to remove them. The way that their library database works is by linking a book number to a file's md5 sum. On the filesystem they are stored something like `$drive:\$batch\$sum` where `$drive` is a Windows drive letter, `$batch` is the primary key of the document rounded to the nearest 1k, 1…
I could be wrong but I think technically a PDF exploit only affects a single viewer program, like Acrobat on windows, right?
But Windows Defender quite rightly still quarantines the file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not "bad design". If there's an uncertainty in detection, there are false positives and letting the user decide is the only correct option. Edit: Nevermind. Re-reading the article - they should indeed allow saving the file in addition to deleting or opening it.
The implied better alternative is to allow saving, instead of opening, so users can scan the files themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if only developers understood UX. The "lie" the author was complaining about was that Firefox is miscommunicating what it did: It warned that a concrete file was containing malware when it actually found a suspicious domain. Depending on context, that might make a huge difference - e.g., if a user got such a warning for a file they uploaded themselves, they might get the wrong impression that their system is comp…
> And if only developers understood UX. I've upvoted you, since I think your point is good, I'd just add that as a developer, I've found myself on more than one occasion pushing for the type of UX being advocated here, and getting pushback from designers/PMs. Typically, the issue I run into is a desire for the UX to be "simple", sometimes simpler than the system underlying it actually is (or is even capable of being)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are good things to think about, but I'll give them a stab: _Privacy: They [FF] can act as anonymous proxy. _Perf: Yes, for new objects, but for known objects, it should be minimal. _Service outage: Build a system which can allow an override (download at your own peril, while service is out) _Corp should already have enterprisey systems in place _New, unknown object: Yes an issue. As someone else said [GlitchMr]…
>_Privacy: They [FF] can act as anonymous proxy. I think he's talking about the file contents.