291–300 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, malicious people with high competency cover their ass with giant fig leaves. They don’t let it hang in the breeze.
Plenty of malicious people are incompetent!
My organization (which uses Teams) forcibly migrated all Firefox users to Edge a couple of weeks ago and uninstalled FF. They were citing incompatibility with some software and I assumed that meant the new ERP system being adopted by one of the larger departments.
The above link is for home Teams. Your company should be using teams.microsoft.com ! :) So your comment makes no sense. We as IT admins may just want to keep track of Edge updates and extensions and not want someone running months old Firefox all sneaky like.
Our IT department doesn't treat us like idiots, FF was an officially supported browser until a month ago, we were on the most recent version. I believe them if they say it's about webapp compatibility, even if this does help them manage the browser under group policy or whatever. They could make this decision for whatever reason they want and wouldn't have a problem getting people to go along with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine. If they can't manage to make a service work using appropriate web standards then I don't think I trust them with hosting a service, my data, or to create adequate products anyway. -- I mean, what other corners are being cut?
It's quite probable that they are not cutting the corners that make them money and they're cutting (or might cut) everything else. After all, Firefox Nightly's share is a rounding error for Teams (and its users probably not Team's target anyway)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The above link is for home Teams. Your company should be using teams.microsoft.com ! :) So your comment makes no sense. We as IT admins may just want to keep track of Edge updates and extensions and not want someone running months old Firefox all sneaky like.
I'm sure there's a distinction, but this is an anecdote, and the above link is specifically another person's anecdote. My comment makes fine sense, if you want to say they are completely separate products, it's probably unrelated just do that, don't be an ass. Our IT department doesn't treat us like idiots, FF was an officially supported browser until a month ago, we were on the most recent version. I believe them if…
teams.live.com does not
So they are different and it is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> forcibly migrated all Firefox users to Edge Man, I can understand doing that for regular users who don't care, but as a developer? Just a few weeks ago an integrator for an ERP system our customer had bought was trying to show some details in a Teams call when his PC suddenly rebooted. He came back and apologized, turns out it was a company policy forced reboot. In the middle of the day because what are timezones?…
From a security perspective, I feel like my employer can do what they need to. I wouldn’t accept 24/7 active monitoring, but ensuring programs are up-to-date and trusted seems like basic steps in preventing a security incident. The two programs I’ve used that auto-update your machine give you plenty of a heads-up that you should do it yourself.
I've always felt that this kind of attitude from IT departments is counter productive. It gives people a false sense of security at best, and baby mentality at worst (where they assume no responsibility because it's apparently someone else's).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like "this guy has a long history of bullying others by pretending that they're out of spec, and now hes' saying someone is out of spec; what are the odds that it's an honest mistake?"
Why go after Firefox then and not Chrome? Do you also think they worry about competition from IBM cloud?
Chrome is sponsored by another surveillance advertising company, Firefox is not.
Chrome is market dominant and hard to hurt, Firefox is small and easy to hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of malicious people are incompetent!
Plenty of non-malicious people are incompetent, and there's a lot more of them
But even if that is not the case and malicious people are not the norm even there, using Hanlon's razor to try and shut down any discussion of possible malicious actions still ends up empowering the malicious actors that do exist. It's a decent rule for first interactions with human people that you don't know better but is absolutely not the right tool for corporate entities who can much more easily brush off any consequences for being caught acting maliciously. It is outright stupid to apply it to corporations that have a history of maliciousness.
It's 2023. Why are we still doing user agent detection? We're supposed to do feature detection. userAgent is deprecated. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/u...
Sometimes it is not possible due to bugs in browsers. For example, how do you know if calling a API will crash the browser? https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=118336...
Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that. Chrome stable with a non standard user agent doesn’t work on via the windows live url but works through the O365 corporate one, same with Safari Mobile without any user agent modification. This to me looks like stupidity more th…
do people do not remember Dr Dos ? if a coyote eats your cat, its probably not an accident. its more likely because it's a coyote and that's what coyotes do. it's in their nature.
Forums skew young, tech forums even more so.