FF-3b3 - turning off virus scanner

[blisk]

NOD32 v2.70.39 XP SP2 IAttachmentExecute output posted.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415005

Please take a look as I have quite a bit different outputs than most others who have posted.

[Fuziwuzi]

Again, I'm shocked no one realizes that in this day and age if you have an AV scanner installed you're also very likely to have one which scans files automatically upon access or creation which makes this feature pointless... maybe I'm wrong on the reason.. but then I wonder what else could this be included for?

That has been my opinion of this all along. This is simply a "feel good" feature to placate someone's sense of "doing something" without any practical, real benefit to anyone. It is included, I think, because IE7 does it, however IE7 doesn't take a serious performance hit implementing the feature. But, for "marketing" reasons, not usability reasons, the feature is added to Firefox so it can claim equity with IE. Thankfully it can easily be turned off.

[Jim too]

If the Windows internet security settings do not permit the download of a file with IE then the security scan invoked by Minefield removes the file after it has been downloaded. IE7 doesn't do the download if security settings don't permit it. If you think the scan is an annoyance, try downloading a very large file only to have it removed after the download completes. If you want to prevent IE from downloading files then you have to prevent Minefield from doing the security scan if you want to download that file using Minefield. If you want Minefield to do the security scan then you have to allow IE to download that same file. Having to adjust Windows internet security settings to allow Minefield to download files seems counter-intuitive.

[ChillerBaggins]

Code: Select all

browser.download.manager.scanWhenDone

... works when set to false. Thank you. Reposting the pref here to make it easier for me to find, I have a couple of work machines I want to add this to, the Download Manager has been taking forever to close in the last days' builds due to scanning.

Thanks ....

---
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b4pre) Gecko/2008021204 Minefield/3.0b4pre

[BenBasson]

If the Windows internet security settings do not permit the download of a file with IE then the security scan invoked by Minefield removes the file after it has been downloaded. IE7 doesn't do the download if security settings don't permit it. If you think the scan is an annoyance, try downloading a very large file only to have it removed after the download completes. If you want to prevent IE from downloading files then you have to prevent Minefield from doing the security scan if you want to download that file using Minefield. If you want Minefield to do the security scan then you have to allow IE to download that same file. Having to adjust Windows internet security settings to allow Minefield to download files seems counter-intuitive.

You should probably file a bug on that. At worst, Minefield should do the same as IE if it's somehow reliant on IE or Windows security settings.

[Jim too]

If the Windows internet security settings do not permit the download of a file with IE then the security scan invoked by Minefield removes the file after it has been downloaded. IE7 doesn't do the download if security settings don't permit it. If you think the scan is an annoyance, try downloading a very large file only to have it removed after the download completes. If you want to prevent IE from downloading files then you have to prevent Minefield from doing the security scan if you want to download that file using Minefield. If you want Minefield to do the security scan then you have to allow IE to download that same file. Having to adjust Windows internet security settings to allow Minefield to download files seems counter-intuitive.

You should probably file a bug on that. At worst, Minefield should do the same as IE if it's somehow reliant on IE or Windows security settings.

There already is a bug. What is not clear from the bug report is what the intended behavior is. Should Firefox be using Windows internet
settings to control behavior? I would prefer not to have to allow IE to do something just so I can do it in Firefox.

edit

Bug report https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416683

[rom2]

Those who'd like to have an easily accessible UI to turn on/off automatic scanning of downloads, add your comment/vote here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418988

[teoli2003]

Rom2, you shouldn't ask people to behave against the bugzilla etiquette. Commenting in bugs is frown upon except:
- you are giving a useful information to fix/reproduce a problem
- gives a patch

It is pointless, and the best way to make a specific bug ignored, to request people to comment in it.

Far better for discussion is to open a new thread here and launch the discussion here and linking to that thread in the bug.

[rom2]

teoli2003, there are plenty of bug reports in which comments are accepted. Developers aren't always able to have a view bigger than their keyboards and the monitors, and that's why other people's comments can be useful.

And there's also the voting mechanism, and I invited people to vote for that bug too. And I've added a link to this thread to the bug report, so we were thinking in a similar way.

[rom2]

There you go -- there was another bug report asking for a UI to turn off scanning, and both requests were denied. Their main argument: IE does the same thing. Great! Why don't they just repackage IE and be done with development of Firefox?

[BenBasson]

teoli2003, there are plenty of bug reports in which comments are accepted. Developers aren't always able to have a view bigger than their keyboards and the monitors, and that's why other people's comments can be useful.

Comments are best served by the development newsgroups. A bug report with superfluous comments is neither helpful nor advantageous to getting that bug fixed.

And there's also the voting mechanism, and I invited people to vote for that bug too. And I've added a link to this thread to the bug report, so we were thinking in a similar way.

Encouraging people to vote is fine - no issues with that whatsoever. In my experience, the votes do little if the developers aren't already interested in the bug.

[teoli2003]

Rom2, this is from the bugzilla etiquette:

No pointless comments. Unless you have something constructive and helpful to say, do not add a comment to a bug. In bugs where there is a heated debate going on, you should be even more inclined not to add a comment. Unless you have something new to contribute, then the bug owner is aware of all the issues, and will make a judgement as to what to do. If you agree the bug should be fixed, vote for it. Additional "I see this too" or "It works for me" comments are unnecessary unless they are on a different platform or a significantly different build. Constructive and helpful thoughts unrelated to the topic of the bug should go in the appropriate newsgroup.

Clearly you weren't asking people to bring something new but only to do "I want this too" comment.

Anyway it was quickly WONTFIXED as expected for bugs non following the etiquette.

[rom2]

Actually, many bugs get WONTFIXed for other reasons that have nothing to do with following the etiquette, e.g. devs don't need a particular feature. I also believe that there are saboteurs in Mozilla community.

[the-edmeister]

I also believe that there are saboteurs in Mozilla community.

Do you believe in the Easter bunny?

.

[CleverCoder]

I gotta say that this new 'feature' is a big nuisance. It seems completely unnecessary most of the time for A/V default configuration of scanning files that get written to disk. Is there a place we can go to vote on this thing? At the very least an option should be added to the options panel to turn it off. The about:config is just not good enough for non-programmers. I don't like big borther type software that makes assumptions like this. Please consider rethinking the implementation. Maybe a comprimise.. only do the scan IF real time protection is off for the client in use.
Best regards,
-Sean