MozillaZine

FF-3b3 - turning off virus scanner

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Dartman
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: February 9th, 2006, 9:43 pm

Post Posted January 12th, 2008, 3:09 pm

Matti,

That language is not allowed here. I edited it out. Do not do it again.

Also, your avatar is not within the 100 pixel X 100 pixel rule for this forum. Change yours to be within the rules. http://forums.mozillazine.org/rules.php
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.

Alan Baxter
 
Posts: 4419
Joined: May 30th, 2005, 2:01 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Post Posted January 12th, 2008, 3:15 pm

Matti wrote:"At least we now have an official Mozilla response"
I'm not official, I'm just a bug triager doing this for many years.

Thanks for the clarification, Matti. It looks like the request for the ability to disable the automatic scan of downloads was turned down by Shawn Wilsher last October. See bug 393792 comment 3 where Rob Arnold says
allowing users to disable scanning is very dangerous to their security.

Jonathan Haas's reply
And allowing users to disable scanning is not very dangerous. Many advanced
users don't even use a antivirus scanner.
appears to have been ignored.

Matti
 
Posts: 13
Joined: November 30th, 2002, 6:48 pm

Post Posted January 12th, 2008, 3:16 pm

Again, I agree that this scanning in the background is wrong if you can't cancel it because your virus scanner takes years to scan it.
I only marked it as duplicate report and that is correct if I read comment #0 on the original bug report.
The cancel scanning is also a dupe but a different one (which would make your bug also invalid because of 2 issues/bug )

Shawn Wilsher is the developer of that feature and only he can decide if a RFE bugi s valid or wontfix

I expect that you get a double-scan but you could test this with the eicar test file (scroll down for the download links):
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

Every Anti-Virus scanner should alert you for this test file (This is no real virus !)
Use Firefox2.X and you should be also get a warning with activated background scanning.

@mod: Sorry for the language, i thought that this word is common used in the us. Avatar deleted, i didn't know of such a rule back in 2002 and i didn't post here for a very long time.

Fuziwuzi

User avatar
 
Posts: 234
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 8:33 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA

Post Posted January 12th, 2008, 4:56 pm

The devs are becoming more and more like Microsoft every day... they know what is best for you, you have no choice, you will do as you're told and you will like it. :(
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.

Eygte450

User avatar
 
Posts: 179
Joined: July 20th, 2006, 12:52 pm

Post Posted January 12th, 2008, 5:13 pm

pikaunforgiven wrote:yikes, how big is the XAMPP.exe installer? that would be brutal for me.

Around 37MB
http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp-windows.html#641

Recall

User avatar
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: November 7th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 4:51 am

Recall wrote:Just a FYI, I made a post about a serious issue with NOD32 and both official and nightly builds of firefox. It is currently being looked in to and will be fixed.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=197235


Just an update, they have now fixed the issue in NOD32, not sure if it fixes large downloads I need to do some testing anyone got a file for me as I am on a 20mbps connection?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0

Matti
 
Posts: 13
Joined: November 30th, 2002, 6:48 pm

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 5:21 am

Fuziwuzi wrote:The devs are becoming more and more like Microsoft every day... they know what is best for you, you have no choice, you will do as you're told and you will like it. :(


There must be someone decide such things because if you implement everything that users suggest in bugzilla than you would have a Firefox with thousands of buttons and one Million Preferences.

asquithea

User avatar
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: March 17th, 2003, 2:43 pm
Location: Guildford, UK

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 7:00 am

I suspect there will eventually be an option to turn this off. The devs often don't like to admit they are wrong, but with so many virus scanners exhibiting poor performance, I doubt that even careful threading will avoid bringing the browser to a halt on many machines.

Recall

User avatar
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: November 7th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 8:02 am

I think what will happen is that it will ship without the preference, then if like the major memory leak problems that showed when FF2 came out, except this can be hotfixed.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0

ehume

User avatar
 
Posts: 6743
Joined: November 17th, 2002, 12:33 pm
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 8:41 am

Might I recommend that we all go and vote for Bug 412094?
Firefox: Sic transit gloria mundi.

Stifu

User avatar
 
Posts: 984
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 8:02 am

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 8:46 am

ehume wrote:Might I recommend that we all go and vote for Bug 412094?

Sadly, I don't think that'll change anything... Apparently, votes in general have very little weight, not to mention your bug has already been marked as duplicate (whether that was appropriate or not).

asquithea

User avatar
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: March 17th, 2003, 2:43 pm
Location: Guildford, UK

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 9:00 am

I think voting is generally a waste of time. The only possible value I can see (apart from being a placebo) is to reassure a developer working on a fix that there is interest in the bug.

the_dees
 
Posts: 512
Joined: March 28th, 2007, 3:54 pm

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 9:03 am

asquithea wrote:I think voting is generally a waste of time. The only possible value I can see (apart from being a placebo) is to reassure a developer working on a fix that there is interest in the bug.

I personally use votes to silently add myself to the CC list. The normal way of CC ist just to much bugspam.

Stifu

User avatar
 
Posts: 984
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 8:02 am

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 9:16 am

the_dees wrote:I personally use votes to silently add myself to the CC list. The normal way of CC ist just to much bugspam.

Same here, and that also lets me keep track of all the bugs I'm interested in.

RyanVM
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: June 16th, 2004, 6:00 am
Location: Exton, PA

Post Posted January 13th, 2008, 3:39 pm

the_dees wrote:
asquithea wrote:I think voting is generally a waste of time. The only possible value I can see (apart from being a placebo) is to reassure a developer working on a fix that there is interest in the bug.

I personally use votes to silently add myself to the CC list. The normal way of CC ist just to much bugspam.
You can adjust your email prefs, you know. There's no reason CCing yourself to a bug has to lead to a lot of spam.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests