What is Pale Moon?

[woodrowGrant]

I have no idea. Security flaws are nothing but Chicken Little stories anyway

[xunxun1982]

I generally just open a new window. But I 'm curious. Would 24 have the same security flaws that FF24 had?

In theory in the same edition, ESR(24.x ESR) is safe than Release(24.0) but has more bugs than Release.

[LoudNoise]

I generally just open a new window. But I 'm curious. Would 24 have the same security flaws that FF24 had?

No. Critical and High security issues are fixed and the moderate (security issues that deal with oddball set ups) are included if they won't break the ESR version.
Per https://www.mozilla.org/security/known- ... oxESR.html these are the definitions of Critical and High

Critical: Vulnerability can be used to run attacker code and install software, requiring no user interaction beyond normal browsing.

High: Vulnerability can be used to gather sensitive data from sites in other windows or inject data or code into those sites, requiring no more than normal browsing actions.

If this didn't happen, it wouldn't be used by IT departments.

[LoudNoise]

I have no idea. Security flaws are nothing but Chicken Little stories anyway

This simply isn't true. While security flaws might or might not be an issue for home users, it certainly is for companies. Even for home users, it is important. Cross site exploits, for example, can make it easy for you to lose control over your ATM/Credit Card. Folks who don't update their browsers are the sort of folks who think that they are to clever to be fooled.

[LoudNoise]

I generally just open a new window. But I 'm curious. Would 24 have the same security flaws that FF24 had?

In theory in the same edition, ESR(24.x ESR) is safe than Release(24.0) but has more bugs than Release.

Depends on your point of view. It has the same functionality bugs that, in the this case, were around for version 24 but it hasn't got any that have been introduced since .

[xunxun1982]

I generally just open a new window. But I 'm curious. Would 24 have the same security flaws that FF24 had?

In theory in the same edition, ESR(24.x ESR) is safe than Release(24.0) but has more bugs than Release.

Depends on your point of view. It has the same functionality bugs that, in the this case, were around for version 24 but it hasn't got any that have been introduced since .

I think because ESR has no ESR beta channel, his each update has not been tested by many users, and every safety fix or code changes may introduce other issues. You can see every ESR has some small issues from bugzilla and Mozilla crash track ( The most stable ESR edition is the first edition... [24.0ESR for example] ).

[LoudNoise]

It does have all of the test channels simply because all versions must have them. That said, it has much more to do with architecture of the servers then usefulness.

The point of ESR is have a stable version of Firefox that last a long time. As you noted., crash track has small issues with the ESR. Those can be worked around if necessary. From the point of view of where I work this is a god send. We are currently qualifying 31. There will need to be changes to some of SQL requests.

[mgagnonlv]

If you read the Pale Moon forum, there are a few threads about security. Basically, current code is base on Firefox 24, but all security-related issues that have been raised since that time in FF 25-31 have been integrated in the latest Pale Moon. Not being a security or coding expert, I can't say which one is more secure, but in theory, both should be on par.

So there are advantages to Pale Moon – if you like a more traditional-looking browser, that is:
– a more complete menu button or menu bar from the start rather than through an extension ;
– a status bar that displays links, favicons and RSS feeds in the address bar...
– some code degradation done by FF in v. 26–29 (like custom user-agents per domain) are not there; alas the feature of keyword url search has disappeared from FF and Pale Moon before v. 24.

On the negative side, some graphic/flash improvements done by Firefox in v. 28 or 29 are not included in Pale Moon. One demonstration is that the new and disimproved Google Maps doesn't work in Pale Moon.

And there is also the extensions issue. Pale Moon is able to use extensions that were compatible with Firefox 24. In most cases, it still means the latest extensions, but sometimes not. For example, Firebug is limited to the last version 1. So even if Pale Moon is 100 % safe by itself, one has to consider the limitations of these older extensions (if that's the case). And what will happen in the longer run, as Pale Moon seems to distance itself further from Firefox? Probably less extensions will be available at that time.

[LoudNoise]

As noted a number of times, Palemoon is the ESR code base. It therefore gets the Critical and High security issue. It could be argued that the current version of Firefox is more secure since it always gets the moderate fixes while ESR does not necessarily. However, these fixes are trivial and you really have to have a weird setup to have to worry about them.

The advantages you list will only be around until October when ESR changes to V 31 and most of them can be replaced by extensions with the post 29 versions of Firefox.

Should Palemoon distance itself the major problem is going to be security. If it changes greatly, its low userbase will mean that it will not get the scrutiny major browsers get. If it stays at ESR 24, it means that any security fixes it uses from Mozilla have not been tested against that codebase so no one will have the slightest idea if the fixes work even if it does compile.

As for extensions, if Palemoon changes enough it will have to change its universally unique identifier (UUID) which means all of the extensions for Firefox will stop working.

[LoudNoise]

Just a note folks. I just had to split off a post because a Palemoon fan decided to try to turn this into a discussion of whether or not Google Maps works with Palemoon.

We have been through this before and, frankly, I have had enough. Anything that is off topic will get split immediately and, instead of giving folks a break, the poster will be warned. See this: faq.php?mode=rules#f1r0

No conversation about this will happen in this thread. If you wish to comment do so here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2706389

[JodyThornton]

I fail to understand why there is such a hatred on these forums for Pale Moon. As moderators, you go to great lengths ti stress that you don't support it on these forums, and you call Pale Moon supporters fanboys. Yet the guys being called fanboys seem to express their points quite eloquently.

You'll also stress that Pale Moon is not a true fork because it only removes features. But what about Firefox Light? Isn't that the same idea? But its users aren't flamed and threads aren't locked regarding its use.

I have to say, you'd think there was some hidden agenda against Pale Moon. I like to keep an open mind to everything. I don't see why discussion and assistance cannot continue to be be exchanged about Pale Moon in the Unofficial Builds forum.

[LoudNoise]

Pretty straightforward-- Firefox Light users, as a class, don't show up here whining about how they are a victim nor do they have a representative like the mighty T who insists that it is a fork . For most folks who have a question that involves Third party builds we either answer their question or direct them to the correct thread or website. A large majority of Palemood users are like yourself-- they don't have a problem but are more then willing to trouble us by either interfering with support topics or, like in your case, having strange thoughts they want to share.

Locking. I would suspect your whine post at the Palemood forum will be welcomed.