MozillaZine

Nirsoft

Discussion of bugs in Mozilla Firefox
1969Charger440
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 7th, 2014, 11:09 pm

Post Posted September 7th, 2014, 11:18 pm

Some changes that have been made in the last version of Firefox prevents me from downloading a file a file I have downloaded many times. The file is fine as hundreds of people use it. I am refering to ANY Nirsoft app.

Three questions:

1: What did you change that prevents me from downloading it?
2: How do I fix it and why is there not an option to download anyway?
3: WHAT makes you(Mozilla) think you have the right to tell me what I can and can not download???

I find that you blocked my downloads inconvenient but I find the fact there is not option to allow me to download what anyway to be extremely irritating. That is NOT your job!

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27654
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 12:20 am

Please do not mistake the Mozilla in name as being well Mozilla as this forum is not a part of nor run by Mozilla.org as can be seen on bottom of right sidebar and at http://www.mozillazine.org/about/ and Mozilla has their own Support forum at https://support.mozilla.org/questions/


https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/31.0/releasenotes/
Block malware from downloaded files (learn more)

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2854847

1969Charger440
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 7th, 2014, 11:09 pm

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 1:27 am

I have looked at that thread a few times and seen that is marked resolved. However, the fixes in that thread are not even available in the new version (32) so my question still stands.

I did look on Mozilla site for forums but nothing stood out. I then Googled Mozilla forums and this forum came up. On a positive note, it seems you rank higher on Google than Mozilla does for the Mozilla forum.

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 27654
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 1:54 am

1969Charger440 wrote:I did look on Mozilla site for forums but nothing stood out. I then Googled Mozilla forums and this forum came up. On a positive note, it seems you rank higher on Google than Mozilla does for the Mozilla forum.

Well this forum started way back on November 4th, 2002 and was the place that even Mozilla sent to for support of various products including the browser we know currently as Firefox since it was renamed Firefox at version 0.8. Mozilla did not start their own support forum (mainly for desktop Firefox to start with) until years later and did not really start going until 2007/2008. Actually I get mozillazine forums as 5th result with https://support.mozilla.org/ as 4th.

dfoulkes

User avatar
 
Posts: 22575
Joined: June 28th, 2008, 10:31 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 8:57 am

I have looked at that thread a few times and seen that is marked resolved. However, the fixes in that thread are not even available in the new version (32) so my question still stands.

Did you read this link that James posted? ... it tells you how to turn off that Google blocking area.
Security/Features/Application Reputation Design Doc - MozillaWiki
As you can see she's (The CAT) always alert and on the prowl for Meoware !!

1969Charger440
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 7th, 2014, 11:09 pm

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 10:29 am

That article only says how to disable the malicious site detection all together. I don't really want to do that. What I want to do is decide what I WANT to download. My browser does not need to control what I download. Make suggestions sure but prevent me from doing all together is just wrong.

Based on the path of this thread so far it appears as though 1) no one really know how to fix it and 2) y'all are ok with being told what you can and can not download......

JayhawksRock

User avatar
 
Posts: 10433
Joined: October 24th, 2010, 8:51 am

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 10:40 am

"You Can't Always Get What You Want" ~ Mick Jagger - Keith Richards ~ Rolling Stones 1968

If you dont want to use the work around, you should maybe express your extreme disapointment over at Mozilla > https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback/firefox/32.0/

Nobody here writes any Firefox code. http://www.mozillazine.org/about/
Havw a nice Life....
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is you never know if they are genuine" ...Abraham Lincoln

1969Charger440
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 7th, 2014, 11:09 pm

Post Posted September 8th, 2014, 10:46 pm

How is dialing all the security a work around for something like, I don't know, maybe an option that says "I understand the risk and would like to save this file anyway" as opposed to "we have decided you should not be allowed to have this file because someone, somewhere thinks it could possibly be bad?" BTW, how many times are you going to tell me no one writes code for Firefox here before y'all start to understand that none of you write code for Firefox? Just incase you are wondering I heard you the first time so you have to be trying to convince yourselves. All I wanted was some helpful information about a very inconsiderate "bug" but it just seemed like you got mad when I told you the items to fix in 31 are not in 32. It seems as though they really don't want to give you a choice. That's apple mentality there.

dfoulkes

User avatar
 
Posts: 22575
Joined: June 28th, 2008, 10:31 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada

Post Posted September 9th, 2014, 8:46 am

One thing to remember... 90% of the users out there probably know very little about the internet world and haven't a clue about any of it... so by having that safe-guard probably helps out all those people... maybe like the guy my IT specialist friend helped (my friend has a small side job to work on users PC's) ... He took the customers comp. home to work on it because the user complained about how it was running/acting. Malware bytes was run on that comp. and over 1800 problem items were found. The "normal" user out there does not have a clue.

So... I use this download app. as opposed to the built-in product... it opens for downloading outside of Firefox and I have no issues with it...
http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/
As you can see she's (The CAT) always alert and on the prowl for Meoware !!

Gingerbread Man

User avatar
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: January 30th, 2007, 10:55 am

Post Posted September 9th, 2014, 9:39 am

You can either disable malware protection altogether, or you can disable application reputation checks only. The latter would return Firefox to pre-32.0 functionality.
Though I only see the browser.safebrowsing.appRepURL preference in Nightly (future Firefox 35.0) and not Firefox 32.0.
:arrow: https://wiki.mozilla.org/…Application_Reputation…#How_to_turn_off_this_feature

Website owners should report false positives. Direct them to the last section of the following article. Presumably it applies to applications as well.
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work

There is no option to ignore the warning and download the file anyway, as you've noticed. You can either download the ZIP file instead of the EXE, or download the EXE with an external download manager or another browser.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 20119
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted September 9th, 2014, 11:41 am

> Website owners should report false positives

Nirsoft is well aware that these kinds of things regularly happen to him.
Whether he's specifically requested a removal from Google's lists, I wouldn't know.
And in particular in that his utilities are often (incorrectly, IMO*) picked up as "PUP" (Potentially Unwanted Program).

*Others disagree:

"NirSoft tools are either detected as a HackTool or as a Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP). Due to the nature of many Nir Sofer created utilities this is not a False Positive declaration. The detection is not because the files are malicious. They are detected because they have the propensity of being used maliciously by malicious actors acting not on your behalf but for their own nefarious reasons."

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.p ... roductkey/

And Nirsoft's take: Antivirus "False Positive" Problems

Since there exists this "grey" area, seems to me there should be some sort of accommodation on the Mozilla end. (Like after a download fail, which you may or may not realize has happened, then something like you could then go back to download manager, & click some sort of "ignore block & download" button...?)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

1969Charger440
 
Posts: 5
Joined: September 7th, 2014, 11:09 pm

Post Posted September 10th, 2014, 11:22 pm

Sounds like nirsoft and I think alike. I really have no issue with the "hey this might be a bug so we don't want to let you download it." What I have issue with is that they take your choice away and not even give you the chance to "understand the risks." As I said that is Apple mentality there, "we will tell our customers what they like and they will like it or they use someone else product, we don't care."

the-edmeister

User avatar
 
Posts: 32240
Joined: February 25th, 2003, 12:51 am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Post Posted September 11th, 2014, 3:16 am

The "mentality" involved here isn't Mozilla, its Google. Google determines what data is added to the SafeBrowsing data base. Mozilla merely added that option to Firefox recently and enabled it by default. You have the choice to disable it if you don't want it used in your installation. or you can create an add-on that would allow you to bypass it selectively or at will.

If you want to "piss and moan" to someone about how Mozilla has wronged you or restricted your "choice", try providing feedback to Mozilla directly.
https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback


.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Mine has wandered off and I'm out looking for it.

kreemoweet
 
Posts: 751
Joined: December 30th, 2009, 11:25 pm

Post Posted September 11th, 2014, 8:22 am

It's not just Google: Microsoft Security Essentials also identifies some of NirSoft's excellent utilities as "HackTools", etc. But at least MSE also allows the
user to decide for themselves what action to take, and Mozilla should do likewise. It's a sad day when Mozilla has to take lessons on user enablement
from the likes of Microsoft.

KWierso
 
Posts: 8831
Joined: May 7th, 2006, 10:29 pm
Location: California

Post Posted September 11th, 2014, 8:47 am

So. Tell. Mozilla.

Ranting here won't do any good.

Return to Firefox Bugs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest