Unpatched Firefox 1.5 exploit made public

Cnet ^ | 12/08/2005 | Dawn Kawamoto

[zeugma]

Sorry about that. If you click on the link of the us/gb flag towards the upper left corner, it will give you the site in english.

To get there directly, try this.

[raybbr]

Sorry about that. If you click on the link of the us/gb flag towards the upper left corner, it will give you the site in english.

I know. I was just kidding around. Wenn ich auf Deutsch schreiben kann, dann kann ich auch Deutsch lesen. :)

[zeugma]

If I can write on German, then I can read also German.

Not necesarily :-)

Ich kann nicht Deutschen lesen oder schreiben, aber es gibt Plätze, die für mich übersetzen.

piping things from english to german to french, then back to english using Google Translate can be really amusing. Throw in some ebonics, and it can get really interesting.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

English to German
Wir die Leute, zwecks einen vollkommeneren Anschluß zu bilden, stellen Gerechtigkeit her, versichern inländischen Tranquility, stellen für die allgemeine Verteidigung zur Verfügung, fördern die allgemeine Wohlfahrt und befestigen die Blessings der Freiheit an uns selbst und unser Posterity tun ordain und stellen diese Beschaffenheit für die Staaten von Amerika.

German to French
nous le les personne, pour un parfait un raccordement former, fabriquer la justice, assurer national Tranquility, mettre à la disposition pour le général défendre ordonner, encourager le général prospérité et attacher le Blessings le liberté nous-mêmes lui-même et notre Posterity faire ordain et mettre ce constitution à la disposition pour le État Amérique

French to English
us it them nobody, for perfect a connection to form, manufacture justice, to ensure national Tranquility, to place at the disposal for the General to defend to order, encourage the General prosperity and to attach Blessings freedom ourselves itself and our Posterity to make ordain and place this constitution at the disposal for the State America

I must be bored :-) Time for bed. HAND!

[evilC]

>>>
How was your loading speed on a USB device?
<<<

It is slower than running from the HD but still perfectly useable. The portable versions of FF and TB are set to be disk light (cache turned off etc.). However, if you were going to run applications frequently then a non solid-state portable drive might be the way to go.

In any case I just use the two Mozilla apps to get e-mail and web access when traveling. They have worked very well for that. The only problem is that USB drives will not work as a guest on Windows 98, because 98 needs drivers to mount new USB drives (newer versions of Windows will automatically mount attached USB drives).

For those interested here are two more links to truly portable and "portable" (applications that may not be designed as portable but do not require access to the local drive - in some cases that means copying an existing install to the portable drive).
http://www.tinyapps.org/
http://www.kikizas.net/en/usbapps.html

[evilC]

As a PS, the two portable Mozilla apps need to be started from their own directory. To save me navigating down, I just created two batch files that run them from the top level of my portable drive.
e.g.
Portable Drive
--PortableFirefox
----Firefox progs etc.
--PortableThunderbird
----Thunderbird progs etc.
PortableFirefox.bat <<<Click this to start FF
PortableThunderbird.bat <<<Click this to start TB

So instead of navigating to the correct directory I just click on the batch file to start each program.

The batch files are simple.
Open a new text file.

Type one line in:
.\PortableFirefox\PortableFirefox.exe

Save as PortableFirefox.bat

Repeat for Thunderbird using the line
.\PortableThunderbird\PortableThunderbird.exe
and saving as PortableThunderbird.bat

You can call the .bat files whatever you want and \PortableFirefox\ is the directory that you stored the program files in.

[FLAMING DEATH]

"If you're going to literally call me "idiotic" you better come up with some proof."

Proof.

Due to the extremely large number of inaccurate and idiotic posts you've presented to this point, you are no longer relevant. Thanks and have a nice day.

[FLAMING DEATH]

It'd be fascinating to know why...

1) Knoppix security patches seem so critical to GE, in light of the fact that Knoppix runs with a read-only OS on a live CD, and THAT runs by default with all writeable drives mounted read-only, and

2) downloading an iso and burning a new CD seems like a prohibitively difficult task for GE (along with cut and paste and simple command line work), especially considering that the iso is available free of charge, CD's are cheap, and CD burning software is so simple even he could use it, and

3) why, if he doesn't like Knoppix, he doesn't just use the Microsoft Windows XP live CD?

[ShadowAce]

It'd be fascinating to know why...
1) Knoppix security patches seem so critical to GE,

The simple answer is--they aren't critical to him--he's using the format of a question to "point out" that patches aren't automatic or "easy" to install. He's playing stupid to try to make a stupid point.

2) downloading an iso and burning a new CD seems like a prohibitively difficult task for GE

He thinks that anything other that clicking on a single icon is much too difficult for anyone to do all the time. His notion of the "average" computer user is someone clicking on a desktop like the sterotype guy on a couch clicking the remote:

3) why, if he doesn't like Knoppix, he doesn't just use the Microsoft Windows XP live CD?

Because that would give users more choice.

[Golden Eagle]

Proof.

Thanks for showing that, so everyone can see allthe bs I've recently shot down, including you not even knowing what the actual GPL looks like.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Due to the extremely large number of inaccurate and idiotic posts you've presented to this point, you are no longer relevant. Thanks and have a nice day.

[FLAMING DEATH]

BTW, here's what I said when you posted the GPL link:

"Nice try, but you're still a moron. There was no "spouting"...my irrefutable proof was cut and pasted directly from the FSF's site, the same one from which you posted a general link and gave me a vague excuse about section 3, which had nothing to do with anything."

In other words, section 3 of the GPL, which I had just looked at. Didn't think I needed to add the word GPL, since I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. I guess you have to have everything spelled out for you, because you're such a brain dead jackass. Duly noted.

You still haven't cut and pasted from THE GPL (just so you know what I'm talking about) and told me what part says you must distribute your modified software.

You can't, and saying I don't know what the GPL is is simply you trying to distract me and everyone else from your own rampant ignorance and stupidity. Put up or shut up, GE. As I said before, if you were right, we'd be seeing that as proof, and we haven't because you're spinning in circles. Let's see the part from Section 3 that proves your point. Right now.

[Golden Eagle]

The whole of section 3 proves my point. If you had even known it was the actual license to begin with you'd know that. But nah, you boys would rather confuse the issue and constantly sling names than ever face any facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x665385

http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/1736/531

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1617712,00.asp?kc=EWNKT0209KTX1K0100440

http://ianmurdock.com/?p=54

http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=552

http://zgp.org/linux-elitists/p05210612bb7d87639a93@[192.168.1.101].html

http://www.linuxlinks.com/portal/news/article.php?story=20050624042207848&mode=print

http://www.linuxpipeline.com/42700029

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5279

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7239

http://asia.cnet.com/news/software/printfriendly.htm?AT=39146335-39001094t-39000001c

http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/10/1457205.shtml

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/05/19/1213245.shtml?tid=106&tid=219

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/30/1435248.shtml

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/3822

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-08-30-011-26-NW-LL-PB

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/01/1148227.shtml?tid=103&tid=99

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print?TYPE=story&AT=2133230-39020381t-10000002c

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,104039,src,ov,00.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-10-20-open-source-mass_x.htm

http://www.newsforge.com/business/04/02/27/2329240.shtml

[FLAMING DEATH]

Yeah, right. Once again, you fail to copy and paste anything in that would definitively prove your point and win the argument. You instead point to some links that you yourself have discredited, such as Democratic Underground and Slashdot, instead of saying, "Here's the sentence in section 3 that states you have to distribute your modified source code". It would be so easy, but you refuse to do it. That's because you're unable to do so, because you know that it doesn't exist.

That's because, due to the extremely large number of inaccurate and idiotic posts you've presented to this point, and your tendency to encompass the very definition of the word "troll" on this forum, you are no longer relevant. Thanks and have a nice day.

[FLAMING DEATH]

"If you had even known it was the actual license to begin with you'd know that."

Yep. Keep saying it, instead of backing up your own words. It might just distract someone from realizing you're getting your butt kicked all over this forum.

[Golden Eagle]

You obviously don't understand the GPL, are in perfect lockstep with the liberals at DU and Slashdot on the issue, and have nothing but insults of others to defend yourself. But the fact you think you're somehow winning the argument takes the cake!

[FLAMING DEATH]

"You obviously don't understand the GPL."

You make that contention repeatedly, but pass up every opportunity to show me where I'm wrong. Doing so would prove your point. You won't, because you can't.

"are in perfect lockstep with the liberals at DU and Slashdot on the issue."

So, you're saying the links you posted prove that DU and Slashdot both agree that GPL requires redistribution of modified source code? Because if they don't, why did you post them? Hmmm...well, then...that would mean they agree with the position YOU hold, and the one that I disagree with! So, who would be closer to DU/Slashdot on what the GPL says, Buzzy? That'd be YOU, Sparky.

"and have nothing but insults of others to defend yourself."

This from one who has little problem dishing it out, but is totally unable to take it. Again, every time you cry about insults you're being a whiny baby, because I've seen you dish it out with the best of them. If it breaks your heart to be insulted, either prove your point or find another forum.

"But the fact you think you're somehow winning the argument takes the cake!"

There is no discernable argument, as far as I can see. You make ludicrous statements you won't defend, and then you try to change the subject when called on it. That's not arguing, that's trolling, and if there's one thing that I can say you do well, it's that. But, back to the issue...why won't you show me specific proof of what you say? All you have to do is cut and paste where it says you MUST distribute your modified source code to anyone who requests it. This has been going on for days now, and you won't do it because you can't.

End of story.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Let me show you...

I want you to paste an excerpt from something you believe proves your case, like this:

"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization."

Only yours should say the exact opposite of what mine does. Then, post a link to where you got it, like this:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

That's how we debate, Buzzy. It's not just screaming "Section 3!" or "You didn't know it was the GPL!" over and over again hysterically like Barney Fife.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Let's try that again...

Quote...

"If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses."

....and cite.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy

It's easy! Now you try!

[ShadowAce]

That's how we debate, Buzzy.

Now you've done it. This issue is not up for debate. What he says is what is true--didn't you know that?

He is infallible, almighty, truthful, and knows everything on which he comments. This includes every detail about the GPL, outsourcing jobs, copying software, and distribution policies of every American company in existance.

He knows that companies steal American software and only renames the code in order to claim all credit for writing it. He also knows that this process is ongoing and never stops. He knows that no American company has ever done this, thus these foreigners are merely stealing American IP (and no other) for use in their superclusters for designing atomic weapons so they can destroy American cities and the source for all their IP "wealth". This is a zero-sum game, and we're losing.

Can't you just understand that?

[Golden Eagle]

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.

ROFL, why do you continue to post this? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter being discussed, that being a company selling a modified version of Linux. They are distributing it, not using it privately, or do you not understand the difference between "private" and "distributed"?

And since they are selling it, there's nothing stopping some "company" in China buying a copy of this software, and getting the source code, then legally distributing it to ANYONE, INFINITELY, whithout ever having to pay for it again. They can even rename it something else if they want, do whatever they want with it, legally, including name it "Red Star" and load it on all their government computers. They can also sell it to Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, all legally and without a dime back to the U.S. But you obviously don't care, you apparently are willing to fight for their right to not only have free copies of it, but sell it all over the world just as if it was their own.