Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

General project discussion

Moderator: satrow

Forum rules
This General Discussion board is meant for topics that are still relevant to Pale Moon, web browsers, browser tech, and related, but don't have a more fitting board available.

Please stick to the relevance of this forum here, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Random" subjects don't belong here, and should be posted in the Off-Topic board.
User avatar
moonbat
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 755
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Location: Australia

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by moonbat » 2019-10-02, 12:19

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2019-10-02, 12:03
If we hear about it they will be added to the blocklist.. IF they submit them to our Add-ons Site.. They will be EX-TER-MIN-ATED. You know.. The way Mozilla operated for 10 years before they couldn't be bothered.
In general, I doubt anyone making stuff like this would succeed much with our community. When I look at the help questions asked on r/firefox, where they think that uninstalling/reinstalling firefox is the same as making a fresh profile...
Truly it has gone to the lowest common denominator.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Linux Mint 19.2 Xfce x64 on HP i5 laptop with 4 GB RAM, always latest versions of PM & Basilisk unless specified.

User avatar
Lootyhoof
Themeist
Themeist
Posts: 1297
Joined: 2012-02-09, 23:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by Lootyhoof » 2019-10-02, 12:29

Without going into specifics, there HAVE been extensions where, while not copycats, were potential submissions to our site, that were malicious in nature in a few respects. Needless to say those did not end up getting approved. This was of course before the panel was a thing and based on our communication I doubt they will attempt to submit them there. But if they do, they will be banned, that's for certain. ;)

User avatar
moonbat
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 755
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Location: Australia

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by moonbat » 2019-10-02, 12:33

And they didn't get through thanks to you and the others reviewing addon submissions :thumbup:
In other words, what Mozilla decided to ditch in favor of automation.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Linux Mint 19.2 Xfce x64 on HP i5 laptop with 4 GB RAM, always latest versions of PM & Basilisk unless specified.

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1145
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by Moonraker » 2019-10-02, 14:46

A smaller extension library will always be more secure than a larger one like googles.It must be a security nightmare for them having to check and vet thousands of extensions.
Xenial puppy linux 32-bit.
Tahrpup 6.0.5.32 bit.
Pale moon 28.7.2

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6200
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-10-02, 14:51

Moonraker.. size isn't a factor.. EVERY extension submitted to the Add-ons Sites except by Phoebus Administrators and Add-ons Team Members must be reviewed. A select few are classed as Advanced Developers who get their new submissions enabled but they won't show up in categories or search until they are reviewed. However, direct links and AUS will work. Advanced Developers also get the ability to have unlisted extensions.

So yeah.. three hundred or two thousand it doesn't matter. If they pull shit they will be exterminated. Such is the order of things.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

RJARRRPCGP
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 302
Joined: 2015-06-22, 19:48
Location: USA (North Springfield, Vermont)
Contact:

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by RJARRRPCGP » 2019-10-29, 22:53

"Adblock Flash Player" ->Give me a break! :lol:
(same with "ublock origin Pro" and "player Downloader")

User avatar
Kathuluforz
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 53
Joined: 2019-06-13, 13:42
Location: Montana

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by Kathuluforz » 2019-10-29, 23:48

*Davros hears all
"Man needs difficulties; they are necessary for health"
Carl Jung

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6200
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: Do/did these bugs apply to PM, and is XUL as bad as claimed?

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-10-30, 01:42

So not speak ill of our creator. I OBEY ONLY DAVROS.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

Post Reply