Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| No Style is needed more and more
| these days. Mainly to stop popovers covering the viewing window from top
| _and_ bottom;

Lately I'm seeing a menu on the left a lot. I think it's
probably designed for phones, to slide out when you
touch the left side. But I see it stuck open, covering
part of the page.
Someone comes up with a gimmick and
they all pass around the code snippet, without realizing
they don't have wide compatibility. That lack of compatibility
testing seems to be the main problem. I also see a lot of
pages that are almost entirely covered with a blank overlay.
But many are simply too big, designed for phones with big
text and big spaces. That's also affected popular designs.
The template du jour involves big headings over short
paragraphs of giant text, either one big header or in threes
horizontally. Typically there are testimonials. Nothing of
substance. Just a simple salespitch meant to hook distracted
phone addicts. A lot of software companies now use that
layout. Where's the download link? Who knows?!

Here's a use of that template that's actually fairly functional,
though sparse and not very informative:

http://www.pdfshaper.com/

Here's a more typical use that's just pointless fluff
trying to sell memberships to a "meditation gym" to
phone addicts, with the salespitch that you can help
to wake up the world by giving them your money:

https://www.thepeaceroom.com/

All purple. There's so much white space that I see more than
a full browser height of white at the top. Their halfwit
salespitch could easily fit in half a page view. Instead, the page
is about 4-5 times the height of the window. I have to switch
to no style, and scroll down past gigantic vector icons, or get
used to reading billboards.

Here's one from the Brits that seems to be deliberate:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...-sleeping-mind

In general I find BBC news pages work. Their site falls
into the silliness trap by posting "top 10" stories and
not putting so much attention into news. So they may
report the latest tsunami. But if an article about a woman
in York who saw Elton John's face in her McNugget sells
better then I might not hear about the tsunami.... But
at least I can usually read the page.

The page above is an example of a secondary layout
they use often, which seems to be designed to force script.
What I see is a bad but functional layout. But the entire
article has a medium gray background. #474747. It's
readable, but not easily so. I have to switch to no style
if I actually want to read the whole article.

But it's often difficult to tell what's intentional and
what's incompetence. Do they intend to make their
interesting articles dysfunctional without script? Or
is it that the web design "team" consists of 3 24-year-olds,
pasting content into some kind of webpage-o-matic
software, with no idea how it actually looks?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Whilst we all (im)patiently wait for Firefox to rush out
| a patch, install Brave from http://brave.com. It is very
| fast and has built in ad blocking. On first run it will
| give you a shot at importing all your settings from a
| browser of your choice (pick Firefox).

Pay to browse by watching ads sold by them instead
of ads sold by Google.... All set up on Google's spyware
browser. What have you been smoking?

that's not how it works.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| No Style is needed more and more
| these days. Mainly to stop popovers covering the viewing window from top
| _and_ bottom;

Lately I'm seeing a menu on the left a lot. I think it's
probably designed for phones, to slide out when you
touch the left side. But I see it stuck open, covering
part of the page.

I'm probably not seeing it as it's covered by the bits coming from the
bottom and the top.
[]
All purple. There's so much white space that I see more than
a full browser height of white at the top. Their halfwit

If I see a blank page, I tend to leave it, rather than try to do battle
with it.

salespitch could easily fit in half a page view. Instead, the page
is about 4-5 times the height of the window. I have to switch
to no style, and scroll down past gigantic vector icons, or get
used to reading billboards.

Yes, usually the Twitter (and other social media) icons.


Here's one from the Brits that seems to be deliberate:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...lers-guide-to-
the-sleeping-mind

In general I find BBC news pages work. Their site falls
into the silliness trap by posting "top 10" stories and
not putting so much attention into news. So they may
report the latest tsunami. But if an article about a woman
in York who saw Elton John's face in her McNugget sells
better then I might not hear about the tsunami.... But

Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news
channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian
'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline
was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough,
we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we
get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get
ANY other news story.

It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the
binary bit about the labour, then 38 minutes in the father came out to
tell us it's a boy and mother and baby are doing well. So that's two (or
three) pieces of information (oh, we got the baby weight - though not in
kg - so I suppose that makes 4). Which could be delivered, in an
unhurried voice, in about half a minute; let's be generous and give them
two or even five minutes. Eighty-one (so far!) is a teeny bit excessive
....

at least I can usually read the page.

I generally find bbc.co.uk pages are script-heavy and don't read
properly (often having text that's in a one-character-wide column) in my
default Firefox.
[]
But it's often difficult to tell what's intentional and
what's incompetence. Do they intend to make their
interesting articles dysfunctional without script? Or
is it that the web design "team" consists of 3 24-year-olds,
pasting content into some kind of webpage-o-matic
software, with no idea how it actually looks?

I very much fear that the second option is the commoner one, with
intentional malfeasance very much in the minority.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond

Above all things, use your mind.
Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 10:05:04 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

(This is a repost of the the response I gave to the same post in the
alt.os.linux newsgroup)

As someone on slashdot mentioned, why are those add-ons even checked
each-and-every time you start your browser ? Are they expected to mutate
somehow (and no, I do not mean updates) ?

All the thats that certificate /should/ be needed for is to make sure that
you get & install the add-on as the developer has created it.

In its current implementation its simply a kill-switch for anything Mozilla
wishes to declare "obsolete". :-(

And by the way: the work around is to go into about:config, find
"xpinstall.signatures.required" and set it to false (which is actually the
first thing I do when installing FF :-) )

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Thanks

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news
| channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian
| 'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline
| was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough,
| we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we
| get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get
| ANY other news story.
|
| It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the
| binary bit about the labour, then 38 minutes in the father came out to
| tell us it's a boy and mother and baby are doing well. So that's two (or
| three) pieces of information (oh, we got the baby weight - though not in
| kg - so I suppose that makes 4). Which could be delivered, in an
| unhurried voice, in about half a minute; let's be generous and give them
| two or even five minutes. Eighty-one (so far!) is a teeny bit excessive

I think that's a different issue. You've turn monarchy
into an entertainment industry. Though I should think
there could just be a station for that. Just as C-SPAN
constantly shows what's happening in Congress, you
could have Rube-Tube, so the peasantry can watch
what the queen is having for breakfast. Then *that*
could be interrupted for the special report from the
maternity ward.

So, what percentage black is the kid? Isn't that the
big question? Or maybe we have to say African-American
rather than black. That's interesting. If he's part African
American does that mean the royal line is now partly
American? Good heavens!

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news
| channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian
| 'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline
| was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough,
| we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we
| get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get
| ANY other news story.

(Now 195 minutes and counting. Sky News too. I had to go to RT to get
any other news; they're covering the 'plane crash as you might expect.)
|
| It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the
[]
I think that's a different issue. You've turn monarchy
into an entertainment industry. Though I should think
there could just be a station for that. Just as C-SPAN

I would very much prefer that! But even if I were to accept it as an
entertainment industry, I don't see why it should dominate the so-called
news channel *to the exclusion of all other news*. I can't think of any
other entertainment industry event that has had so much saturation
coverage with so little information actually being conveyed (it's a boy;
7 lb 3 oz; mother and baby doing well. Those are the ONLY facts so
far!), and with the total exclusion of headlines. For example,
Oscar/Emmy/BAFTA/Grammy, which do go on for several hours, would not get
this level of coverage, and certainly would not squeeze out any other
headlines.

constantly shows what's happening in Congress, you

We _do_ have such a channel - BBC parliament. (FreeView 232, also on
FreeSat, Sky, and cable.)

could have Rube-Tube, so the peasantry can watch
what the queen is having for breakfast. Then *that*
could be interrupted for the special report from the
maternity ward.

So, what percentage black is the kid? Isn't that the
big question?

Not here; I don't think the majority of Brits are as obsessed with that
particular subject. (I don't think most Brits even think of Megan as
other than white, unless reminded.)

Or maybe we have to say African-American
rather than black. That's interesting. If he's part African
American does that mean the royal line is now partly
American? Good heavens!

The media are telling me he does have American citizenship. (And
unlikely to be part of the royal line: he's seventh in line, so unlikely
ever to be king. [Would be interesting if he became president though!])

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick.

On Mon, 6 May 2019 10:11:59 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Apparently they have done a proper fix now

Hi JP Gilliver,

They even put a "download firefox" button in the canonical page Zag pointed
us to a few days ago, so now there's only one location to go to in order to
ascertain the current status:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-disabled-or-fail-to-install-firefox

They're apparently still working on Android, where, interestingly, and
rather oddly, they don't even _mention_ iOS, as if iOS doesn't even exist.

The Tor Browser Bundle is still, apparently, stuck at version 8.0.8
https://dist.torproject.org/torbrowser/8.0.8/torbrowser-install-win64-8.0.8_en-US.exe

Luckily, there's a TBB workaround which I explained prior.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

|I can't think of any
| other entertainment industry event that has had so much saturation
| coverage with so little information actually being conveyed (it's a boy;
| 7 lb 3 oz; mother and baby doing well. Those are the ONLY facts so
| far!)

Be glad you're not here when a blizzard doesn't
quite hit us but the local news has planned on
"Breaking News" headlines and created graphics
saying something like "The Mega Blizzard of 2018"...

"We're going live now to Framingham, where Amaka
Ubaka (Real name. Everyone has to be ethnic to work
in news here.) is weathering the storm. Amaka?...."

"Hi, Ted. As you can see, there are long lines at the
stores here to buy batteries. We're going outside now...
Wow! That breeze is only 10 mph now but it's deceptive.
There's no reason it couldn't gust to 60. And if you
look at the sidwalk here.... I'll have the cameraman
zoom in.... you can see there are a few flakes already.

We're here for the long haul so that our viewers will
know what's happening outside, throughout this Mega
Blizzard... this dramatic warning from Mother Nature.
Reporting on the Mega Blizzard of 2018, this is Amaka
Ubaka in Framingham. Back to you Ted."

It goes on like that for hours, replacing planned
programming, even though there's no storm!

The Tor Browser Bundle appears to have been updated today:
https://www.torproject.org/download/

Tor Browser 8.0.9 -- May 7 2019
o Bug 30388: *Make sure the updated intermediate certificate keeps working*

Since they say "all platforms", that suggests all platforms but iOS
(since iOS, as we know, lacks this key privacy functionality), where
Android on Firefox has, belatedly, just been updated on Google Play:
o https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox

While we all knew iOS lacks privacy functionality (despite Apple scdreaming
to the contrary of their imaginary privacy), what's super interesting is
that the Firefox canonical page makes absolutely no mention of iOS.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-disabled-or-fail-to-install-firefox
o My iPad Firefox was currently version 10.6 (8836)
o The iPad won't let me update the Firefox (likely because I don't pick up
the latest iOS releases since they break connectivity in the real world,
e.g., to Apple, the real world, e.g., Linux, is "not supported").

Just to be sure, I hit the "install & update" on Mozilla's iOS web page
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/ios
It says the iOS Firefox was last updated a week ago to version 16.2
with no mention of anything but an app crash bug being fixed at that time.

So it seems that everything has been updated on all five platforms
o Except the Tor Browser Bundle (this key privacy doesn't exist on iOS)
o Except Firefox on iOS (no mention of why)

Arlen G. Holder wrote on 5/4/2019 :
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/03/firefox-extension-add-on-cert/

The event occurred as the clock rolled over on UTC (Coordinated Universal
Time, aka GMT or Greenwich Mean Time), and impacted users quickly narrowed
it down to "expiration of intermediate signing cert" -- as it's described
on Mozilla's bug tracker.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973

So... is this it? No patch for old versions other than an unwanted
upgrade to the newest?
Need to decide between uninstalling FF and reinstalling 53.03 (or 52.9)
or just moving on to something else. This has been hosed since
Saturday and nothing I try seems to work on v53 Win7. There are other
things to do in life beside mess with FF... it is why I came to FF and
then became why I would not upgrade... and now it looks as though it
might be why I leave.
How is WaterFox or whatever it is called?

On Wed, 08 May 2019 06:49:32 -0400, Jess Fertudei wrote:

How is WaterFox or whatever it is called?

I agree with those who are starting to believe that Firefox is going the
way of ES File Explorer or CCleaner, over time.

Luckily, there are _plenty_ of Mozilla-based browsers, Chromium-based
browsers, and even a few Microsoft-based browsers.

My suggestion?

Instead of dealing with extensions which allow you to treat sites
differently, simply set up any or each of the dozen or more main browsers
specifically to a single web site or type of web site or type of task (your
choice depending on your needs).

I'm sure there are times you _may_ still need extensions even after doing
so, but you'd have to give me a logical argument as to why.

For example, ad blockers aren't needed, IMHO, at least not in my
experience. Script blockers aren't needed either, AFAICT.

Having said that, it could be that you do, with extensions, something that
browsers can't do, alone perhaps?

What does an extension do that you can't find a browser to do if you
limited that browser to one type of web site?

"Arlen G. Holder" wrote in
:

On Wed, 08 May 2019 06:49:32 -0400, Jess Fertudei wrote:

How is WaterFox or whatever it is called?

I agree with those who are starting to believe that Firefox is going
the way of ES File Explorer or CCleaner, over time.

Luckily, there are _plenty_ of Mozilla-based browsers, Chromium-based
browsers, and even a few Microsoft-based browsers.

My suggestion?

Instead of dealing with extensions which allow you to treat sites
differently, simply set up any or each of the dozen or more main
browsers specifically to a single web site or type of web site or type
of task (your choice depending on your needs).

I'm sure there are times you _may_ still need extensions even after
doing so, but you'd have to give me a logical argument as to why.

For example, ad blockers aren't needed, IMHO, at least not in my
experience. Script blockers aren't needed either, AFAICT.

Having said that, it could be that you do, with extensions, something
that browsers can't do, alone perhaps?

What does an extension do that you can't find a browser to do if you
limited that browser to one type of web site?

I have used IE, Chrome, and Firefox (my preferred) browsers. Sitting at
the end of a low bandwidth internet connection, ad blockers DO make a
difference, and following all the current recommendations LastPass is a
must as well.

Outside of the PITB aspects of the current debacle, I don't understand
what all the continued fuss is about. Someone FUBARed a certificate. It
happens - rarely - but it happens. They could have easily FUBARed the
main certificate for Firefox, ore someone could have done the same for
any of the available browsers. It is just a fact of life and a
vulnerability of the current infrastructure. Until the Internet is
redesigned with security and privacy baked in at the most basic level, it
is a possibility we are going to have to live with.

On Wed, 08 May 2019 18:57:31 GMT, lonelydad wrote:

I have used IE, Chrome, and Firefox (my preferred) browsers. Sitting at
the end of a low bandwidth internet connection, ad blockers DO make a
difference, and following all the current recommendations LastPass is a
must as well.

Do browser-based ad blockers work any better than a good MVP Hosts' file?

Outside of the PITB aspects of the current debacle, I don't understand
what all the continued fuss is about. Someone FUBARed a certificate. It
happens - rarely - but it happens.

I like to think strategically, about good strategic use models.

There are TWO possible high-level strategic use models when it comes to
what "extensions" do.
1. You could try to make one browser do everything, or,
2. You could set up each browser to do what it does best.

Each strategic method has pros and cons, where, for example:
A. A con of making one browser do it all, is you have to deal with
extensions and exceptions (e.g., whitelists, blacklists, etc.).
B. A con of setting up separate browsers is that you have to THINK more,
about how to properly set up a browser to do what you want it to do.

Each has pro's also:
a. A pro of having one browser do it all is that you only have to learn the
intricacies of one browser, for example.
b. A pro of having the best browser do the job you need done is that you
set it up once and it works without having to deal with extensions.

These are just examples, as there are multiple pro's and con's to each
strategy, but I don't know of any other high-level strategy that doesn't
really, in the end, fit into the "more browsers" versus "fewer browsers"
strategic breakdown.

They could have easily FUBARed the
main certificate for Firefox, ore someone could have done the same for
any of the available browsers. It is just a fact of life and a
vulnerability of the current infrastructure. Until the Internet is
redesigned with security and privacy baked in at the most basic level, it
is a possibility we are going to have to live with.

While the certificate issue didn't greatly affect me, I think it affects
others because they don't use the strategy I use, which is zero additional
addons to make a browser do what I need it to do.

The question is still open as to whether there is _anything_ that an
extension actually does that you can't get a browser to do all by its itty
bitty self.

Is there?

Mayayana wrote on 5/5/2019 :
"Keith Nuttle" wrote

The the bug in Firefox was corrected and 66.0.4 allowed ALL of my addons
to be become active. This included Clippings Adblock, Google Translate
and a half dozen other addons.

Good to know, but in the time I was using 66 I didn't
much like it compared to 52.9. I had to give up a lot
of extension functionality and didn't find any way to remove
tabs. There were also various minor irritations. For instance,
the update options no longer include not checking for
updates. And that was just with occasional use. I only
tried it on my test machine that I use on an occasional
basis.
The addons I use are mainly NoScript, DownloadHelper,
and various things for privacy and GUI repair. (Bringing
back the status bar, removing the tab bar, etc.) I have
a nice one called Secret Agent that offers lots of
privacy options but never came out as a signed version or
as a new-style crippled version. I think a lot of the
functionality in those older style extensions is just blocked
now in later versions.

The 'Mozilla Add-ons Blog' has an update published last night that
says:
"For users who cannot update to the latest version of Firefox or
Firefox ESR, we plan to distribute an update that automatically applies
the fix to versions 52 through 60. This fix will also be available as a
user-installable extension. For anyone still experiencing issues in
versions 61 through 65, we plan to distribute a fix through a
user-installable extension. These extensions will not require users to
enable Studies, and we’ll provide an update when they are available.
(May 8. 19:28 EDT)"
We've waited nearly a week for them to at least say they are working on
a direct fix for older versions... wonder how long it will be until it
actually appears. I have been avoiding the affected machine for
browsing purposes but can't keep doing that for long. Once this is
straightened out, I guess it is time to test-drive some other browsers.
Shame, though, 53 pretty much fit my needs exactly. This is no longer
any better than the problems that MS used to create with IE... forced
and coreced updates, unauthorized access to my software, fixes that
don't just unfix things but that cripple functionality. Ah, well... ..
..
Cue Tom Petty 'The Waiting is the Hardest Part'.

"Jess Fertudei" wrote

|
| The 'Mozilla Add-ons Blog' has an update published last night that
| says:

Very informative. Thanks. I don't have any further problems
with 52.9 and I like the old extensions better, but apparently some
extensions are still broken.

This is the first I've heard of
"Studies". It seems the Mozillians just can't resist being as
intrusive and beta-crazed as Microsoft. It reminds me of
the old saying that mothers use: "If Microsoft decided to
jump off a cliff, would you do that, too?!"