Hello,
You have just quoted the answer. ;)
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
Hello,
You have just quoted the answer. ;)
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
OK...but that was 2 months ago. FF has updated twice since then, and Spybot still has not corrected the problem with a new release. If I am choosing which AS application to use, Spybot dithering that long over a known problem does not inspire confidence in the product. In fact, it makes me think "they don't give a hoot about a vulnerability in their product, and thus, by extension, me." It makes me less likely to recommend Spybot SD to people who ask my advice on AV/AS issues.
So there is no timeline for if/when a new version is coming down the pipeline that addresses this problem for the millions/billions of FF users? That's what I was asking.
I also asked whether the immunization actually is implemented until the browser is closed, but got no response to that at all. So I still don't know if I can get by immunizing-before-browsing as a stop-gap measure? :sad:
What? What do you mean you can't pop out a new version just like that? :)
Fair enough. Good to see from those links that rootkits are getting attention in 2.0 - many of us will be on XP for some time to come.
Thanks for the additional information. :thanks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spybotsandra
Next to the 2.0 getting a lot of attention here, the problem here is more with Firefox, not Spybot. We don't see how we can block the removal, so everything we would do here would be just reacting and reimmunizing as soon as possible.
Firefox protection in 2.0 will have additional vectors. 2.0 has a central system service dealing with the protection stuff generic to all browsers (already finished), plus browser plugins. IE users already know SDHelper; a Chrome plugin is half finished, and the Firefox plugin will be next. Should you wonder why Chrome receives attention before Firefox: both browser-side parts are using AJAX, and testing AJAX on Chrome is a bit easier, so the stuff created for Chrome will be partially reused in Firefox.
@PepiMK
Will the Firefox and Opera plugins be able to be disabled by the user, or not activated at all, except as an option? There's already quite a bit of discussion on the Firefox forums about other software installing plugins in Firefox without asking.
I would guess that would be set up like the MSIE plugins are now, just checking.
The method of installation hasn't been finalized yet, but at least, it will be an option and not a necessity during installation. Afterwards, I would probably prefer to just open Firefox with the plugin page, since it would even make it much easier A. to allow the user to see where he can install it for other Firefox installations, and B. will give him the choice.
What speaks against this is that it might be better to install it to the program files folder than to the profile.
Thank You for taking the time to write the instructions in a way that people without major computer skills can follow.