![]() While the portable edition of Firefox self-updates in exactly the same way a normally installed copy does, this is not true with portable Chrome. The exact same strategy can also be employed using the portable edition of Chrome but there is a gotcha. Not only do I like the flexibility of having both versions 3.6 and 4 available, I love the fact that I can backup the browser and copy it to other PCs. I've been using the portable edition of Firefox for so long, I see no need for a normally installed copy. The only restriction is that you can only one run one of them at time. While a single copy of Windows can host only one normally installed instance of Firefox, it can also host one or more portable editions. The same strategy can be used to have one copy of Firefox chock full of extensions, while another one is unsullied. ![]() This is what I do to occasionally kick the tires on Firefox 4 while still using version 3.6 most of the time. Thanks to the portable edition of Firefox, you can maintain two or more totally independent copies of the browser. The good news, at least for Windows users, is that they can have their cake and eat it too. Many of us are, after all, addicted to our favorite extensions. Obviously the best defense against rogue browser extensions is to run a browser with no extensions.īut who wants to do this all the time? You may want a secure browser sometimes, but most people would not want to use it all the time. ![]() Heck, a Browser Helper Object installed into IE runs inside Windows Explorer, even with Internet Explorer shut down. Clearly, the vetting isn't perfect, but what is?Īlso, there is no need to limit this to Firefox.Īlthough I haven't developed a Chrome extension, I suspect that the situation is analogous with Google's browser, that is, that a Chrome extension can also spy on you.ĭitto ActiveX controls inside Internet Explorer. Mozilla's vetting is supposed to insure that Firefox extensions are "clearly and accurately described" and that all privacy and security concerns are clearly spelled out. With at least 5,000 add-ons hosted on its site, it wouldn't be shocking to find out that Ant Video isn't the only extension that comes with a few nasty surprises. The larger lesson here is that just because a Firefox add-on has been subjected to Mozilla's official vetting process there is no guarantee it doesn't do things that many users consider to be invasions of their privacy. Taking a step back, let's consider the bigger picture. Now, it is available again, but it's rated as experimental.Īfter this got publicized, Ant issued a rebuttal. Shortly thereafter, Mozilla removed the extension. When The Register article was written the Ant Video Downloader was available with no warning. My first question was, who or what is Ant? On their website, they go out of their way not to say who they are.Įvery computer user should be wary of accepting software from strangers. Part of Defensive Computing is knowing who to trust. This is beyond normal cookie or LSO tracking this is where the plugin itself is phoning home to ant.com every time I visit any website.Īt the ANT website they say "The source code is systematically reviewed by an independant Mozilla contributor before it is given to the public. This happens in regular browsing, browsing on your corporate VPN, Private browsing mode and browsing via proxies or anonymising services such as Tor, completely bypassing many layers of anonymity and security afforded by services such as proxies, Tor and corporate VPNs. this addon is in fact, contrary to their published privacy policy, clandestinely collecting data about every site that the addon users visit (not just ant.com or video sites) and specifically tying this back to you via a cookie and what appears to be a unique identifier, aka Ant-UID. He found that every time he went to a web page, either on the public Internet or on a private Intranet, his Firefox browser was contacting a computer named and sending it the name of the currently displayed web page. The secret tracking was discovered by Simon Newton who first wrote about it on May 10th. I ran across it in a May 20th article by Dan Goodin in The Register. Surprisingly, this got very little traction in the press.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |