Waterfox 56.0.2: 7 January [Free, open and private web browser.] - Page 558 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5571 of 7375 Old 02-10-2014, 03:00 AM
Security Sleuth
 
seti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 3rd Rock from the bright gassy hot master orb...the SUN; Protected by our solar systems bouncer...Jupiter!
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 3
I don't know...I think Nick is about as concerned about security holes as much as the NSA is about terrorism...not so much. I am getting concerned that Nick is more obsessed with the fact that Waterfox works and works well despite all his efforts to replicate it. This and the fact that in light of his 3 jobs, school, and the rest...he opts to spend the time he does have in relentless pursuit of this answer is a key indicator of this obsession. I have used Waterfox for years with no security issues and any issues I have had were those experienced by the Official Firefox users as well, so like any other software release they get fixed as the build progresses. If fear of holes in your software is a major concern..turn your computer off..most OS's are full of them and you are screwed before you get to any issues that Waterfox might have...and if not there the ISP you use might not be so secure internally or externally. Nick Fuller isn't about that though...I have yet to figure out what he is out for honestly, but when the dev says I use these files....I guess he uses those files, and ball is back in your court Nick...and Nick is stuck.
Grumpigeek likes this.
seti is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5572 of 7375 Old 02-10-2014, 04:38 PM
 
godzfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by godzfire View Post

Microsoft ClickOnce supprt (.NET) is broken in v26. We have a program at work we use to remote to computers which utilizes the .NET Assistant. In v26, it doesn't see the plugin anymore. v24 does not have this problem. Windows 7.

Didn't see any mention of this so just stating it again. This forces us to downgrade back to 24.
godzfire is offline  
post #5573 of 7375 Old 02-10-2014, 05:18 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Quantum Reality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Hmm. I can't find any case of it being a Firefox 26 issue generally.
Quantum Reality is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5574 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 03:05 AM
 
DazzaRPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
For some reason, WF 26.0 keeps trying to update and comes up with this error message



Any idea why this is happening?

The addons are your standard addons: Adblock Edge, NoScript, AVAST, HTTPSEverywhere, LightBeam and Nimbus Screenshot (which I just installed to get the screenshot of WF).
Plugins: Java 7u51, Flash, PDF X-Change VIewer and Silverlight

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated
DazzaRPD is offline  
post #5575 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 07:26 AM
 
nick fuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick fuller View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

I have no idea where you're getting all of that from.

that is the code difference of firefox 26 release candidate 1(AKA Code used for waterfox) VS the officially released firefox 26 release candidate 2 it also shows the code changes to the NSS module
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Go to configure and js/src/configure

these files are missing from the source tree you uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Hit Ctrl+F -> find
Code:
CC_VERSION=`"${CC}" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`

Change it to:
Code:
CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`

yes i know how to build with intel tools plus what changes need to be made to build firefox with intel tools
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Boom, you can now compile with ICC (if you look in the configure files I've uploaded, you'll see this..)
again 3 main configure files are missing from the source tree plus
Code:
CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`
these changes are missing from the provided files
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

All the branding files are in the branding folder. As for the Makefiles, I couldn't possibly list them all, because I sit and watch the compile and each time there's an incompatibility I set CC=cl and CXX=cl whenever ICC can't process a file. I've spent many hours changing the relevant Makefiles for this.

the beauty of open source software applications is transparency its free plus anyone can take it modify it or use it in there software as long as they maintain the transparency of the code modifications plus adhere to the licensing
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Why don't you download the source I just uploaded, try and compile it with ICC and then find that...it actually does compile!

yes i did download and guess what it does not build its missing files listed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

That's because it's the same source files I've used.
If you're not sure how to build Firefox:

actually what you just said is a total lie the source code you just provided is not and can not be the source tree used to build waterfox 26 that is available for download because let me say this as simple as possible again so there is no confusion of the facts.

start waterfox then type in the awesome bar about:support then hit enter
now click on the page then hit the end keyboard key or just scroll to the very bottom of the page
now under Library Versions of waterfox 26 available for download look at the NSS versons waterfox says 3.15.3
now repeat the above step for the officially released version of firefox 26 ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/26.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2026.0.exe

the official firefox 26 NSS version on the released version of firefox is ...... 3.15.3.1 this number is different to waterfox 26

now for the epic part the source code you uploaded to codeplex the NSS version of the source code is different to waterfox 26 publicly available for download but as you say thats the source you used. https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#security/nss/TAG-INFO if this code was used then waterfox would have the same number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

You seem to be criticising me without knowing what you're actually looking for. I don't have time to list every single change, because I spend so many man hours changing so many things to get ICC to compile. And every time there's a new release I have to re-do it all again, because the build structure changes so often.
i know what im looking for its relatively plain and simple the modified source code that was used to build the current released waterfox 26 its that plain that simple thus a perfectly legitimate question that should not be so hard to manage it can be as simple as zipping up c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release after you finished building the release

there are only a few .pyc files generated in that tree the rest are made in the objdir so that c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release can be zipped up then posted then you dont have to worry as you are providing all changed files been that you cant keep track maybe the addition of source and version control might make your project easily more manageable plus give more depth to the build process this can help will change history too.

this also is the good part about open source all these little changes tweaks adjustments are transparent plus publicly visible just like stipulated in the MPL these changes you made should be in that source tree you uploaded that is one of the main reasons i asked for the source code.

so this is no way a personal attack its just simply asking for the source code with the modifications made to it like defined in the MPL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

I have no reason to hide anything, but you're just being extremely pedantic and not even over anything. That's the source I used to build the current version of Waterfox. If you have a conspiracy that it's not...there's not much I can do to change that then I'm afraid!

i wish i could share you quote(I have no reason to hide anything,) well it seems you do for one you uploaded source code thats not the same used for the current released waterfox you wont provide the actual code that build waterfox 26 with all its changes so you are obviously hiding something or dont want to release something maybe a special code tweak made but with all the above facts that are not rubbish or the rambles of someone who has no clue its plain undeniable true unless definitively proved otherwise i have been a programmer for a little over 10 years 2 of my jobs are software design and development the courses in currently doing are because im going to move in too the gaming industry why would i make any of the above up just over anything or nothing its all legitimate information plus requests.

first lets bump this topic been of grave importance

exercising my legal rights to mpl 2.0
nick fuller is offline  
post #5576 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 07:27 AM
 
nick fuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
secondly

@Quantum Reality
@JRuxGaming
@Screemer
@seti

mozilla firefox & other mozilla products are great they get even more better because there open source this means you can take there source code then build your own version or use the core of the gecko engine in your very own application
they are giving everyone a free product that is open to all now if it was not for this open source license people like alex would not be able to make waterfox but its because of this license he can they only thing he has to do is follow the small
license provided with the source code all mr alex has to do is provide the modified source code for and files made with the source code but again if it was not for the inital open source license from mozilla alex would not be able to make waterfox.

im not trying to cause issues but it should not take 9 months to even get a response about the source code let alone be provided the wrong source with missing files the whole reason for wanting to see this code is to make sure not only alex compiles with the license
but to make sure no nasty things are added that is where the transparentcy of open source is a good thing heaven forbid mr alex getting in to trouble over licensing issues then not been able to make waterfox any more we don't want that so this will help alex and waterfox

now if you actually read what i have posted then look into it by your self you can see not only valid points but the strange discrepancy with what alex has provided plus there is the main big part the code he provided is not the code used for waterfox 26 this will mostly be the last post i make its clear to me from replies aimed at me im not wanted hear so i guess the only other option is to push at mozilla again to contiune the investigation. thumb.gif

exercising my legal rights to mpl 2.0
nick fuller is offline  
post #5577 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 11:54 AM
 
skagon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick fuller View Post

...blah blah blah...
Actually, I don't personally think you're very interested in any source for the reason of "security" or "transparency". Furthermore, I don't think the MPL or any other licence actually refers to the build files, but rather the source code itself. The "source code" is the actual code in C++ or some other programming language and whatever resource files. I don't believe the instructions to the compiler qualify as such. If you can't build it yourself... well... that's your problem.

For the record, you can check if Waterfox contains any sort of malicious code by observing its behaviour. In the simplest of manners, submit the files to any on-line antivirus or anti-malware service. You can also use a plain network traffic monitor to actually observe if Waterfox is accessing anything suspicious and/or out of the ordinary.
You do not need the source code for that.

Apparently, you want the source code (including the build files) for some other reason. Perhaps to make a clone of Waterfox?
If you're so proficient in programming as you claim to be, you should be able to do it without any source nor build files from Waterfox.

You're right in one respect, though: you're not wanted here. Save your implied threats for somewhere else and go continue your "investigation" (what a joke) anywhere you want.

Live long and prosper...
skagon is offline  
post #5578 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 07:34 PM
 
PalZer0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaRPD View Post

For some reason, WF 26.0 keeps trying to update and comes up with this error message



Any idea why this is happening?

The addons are your standard addons: Adblock Edge, NoScript, AVAST, HTTPSEverywhere, LightBeam and Nimbus Screenshot (which I just installed to get the screenshot of WF).
Plugins: Java 7u51, Flash, PDF X-Change VIewer and Silverlight

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated

I'm also seeing this. It's also been present on previous versions too so it seems to me like the updater isn't configured correctly.
PalZer0 is offline  
post #5579 of 7375 Old 02-11-2014, 08:19 PM
Security Sleuth
 
seti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 3rd Rock from the bright gassy hot master orb...the SUN; Protected by our solar systems bouncer...Jupiter!
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Well stated skagon.

Nick...I have said as much regarding your initial claim that you were interested in knowing the difference in the code Mr. Alex uses vs the final build code that Mozilla uses. I found that conversation interesting...until you started being the bully on the pulpit...throwing around threats, quoting documents, and the rest. If you have read anything in this thread you should have read the massive amount of problems Mr Alex first ran into regarding compiling via Intel. It was an uphill battle that Mr Alex pretty much had to use his own resources and others to solve...much to the demand of WF users demanding this and that. There was even a long period when even I thought that he had thrown in the towel on the project, but that wasn't the case. The man has priorities in his life and I think many can hope that the demands of WF don't hold priority over many other things that should be more important in his life. I don't know the man personally, but I do know he has school, maybe a significant other or even kids, and other family/friends...I don't know. However, I respect the idea that he puts those before the demands of something he has made free in addition to those other aspects of his life. When he told you those were the files he used and you said as much that he was a liar...well...you sir have gone to far on this mission of software license man and it doesn't take a genius to see that. In the end Mr Alex did reply regardless of it not fitting within your time frame, as he owes you or the rest of us nothing, and even then you stand in staunch resistance to what you hear in the most insulting way that I have witnessed in awhile. I am not overly active in this group, but when someone comes in with an attack on someone I respect well...game on...call me active.
Quantum Reality likes this.
seti is offline  
post #5580 of 7375 Old 02-12-2014, 07:26 AM
Networking Nut
 
kronckew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glos. UK
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 5
just found that if you click the little down pointing triangle next to his name it brings up a menu allowing you to choose to add him to your block list, which will remove his posts from the thread, at least for you. saves waiting for a mod or admin to ban him. i for one am tired of his diatribes wasting space here.

he will not accept anything anyone says, facts will not sway him, because in his heart he knows he is right. like any other fanatic, his faith overrides facts, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

with luck he will add all of us to his block list biggrin.gif

"And so fare thee well:
Thou never shalt hear Herald any more."
Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V, Act IV, scene III.
Quantum Reality likes this.

The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws. —Tacitus, Anals III 27
My dog is so lazy, she only chases parked cars
Real Dogs have Tattoos or feathered ears and tails.
kronckew is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off