Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 01:17:14AM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Florian Weimer writes: > > Cloudflare only promises to “never sell your data”. That doesn't > > exclude sharing it for free with interested parties. > > > > So a metadata leak (by design) to an unbounded number of entities, >

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:02:30AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/ Those two have one critical difference in wha

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

* Philipp Kern: > It is probably worth pointing out that Firefox's use of Cloudflare's DoH > endpoint is governed by a different policy outlined here: > > https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/ Thanks. > Per that policy, other third parties can on

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 9/27/2019 12:23 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: [...]>> So currently DoH is strictly worse. > > Furthermore, you don't have a paid contract with Cloudflare, but you > usually have one with the ISP that runs the recursive DNS resolver. > > If you look at > >

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 11:17:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Sep 08, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> >> > I would rather see an explicit statement. I would be very surprised >> > with Debian’s usual stance regarding the users’ privacy that we would >> > not consider thi

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Robert Edmonds writes: > The entire DNS root zone is only 1 MB compressed and is updated about > once a day. It would be even better for privacy if the whole root zone > were distributed via HTTPS, as the initiator would not reveal to the > server any information about what TLD is being looked up

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

* Robert Edmonds: > The entire DNS root zone is only 1 MB compressed and is updated about > once a day. It would be even better for privacy if the whole root zone > were distributed via HTTPS, as the initiator would not reveal to the > server any information about what TLD is being looked up. > >

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

* Adam Borowski: > Let's compare; by "ISP" I mean every hop on the network path. > > With local DNS: > * the target server knows about you (duh!) > * the ISP can read the destination of every connection > [reading the DNS packets, reading the IP header, reading SNI header] > * the ISP can block

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Debian doesn't add ESNI Record into it's Name Server. Check here (ONLINE dig): https://toolbox.googleapps.com/apps/dig/#TXT/ Check these two domains: _esni.debian.org _esni.cloudflare.com On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:31 AM Paul Wise wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:48 AM Anthony DeRobertis wro

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:48 AM Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On 9/13/19 7:05 AM, Simon Richter wrote: > > > > Mandatory Encrypted SNI with no fallback option -- everything else can be > > circumvented easily. > > > > This is a game that we should not play, really. It raises the cost of > > running a

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 9/13/19 7:05 AM, Simon Richter wrote: Mandatory Encrypted SNI with no fallback option -- everything else can be circumvented easily. This is a game that we should not play, really. It raises the cost of running a service on the Internet so only big players can afford to do so. Does it? I h

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Becuase the best privacy solution would be to embed DNS resolver into mozilla and they query root servers (which manage by ICANN) to find IPs of TLDs server! I mean the "users’ privacy" is a opaque general definition, rather there are the spectrum of techniques which protect us against mass surveil

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:25 PM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > It's too native have such thoughts. It's never "too big to block". s/native/naive/ -- Shengjing Zhu

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 7:05 PM Simon Richter wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > > Note that by way of counterargument, Google and its services have > > > been blocked in mainland China by the Great Firewall for nearly a > > > decade now, so I qu

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 09/09/19 14:40, Bjørn Mork wrote: Ondřej Surý writes: Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense to remove external links to logos and JavaScript from the documentation and then send everything to one single US-based provider. Exactly. I'd be worried if anything in Debian came preconfigured with

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: >> Mozilla really missed the ball on this one. OpenBSD already made >> the necessary changes to Firefox. I think we should, too. Holger> agreed. OK, so, it seems like the way we do things, that's going to be the firefox maintainer's decision.

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On dv., set. 13 2019, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Note that by way of counterargument, Google and its services > have > been blocked in mainland China by the Great Firewall for > nearly a > decade now, so I question whether there i

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:02:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Except DoH is *not* an anti-censorship feature. It is a feature that > provides a net reduction in privacy. agreed. > CloudFlare says that it won't read your DNS requests -- scout's honour! > -- but even if that's true and we can

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

talking about sending _all_ your > queries from > just **one** application - Mozilla Firefox. And what’s worse - if we are > talking about protecting > the users, it could lead to a false sense of protection - any other > application in the system > will send the DNS queries th

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Hi, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Note that by way of counterargument, Google and its services have > > been blocked in mainland China by the Great Firewall for nearly a > > decade now, so I question whether there is really such a thing as > > "too big to block

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

now, we are talking about sending _all_ your queries from just **one** application - Mozilla Firefox. And what’s worse - if we are talking about protecting the users, it could lead to a false sense of protection - any other application in the system will send the DNS queries through stub resolver

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sep 13, Thomas Goirand wrote: > You shouldn't insist on always writing "their ISP", as if it was the > only choice. It isn't. One can setup his own recursive DNS locally, for > example. I've done this for years, as I didn't trust my ISP (first, in Sure, me too: but it does not matter, because

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sep 13, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Note that by way of counterargument, Google and its services have > been blocked in mainland China by the Great Firewall for nearly a > decade now, so I question whether there is really such a thing as > "too big to block." This is a false dichotomy: not all nat

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 9/10/19 7:46 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > You obviously consider Mozilla's choices of trusted resolvers (currently > Cloudflare, hopefully others too in the future) a bigger privacy risk > for generic users (the one who use the browser defaults) than their ISP, > I disagree. You shouldn't insis

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

// send from my mobile device Jeremy Stanley 于 2019年9月13日周五 06:51写道： > On 2019-09-12 22:27:39 +0200 (+0200), Simon Richter wrote: > [...] > > The idea for resilience is "too big to block". > > > > When Domain Fronting still worked with Google, people used this to > > circumvent censorship becaus

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 2019-09-12 22:27:39 +0200 (+0200), Simon Richter wrote: [...] > The idea for resilience is "too big to block". > > When Domain Fronting still worked with Google, people used this to > circumvent censorship because blocking it would have required > blocking Google, so cooperation from Google was

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:43:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 12, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Except all they need to do is return NXDOMAIN on the > > "use-application-dns.net" domain, and Presto! they can spy on their > > users again. > They need to have a government to compel then to

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sep 12, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Except all they need to do is return NXDOMAIN on the > "use-application-dns.net" domain, and Presto! they can spy on their > users again. They need to have a government to compel then to do it, which is not obvious. And then Mozilla will disable that (you can

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 07:56:48PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > > On 9 Sep 2019, at 15:31, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > > > > I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or > > > Google, simply based on the jurisdic

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 11:17:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 08, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > I would rather see an explicit statement. I would be very surprised > > with Debian’s usual stance regarding the users’ privacy that we would > > not consider this as a privacy violation, but aga

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Hi, On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:52:47PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > I still believe that generic users are better served by deploying more > > censorship-resistant protocols than by worrying that Cloudflare (or > > whoever else) would violate the privacy requirements mandated by > > Mozilla

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Le September 12, 2019 4:52:47 PM UTC, Adam Borowski a écrit : >On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 07:46:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Sep 09, Adam Borowski wrote: >> >> > With DoH: >> > * the target server knows about you (duh!) >> > * the ISP can read the destination of every connection >> > [r

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

What? How did you manage to go from me suggesting disabling DoH by default to CloudFlare in Firefox without explicit user consent to an attack on ICANN? But I guess that this alternative DNS root nonsense will just never die, so I should not be really surprised. -- Ondřej Surý > On 12 Sep 201

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Then you should ask why we have ICANN in the first place! PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenNIC On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 11:01 PM Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Hi, > > I haven’t found any discussion on the topic (although I haven’t searched very > hard and only looked for DoH and DNS keywords in the

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:26:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > Will DOH break corporate web apps that are accessed over a VPN (and > thus only resolvable via the local resolver)? Or has Mozilla catered > for that? Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver. network.trr.mode=2 se

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Adam Borowski writes: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 07:46:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> Well, no. They cannot without significantly more expensive hardware to >> do DPI and a *totally different* legislative framework. >> (Source: I have been dealing with government-mandated censorship in >> Ital

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 07:46:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 09, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > With DoH: > > * the target server knows about you (duh!) > > * the ISP can read the destination of every connection > > [reading the IP header, reading SNI header] > > * the ISP can block such

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 00:38:03 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: >With local DNS: >* the target server knows about you (duh!) >* the ISP can read the destination of every connection > [reading the DNS packets, reading the IP header, reading SNI header] >* the ISP can block such connections > [blocking DN

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Hi! Thank you for raising this topic! On 09.09.19 07:56, Ondřej Surý wrote: > We can discuss (and it has been discussed) ad nauseam, but the point is that > nobody (certainly I am not) is asking for crippling DoH, but I just strongly > believe it’s in the line with other Debian work that we sh

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 11/09/2019 06:16, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote: Am 10.09.2019 um 07:50 schrieb Florian Lohoff : On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:31:37PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or Google, simply based on the jurisdiction. There are tons of setups whic

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Am 10.09.2019 um 07:50 schrieb Florian Lohoff : > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:31:37PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or >> Google, simply based on the jurisdiction. > There are tons of setups which are fine tuned for latency because they >

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On September 8, 2019 10:38:03 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote: >DoH doesn't stop ISP-based spying nor censorship. Firefox, I believe, already supports encrypted SNI (in nightly at least). Cloudflare does too. So fully deployed, your ISP can only tell that you're connecting to Cloudflare, Clo

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 2019-09-10 19:56:48 +0200 (+0200), Julien Cristau wrote: [...] > How is this worse than what we're already doing by default, namely > sending the same data to whoever happens to be on the network, in > addition to whoever happened to be listed in an unauthenticated > dhcp response? (Which, if yo

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > On 9 Sep 2019, at 15:31, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > > I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or > > Google, simply based on the jurisdiction. > > While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sep 09, Adam Borowski wrote: > With DoH: > * the target server knows about you (duh!) > * the ISP can read the destination of every connection > [reading the IP header, reading SNI header] > * the ISP can block such connections > [blocking actual connection] Well, no. They cannot without s

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 09:38, Yao Wei wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I think all >> major ISPs here are scumbags, especially the incumbent), I still strongly >> think we should not have this d

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:24:03AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I think all > major ISPs here are scumbags, especially the incumbent), I still strongly > think we should not have this debate here, and we should turn this around > the usu

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

> On 9 Sep 2019, at 15:31, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or > Google, simply based on the jurisdiction. While I still strongly agree with you on this one (even though I think all major ISPs here are scumbags, especially the incumbent), I sti

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:31:37PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > I for one, do trust my ISPs a lot more than I trust Cloudflare or > Google, simply based on the jurisdiction. There are tons of setups which are fine tuned for latency because they are behind sat links etc or low bandwidth landlines. Th

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Ondřej Surý writes: > On the privacy topic... > > Slides: https://irtf.org/anrw/2019/slides-anrw19-final44.pdf > Paper: https://dl.acm.org/authorize.cfm?key=N687437 And also section 8 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reid-doh-operator-00 > And you can get to the video recording from the AN

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

The entire DNS root zone is only 1 MB compressed and is updated about once a day. It would be even better for privacy if the whole root zone were distributed via HTTPS, as the initiator would not reveal to the server any information about what TLD is being looked up. There are currently ~1500 TLDs

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On the privacy topic... Slides: https://irtf.org/anrw/2019/slides-anrw19-final44.pdf Paper: https://dl.acm.org/authorize.cfm?key=N687437 And you can get to the video recording from the ANRW 2019 pages: https://irtf.org/anrw/2019/program.html We can discuss (and it has been discussed) ad nauseam

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

DNSCurve - probably never DoT - the current profiles are stub to resolver, when they are profiles for resolver to authoritative and a solid support in the software, the RSSAC will surely talk about this. The deployment will have impact (switching all traffics to TCP? Yay?) DoH - I am not sure

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 2:31 AM Ondřej Surý wrote: > Mozilla plans to enable DoH to CloudFlare by default to US based users Does anyone know if there is any plan for the DNS root servers to enable any of the DNS privacy options? AFAIK the available options are DNSCurve, DoT or DoH. -- bye, pabs

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 11:17:13PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 08, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > I would rather see an explicit statement. I would be very surprised > > with Debian’s usual stance regarding the users’ privacy that we would > > not consider this as a privacy violation, but aga

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On 2019-09-08 23:17:13 +0200 (+0200), Marco d'Itri wrote: [...] > I think that this is a privacy enhancement, since it prevents some > major ISPs from spying on users DNS queries. [...] While at the same time legitimizing Cloudflare spying on users' DNS queries, right? How is one necessarily bette

Re: Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

On Sep 08, Ondřej Surý wrote: > I would rather see an explicit statement. I would be very surprised > with Debian’s usual stance regarding the users’ privacy that we would > not consider this as a privacy violation, but again I am not Firefox > maintainer in Debian and I would rather hear from

Mozilla Firefox DoH to CloudFlare by default (for US users)?

Hi, I haven’t found any discussion on the topic (although I haven’t searched very hard and only looked for DoH and DNS keywords in the BTS), but since Mozilla plans to enable DoH to CloudFlare by default to US based users: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/09/06/whats-next-in-making-

Mozilla Firefox

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Mozilla Firefox: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/ Mit freundlichen Grüssen!

Mozilla Firefox

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Mozilla Firefox: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/ Mes meilleurs Salution!

Re: Propositon: Multiarchitecture Support in Next Debian 64-bit, Mozilla Firefox Release,...

* patrick.dre...@gmx.net [190714 14:24]: > Propositon: Multiarchitecture Support in Next Debian 64-bit (64-bit and > 32-bit), Mozilla Firefox Release, in LXDE Startup Menu a Search field > 32-bit i386 for Adobe Reader ftp.adobe.com All of your recent posts to this list (deb

Re: Proposition: Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian

The Wanderer writes: > On 2019-07-14 at 22:03, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 9:57 PM wrote: >>> Please Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian. >> Mozilla Firefox is available in Debian, the package name is >> firefox-esr. > That's t

Re: Proposition: Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian

On 2019-07-14 at 22:03, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 9:57 PM wrote: > >> Please Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian. > > Mozilla Firefox is available in Debian, the package name is > firefox-esr. That's the ESR version. I read this as being a reque

Re: Proposition: Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 9:57 PM wrote: > Please Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian. Mozilla Firefox is available in Debian, the package name is firefox-esr. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Propositon: Multiarchitecture Support in Next Debian 64-bit, Mozilla Firefox Release,...

Dear Woman and Man! Propositon: Multiarchitecture Support in Next Debian 64-bit (64-bit and 32-bit), Mozilla Firefox Release, in LXDE Startup Menu a Search field 32-bit i386 for Adobe Reader ftp.adobe.com With kind Greetings!

Proposition: Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian

Dear Woman and Man! Please Insert Mozilla Firefox Release in Debian. With kind Greetings!

Re: Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox

* patrick.dre...@gmx.net [190623 17:24]: > Fear Woman and Man! > > In the system is the ESR version. I will have the Release version. > Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox. > apt remove firefox* > apt purge firefox* > apt install firefox > How can resolve this? &g

Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox

Fear Woman and Man! In the system is the ESR version. I will have the Release version. Bug: can't install Mozilla Firefox. apt remove firefox* apt purge firefox* apt install firefox How can resolve this? With kind Greetings!

Re: Bug#522196: #522196 - RFP: gnu icecat - the GNU version of Mozilla Firefox

Hello, Brett Parker writes: > I thought they all now dynamically linked against xulrunner so that security > support was much simpler than before, so it's really just a frontend more than > a clone of firefox, no? Yes, I think Iceweasel and Icecat can share xulrunner without problems. After th

Re: #522196 - RFP: gnu icecat - the GNU version of Mozilla Firefox

On 03 Apr 15:42, Nico Golde wrote: > Hi, > * Raphael Geissert [2009-04-02 19:45]: > > [Security team BCC'ed] > > > > Hi, > > > > Do we really need another mozilla browser around? > > Last time I heard the iceweasel maintainers were looking for other people > > to > > help them. > > > > I don'

Re: #522196 - RFP: gnu icecat - the GNU version of Mozilla Firefox

On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:42:22PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > Hi, > * Raphael Geissert [2009-04-02 19:45]: > > [Security team BCC'ed] > > > > Hi, > > > > Do we really need another mozilla browser around? > > Last time I heard the iceweasel maintainers were looking for other people > > to > >

Re: #522196 - RFP: gnu icecat - the GNU version of Mozilla Firefox

Hi, * Raphael Geissert [2009-04-02 19:45]: > [Security team BCC'ed] > > Hi, > > Do we really need another mozilla browser around? > Last time I heard the iceweasel maintainers were looking for other people to > help them. > > I don't think yet another clone of firefox is going to do any good i

Re: #522196 - RFP: gnu icecat - the GNU version of Mozilla Firefox

[Security team BCC'ed] Hi, Do we really need another mozilla browser around? Last time I heard the iceweasel maintainers were looking for other people to help them. I don't think yet another clone of firefox is going to do any good in any sense (including the security POV). Cheers, -- Raphae

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:44:50PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:54:47PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Could you send me a copy of your bookmarks.html file privately? > > > > > > > >

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:54:47PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > > > > > Could you send me a copy of your bookmarks.html file privately? > > > > > > Eric, was this reproducible? > > > > Unfortunately it was very reproducible

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:54:47PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > > > Could you send me a copy of your bookmarks.html file privately? > > > > Eric, was this reproducible? > > Unfortunately it was very reproducible :( I'm not sure how to > proceed. Is anyone else using these patches that mig

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

* Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:25:36PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Martin Spoehrle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > Please test these packages! There was quite a lot of code change i

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

* Martin Spoehrle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > Please test these packages! There was quite a lot of code change in > > some of these patches, and the more users we have to test the sooner > > we can resolve any problems before this i

Re: proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > Please test these packages! There was quite a lot of code change in > some of these patches, and the more users we have to test the sooner > we can resolve any problems before this is an official security > release. bookmarks.html fi

proposed mozilla-firefox security update, needs testing!

At http://people.debian.org/~eric/mozilla-firefox you'll find mozilla-firefox 1.0.4-2sarge8. It contains backports of the security fixes present in 1.5.0.4. All these fixes are the work of Alexander Sack, who's been working tirelessly the last couple of weeks to get things ported. I

Bug#348317: ITP: mozilla-bookmarksync -- Mozilla Firefox extension to synchronize bookmarks

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: mozilla-bookmarksync Version : 1.0.2 Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL or Web page : * License : MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 Description : Mozilla Firefox extension to synchronize bookmarks Bookmarks

Bug#335459: ITP: flock -- mozilla-firefox based social web browser

ase of Firefox. http://www.flock.com/developer/licensing_FAQ.php Description : elegant mozilla-firefox based social web browser Specially built for a new generation of Web users, Flock is designed for those who are not satisfied with the current media online br

Bug#329834: ITP: mozilla-firefox-adblock -- adblock extension for the Firefox web browser

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jacek Politowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: mozilla-firefox-adblock Version : 0.5.2.039 Upstream Author : AdBlock Team * URL : http://adblock.mozdev.org/ * License : Mozilla Public License 1.1 Descr

Bug#323148: ITP: mozilla-firefox-webdeveloper -- web developer extension for the Firefox web browser

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Spang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: mozilla-firefox-webdeveloper Version : 0.9.3 Upstream Author : Chris Pederick * URL : http://chrispederick.com/work/ * License : GPL Description : web dev

Bug#300578: ITP: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar -- Mozilla Firefox Arabic Language/Region Package

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar Version : 0.2 Upstream Author : Ayman Hourieh * URL : http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Mozilla * License : MPL Descr

Re: Bug#282409: ITP: mozilla-firefox-locale-pt-br -- Firefox Localization Package to Brazilian Portuguese.

Hi! The es_ES translation is packaged in a separate package, because we uploaded it before the mozilla-firefox-locale-all was ready. The next version of mozilla-firefox-locale-all will also include es_ES translation. Regards, César El Martes 07 Diciembre 2004 14:57, Javier Fernández

Re: Bug#282409: ITP: mozilla-firefox-locale-pt-br -- Firefox Localization Package to Brazilian Portuguese.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 07:28:39AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > Can you indeed give us here the list of mozilla-firefox-locale-xx > > > packages your package currently generates? > > > > For the moment: (..) There is no es_ES. I believe there were mozilla-

Re: Asunto: Czech localization of Mozilla Firefox in Sarge?

|| On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:18:24 +0100 || [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: l> Otavio Salvador agreed to sponsor this package. l> We decided to wait one week before upload it to the archive, in order to l> get some more feedback. Probably we can already upload it. What do you think, l> Otavio? The only prob

Asunto: Czech localization of Mozilla Firefox in Sarge?

unday, but maybe it can be uploaded anyway. Cesar Martinez Izquierdo >-- Mensaje original -- >Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:33:34 +0100 >From: Miroslav Kure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Czech localization of Mozilla Firefox in Sarge? > > >Hi, >

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

nd also to know which of the current mozilla-firefox-locale-xx packages are interested in change to this new aproach. > I now just need telling them that it may automagically appear as soon > as they get their ar localisation upstream. Yes. Or they can directly send the XPI to me when it's

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

Quoting Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I've just uploaded a new version (1.0-3) that generates separate binary > packages for each language. This is great news. Thus you mean that in the future, as soon as a language is added upstream, we will get a new Debian binary package for

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 07:50, Mike Hommey escribió: > Anyways, I'd suggest to make a multi-binary package so that it produces > several mozilla-firefox-locale-* packages. > Mike I've just uploaded a new version (1.0-3) that generates separate binary packages for

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:52:35AM +0100, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:50:51PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > Anyways, I'd suggest to make a multi-binary package so that it produces > &g

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:52:35AM +0100, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:50:51PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > Anyways, I'd suggest to make a multi-binary package so that it produces > > several mozilla-firefox-locale-* packages. > > A stu

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:12:48AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: > El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 10:47, Jeroen van Wolffelaar escribió: > > Your package is native, I suggest supporting the 'get-orig-source' > > rules-target to make that one generate a .orig.tar.gz containing all > > upstream

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:50:51PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > Anyways, I'd suggest to make a multi-binary package so that it produces > several mozilla-firefox-locale-* packages. A stupid question from my side: do we have any code in the mozilla-* wrappers to automatically selec

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

Hi, On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:47:15AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: > > The "rules" file includes an "wget" rule that can download the available XPI > files with the translations. > After download new XPI files, if you regenerate the package then you get all > the required files for t

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 10:47, Jeroen van Wolffelaar escribió: > Your package is native, I suggest supporting the 'get-orig-source' > rules-target to make that one generate a .orig.tar.gz containing all > upstream languages. You mean that should I create one rule looking like the following? g

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:56:27AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: > El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 07:50, Mike Hommey escribió: > > You're not lucky, with the 1.0 package that just got uploaded to > > unstable, your package is useless, 'cause support for > > /v

Re: mozilla-firefox-locale package with all language translations

El Jueves 11 Noviembre 2004 07:50, Mike Hommey escribió: > You're not lucky, with the 1.0 package that just got uploaded to > unstable, your package is useless, 'cause support for > /var/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome.d has been dropped. Ok, no problem, I've uploaded a

  1   2   >