[lug] FF Certificate Expiry vs. Good Practice
stimits at comcast.net
Sat May 4 13:37:00 MDT 2019
> On May 4, 2019 at 12:05 PM duboulder <blug-mail at duboulder.com> wrote:
> Noscript is affected for me. Extensions got disabled after a browser restart.
This is the one I know is now missing which I really want back. I've not been able to find any indication within the browser though that noscript was ever there. I'd prefer to see it there, but disabled (and perhaps no way to enable, but definitely I don't want it to just suddenly not be there one day).
Regarding what people have been talking about with other protection, in the past I've used an old Linux box set up as a transparent bridge and various firewall rules. Additions like snort worked quite well. It was amazingly effective at seeing what goes on, and of course there is no way for an intruder to actually see the bridge (the control interface was on one NIC, public on another, and internal on yet another). The real beauty of this is that it can be thrown together quite quickly and not have to touch any box it helps protect (it won't matter if what is inside is Windows or Linux or anything else and nothing inside even knows it is there).
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Saturday, May 4, 2019 8:19 AM, Davide Del Vento <davide.del.vento at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only thing I have on my FF 66.0.3 (64-bit) from Ubuntu LTS, namely
> > noscript, seems to be working fine?
> > On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 7:58 AM Jed S. Baer blug at jbaer.cotse.net wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 May 2019 07:51:21 -0600 (MDT)
> > > D. Stimits wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm still trying to find out which extensions were
> > > > removed/disabled/broken. It seems the policy is to not provide any
> > > > means of knowing which extension was disabled. It used to be I could
> > > > see a list of extensions and they would be marked if disabled...now
> > > > they are invisible.
> > >
> > > Oh, that's rich. Hah! I'm all schadenfreude now! :) I cackle maniacally
> > > at the benefit of running an older Firefox build.
> > > Oh, seriously? I'm still running FF 54.0. I do that because it's the last
> > > build before the change to plugin architecture. So, I can see which ones
> > > are disabled. And maybe that's why the xpinstall preference is available
> > > to me, and not others? The /. discussion seemed to imply that it's more
> > > widely available than Mozilla claims.
> > > But, obligatory comment here about how Mozilla keeps taking more and more
> > > stuff away from end users. Yeah, we so dumb!
> > >
> > > Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
> > Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
> Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
More information about the LUG