On 11.04.2017 10:22, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:22:40AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
are here exactly ?
>>> Extension auto-updating is considered "phoning home".
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:22:40AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
> >> are here exactly ?
> > Extension auto-updating is considered "phoning home".
>
> Isn't there a way to just disable part ?
Disa
On 09.04.2017 22:58, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 08:28:38AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
>> are here exactly ?
> Extension auto-updating is considered "phoning home".
Isn't th
Am 10.04.2017 um 03:20 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:53:54PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> At least ublock origin is available as Debian package for Chromium (as well
>> as
>> Firefox) meanwhile. But in experimental only. And it appears to be the only
>> extension for C
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:53:54PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> At least ublock origin is available as Debian package for Chromium (as well as
> Firefox) meanwhile. But in experimental only. And it appears to be the only
> extension for Chromium packaged in Debian currently.
There are other
Am Montag, 10. April 2017, 01:58:29 CEST schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 08:28:38AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> >
> >
> > could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
> > are here exactly ?
>
> Extension auto-updating is consider
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 08:28:38AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
>
>
> could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
> are here exactly ?
Extension auto-updating is considered "phoning home".
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
could anyone please give me some insight, was the security problems
are here exactly ?
--mtx
--
mit freundlichen Grüßen
--
Enrico, Sohn von Wilfried, a.d.F. Weigelt,
metux IT consulting
+49-151-27565287
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:03:00PM +0100, Martin Bagge / brother wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 07:50, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > I wonder if we could just add a boolean debconf question for this.
> > It could setup /etc/chromium.d/remote-extensions based on the answer
> > and provide some (dis)adva
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Martin Bagge / brother
wrote:
> Probably hard to do that without violating the importancy level of a
> debconf message.
It is also useless for someone who will install Chromium from the
Software app (gnome-software) included in 'gnome-core' since the
Software app
On 2017-03-23 07:50, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> I wonder if we could just add a boolean debconf question for this.
> It could setup /etc/chromium.d/remote-extensions based on the answer
> and provide some (dis)advantages info for selecting either option.
Probably hard to do that without violating
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:20:00AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:51:12PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > If we already know this is going to be major issue, why aren't we
> > doing the sensible thing and enable extensions by default
> The story of extensions in Debi
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> now we have extensions disabled in Chromium by default. If I did my
> homeworks correctly, that prevents Chromium from phoning home by
> default, and prevents a previous scenario where extensions could be
> installed but not upgrad
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:48:28PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> #858526 has an attempt to produce a binary package for Chromium. I've
> never touched browser extensions before, so extra eyes would be nice,
> but it seems to work.
Certainly well enough to be uploaded to experimental -- it's in NEW.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:51:12PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> If we already know this is going to be major issue, why aren't we
> doing the sensible thing and enable extensions by default
The story of extensions in Debian Chromium is a strange and sad one.
See also https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:58:20PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> > I'm taking a look at https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock since it's gpl-3
> > and has proper releases (I would expect that a lot of chromium
> > extension
At Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:03:02 +0100,
Enrico Zini wrote:
> now we have extensions disabled in Chromium by default. If I did my
> homeworks correctly, that prevents Chromium from phoning home by
> default, and prevents a previous scenario where extensions could be
> installed but not upgraded, becomin
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> I'm taking a look at https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock since it's gpl-3
> and has proper releases (I would expect that a lot of chromium
> extensions are a licensing nightmare).
Note that this source package is alread
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:41:16PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> > so what's going to be the best way to make these
> > available to Debian stable users?
> https://wiki.debian.org/Chromium#Extensions
Thanks, tha
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:14PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> so what's going to be the best way to make these
> available to Debian stable users?
https://wiki.debian.org/Chromium#Extensions
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey Enrico
On 22/03/2017 13:03, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Now, suppose I need an extension, what is the proper way to have it in
> Debian, so that it gets upgraded when needed? With that proper way, wh
at
> amount of phoning home is going to happen?
See
On 22 March 2017 at 12:03, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> now we have extensions disabled in Chromium by default. If I did my
> homeworks correctly, that prevents Chromium from phoning home by
> default, and prevents a previous scenario where extensions could be
> installed but not upgraded, becomin
22 matches
Mail list logo