On Friday, 18 September 2015 12:29:46 UTC+10, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> base. If you look at Mozilla's own figures at
> https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/, they have a 90% dissatisfaction rating from
To make my point again, I can't access https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/ from
Firefox, I have to use
On Friday, 18 September 2015 12:29:46 UTC+10, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> AnilG writes:
>
> >This is really big picture here: I've looked up and suddenly seen Firefox
> >market share trajectory looking like we need some steering input fast. This
> >is a 3 to 6 year pictu
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 10:11:06 UTC+10, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Chrome has pinning too . . . I don't think lack of support
> for MITM attacks is a bug that should be addressed. It's a security
> liability even when used internally by an organization.
Thanks for your contribution, Daniel.
I
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 09:27:15 UTC+10, s...@gmx.ch wrote:
> MITM is *always* bad and breaks the web. Modern browsers, especially
> Firefox, have great features to protect the users and this is something
> good. I'm pretty sure your students don't even know, that you attack
> their connect
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 08:02:21 UTC+10, David Keeler wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 02:51 PM, AnilG wrote:
> > Thanks Kathleen, those links might be helpful. I'm following them up in
> > Chrome because there's another issue blocking them for Firefox: Secure
> > Co
On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 18:14:28 UTC+10, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On 2015-09-15 02:12, Anil Gulati wrote:
> > So I'd agree Firefox is not being too strict (in this scenario anyway - I
> > had previous issues a few months ago where Chrome worked and Firefox
> > didn't) but Firefox does have the
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 04:00:22 UTC+10, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
> On 9/16/15 1:13 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think they can distribute the certificate for use by chrome and
> > internet explorer by using the group policy and so it's trivial for them
> > to distribute it to all the PCs. I
s bar. Other domains are also affected.
I'd also personally like to breakdown the issues we are experiencing that
unintentionally block this URI in this same context to see if it's relevant and
important.
On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 08:42:33 UTC+10, AnilG wrote:
> My point is that
Thanks Gerv, I take your point. I think I do get a list of user certs from
Keychain on Mac but I suppose that may not modify your response from a coding
point of view.
My point is that Firefox will be no good for the web if no one is using it.
1. I have seen Firefox go from recommended browser
I wonder if it's been decided yet, or whether it's still disputed, whether
keeping a separate certificate database is more secure or not (Feb 2015
http://news.softpedia.com/news/44-000-Superfish-MitM-Certificates-Found-in-Mozilla-Firefox-473823.shtml),
or was this dispute just naively founded?
means I'm the last guy in my organisation still
hanging on to FF. I'm worried that this may be a global issue cutting FF out of
commercial (firewalled) use.
On Saturday, 12 September 2015 03:26:07 UTC+10, Chris Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:21 PM, AnilG wrote:
>
Thanks Richard and Kurt.
I made sure I trusted it as much as possible :-)
All three bits are set (checked / on / trusted): web, mail and software.
On Saturday, 12 September 2015 13:18:52 UTC+10, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015
Thanks Chris, I appreciate any help I can get. I'm trying to help IT get this
fixed so we can keep FF.
I already, and now again on your advice, imported to Firefox Authorities
Certificates the same certificate that was circulated by IT in a package, which
is presumably the OS installed certific
13 matches
Mail list logo
