3 ms·

Such a thing was created many years ago: http://www.adamlock.com/mozilla/plugin.htm http://www.adamlock.com/mozilla/plugin.htm One could guess that it was nev

by flomo 13y ago

Such a thing was created many years ago: http://www.adamlock.com/mozilla/plugin.htm http://www.adamlock.com/mozilla/plugin.htm One could guess that it was never included by default because Mozilla did not want to encourage the use of ActiveX controls.

viraptor 13y ago
Oh $BABY_DEITY no! That's not what I was suggesting! Activex in FF? Scared the hell out of me... What I meant is either reverse-engineering the algorithm and reimplementing it in FF chrome in clean JS like jlgreco mentioned below, or including just the kernel of the important logic, the way ndiswrapper uses windows driver for communicating to the network cards without actually implementing whole windows kernel.
- flomo 13y ago
  The security implications of requiring users to install Firefox add-ons are not any better than requiring them to install ActiveX plug-ins. (Other than pure vendor politics.) You still have the artificial requirement of some Win32 blob, which is the real issue.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    It seems that being forced to use IE on Windows is more limiting than having to install an extension for whichever browser you choose on whichever OS you choose. If the security protocol were published or reverse-engineered, a clean re-implementation outside of Win32 could take place.
    - flomo 13y ago
      It's still an undesirable result even if it compiled a portable Linux .so just for your CPU architecture. The requirements are so flawed the system should be junked, not hacked around. Also, I'm not sure why my post was dinged, but Firefox extensions/addons/plugins can call into native code and can do pretty much anything an ActiveX control can do. There is no "sandbox" as someone else implied.
      - atesti 13y ago
        But if the protocol is reverse engineered, one could USE the bank websites. There is no need for the reverse engineered solution to do any kind of anti keylogger or virus scanning stuff!

by flomo 13y ago

viraptor 13y ago

Oh $BABY_DEITY no! That's not what I was suggesting! Activex in FF? Scared the hell out of me... What I meant is either reverse-engineering the algorithm and reimplementing it in FF chrome in clean JS like jlgreco mentioned below, or including just the kernel of the important logic, the way ndiswrapper uses windows driver for communicating to the network cards without actually implementing whole windows kernel.

flomo 13y ago
The security implications of requiring users to install Firefox add-ons are not any better than requiring them to install ActiveX plug-ins. (Other than pure vendor politics.) You still have the artificial requirement of some Win32 blob, which is the real issue.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  It seems that being forced to use IE on Windows is more limiting than having to install an extension for whichever browser you choose on whichever OS you choose. If the security protocol were published or reverse-engineered, a clean re-implementation outside of Win32 could take place.
  - flomo 13y ago
    It's still an undesirable result even if it compiled a portable Linux .so just for your CPU architecture. The requirements are so flawed the system should be junked, not hacked around. Also, I'm not sure why my post was dinged, but Firefox extensions/addons/plugins can call into native code and can do pretty much anything an ActiveX control can do. There is no "sandbox" as someone else implied.
    - atesti 13y ago
      But if the protocol is reverse engineered, one could USE the bank websites. There is no need for the reverse engineered solution to do any kind of anti keylogger or virus scanning stuff!