4 ms·
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 ven
by 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 agoIt 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 agoIt'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 agoBut 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!