Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J05HYYY (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 12 June 2014 (→Safe Browsing API). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Firefox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 25, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted February 10, 2007 Featured article review Kept May 2, 2009 Featured article review Demoted April 30, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mozilla (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mozilla, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MozillaWikipedia:WikiProject MozillaTemplate:WikiProject MozillaMozilla Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Software: Computing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen Template:WP1.0

Template:Notareferencedesk

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Links to latest ESR downloads

For some reason, symlinks to latest ESR releases downloads are left pointing to 24.3.0 instead of being updated to 24.4.0, so URLs such as https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest-esr/linux-x86_64/ are still pointing to 24.3.0. All that applies to various links in Firefox § OS support history section – should we update them to point to explicit version directories (https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/24.4.0esr/linux-x86_64/, for example), or wait for "latest-esr" symlinks to become updated? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, those symlinks seem to be Ok now. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal bar and URLs

@Dsimic: What you mean by visible and invisible URLs? IMO MOS:COMPUTING#Website_addresses applies to {{URL}} as well as to {{Official website}}. And {{Portal}}'s crashes the References layout on my 1280x1024px screen.

@Codename Lisa: You told me many things about MOS and layout problems. Do I have the right here? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Regarding the URLs, let's start from a quote from the above linked MOS section:

Certain areas of Misplaced Pages such as infoboxes require website addresses (URL) to be exposed in print. To maintain readability and conciseness, certain parts of the web addresses may need to be hidden or their shorter forms used. However, the reader does not need to see all of these somewhat unappealing and hard-to-remember items, thanks to the web browsers and web servers' ability to infer them. In general, the following parts can be omitted.

Based on that, removing protocol specifiers ("http://"), common host names ("www") and trailing slashes ("/") from URLs applies only when those URLs are visible on a rendered page, such as when used in infoboxes' "website" parameter. When URLs are specified in {{Official website}}, for example, the URL itself isn't visible on a rendered page. Even for infoboxes, it's better to use complete URLs and get them displayed through additional {{URL}} template. Makes sense?

Regarding {{Portal}} vs. {{Portal bar}}, my opinion is that using {{Portal bar}} wastes vertical space which is premium in the today's widescreen era. You're right that it clashes with the "References" section below possibly reducing the number of displayed columns, however the recent typography refresh turned its 30em columns width into two columns displayed on 786px-wide screens, for example. Anyway, if you or other editors still find {{Portal bar}} to be a better solution, I'd be fine with that.

Of course, I'm more than open for discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello guys.

Here is what I think:

• URLs: This one is a little tricky. Dsimic is right that the criterion is MOS:COMPUTING is what's visible. However, a footnote in MOS:STABILITY says ArbCom has forbidden edits that make no difference and has treated obsessive compulsive edits with bans and blocks. In other words, if it works and looks the same, leave it alone. Neither of you must change {{official website}} into {{official website}}|http://www.firefox.com/ or vice versa and neither of you should revert it if somebody else did it between his edits. (A talk page notice may be okay, depending on situation.) So, both of you please do nothing about it anymore.
• Portal bars: Definitely Rezanansowy's edit, if I had to choose! I tried a 800×600 screen, a 1024×768 one and a 1600×900 one. In all cases, box intersects References section. As the width of the screen grows, the box bumps into the references, causing an unpleasant horizontal bar. I imagine the situation is alleviated on a 1920×1080 screen because of its enormous breadth but not everyone has such big screens and not everyone loves to read on that screen with browser maximized.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for an insight! I've edited the article so {{Portal bar}} is used. Regarding the URLs, I'd say there officially aren't two alternative styles for non-visible URLs, as MOS:WEBADDR says nothing about the URLs that aren't visible on rendered pages. Also, it's much better to include those elements; for example, not including the trailing slash in many cases generates an additional HTTP redirect whenever such URL is accessed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Defective browser

Why is there no mention that Firefox is highly unstable and will repeatedly crash your computer if you have Windows 7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no support for statements like that, however if you could provide a reliable source that supports your opinion, we could add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Safe Browsing API

In Firefox, this stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site, furthermore, and according to the 'safebrowsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". It is worth noting, that (like in Google Chrome or Chromium) although enabled by default, anti-phishing can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes and then by restarting the browser. According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals (presumably with Google's consent).

Whoever removed it before, said it "advances a position", I cannot understand why they would say that because there is no position given on anything in these statements, nor one that I can see which is being advanced. Also the content has been appropriately referenced. J05HYYY (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel word. J05HYYY (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the editor as well, but what I see is that advances two positions: 1) Firefox is not as secure as you'd think it is, and 2) it is part of some NSA conspiracy to report your name, address, SSN/SIN or other identifying information to them. The former may be true, but the latter is over-sold. They don't know who I am, only what I do. It does not give sufficient detail to inform the reader and leaves them with a feeling of insecurity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi

First and most important of all, revert comes before the discussion. It is not the other way around. Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly and their removal is even exempt to WP:3RR rule. In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent". In Misplaced Pages, we strictly don't presume, especially when the source says:

These specific slides do not indicate how the NSA obtains Google PREF cookies or whether the company cooperates in these programs.

Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO? Third, the source given does not blames the anti-phishing entirely. In fact it says:

The agency's internal presentation slides, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, show that when companies follow consumers on the Internet to better serve them advertising, the technique opens the door for similar tracking by the government.

Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly

well this isn't unreferenced or original research or about living people.

In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent".

I'll remove that for you then.

Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO?

disabling anti-phishing disables safe browsing, so no need for the cookie, but that's neither here nor there, you can't blame an edit for not adding information.

Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.

I think you're looking into it too deeply.

At no point does this paragraph say whether it's a good thing to enable safe browsing or disable it, only that it could be disabled. If anything you seem to have a bias to want the user to keep safe browsing enabled, because it's you who seems to think it's a good thing to have safe browsing enabled, via anti-phishing (thus sending all your URLs for every webpage you visit to Google, then somehow to NSA). I myself simply feel it's up to the user to decide whether or not they want this feature, but to be well informed of it's positives and negatives via websites such as Misplaced Pages.

J05HYYY (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the 'safe browsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". It also stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site. According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals. It is worth noting, that, although enabled by default, anti-phishing and thus 'safe browsing' can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes and then by restarting the browser.

Would the above suit you better? J05HYYY (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what we call WP:SYNTH (a form of original research): You took statements from different sources, put them together and made something none of the sources say, sneaking a couple of assumptions of yourself in between. Seriously, you play around with words and the only thing you do not address is my main concern.

And the entire thing about not saying whether it is a good or bad thing to disable the phishing filter is what makes it weasel wordy. Did you just mention the disabling out of nowhere for no reason? In that case, delete, because of WP:IINFO. Or are you implying that disabling it does something? Then again, delete, because of weasel wordy nature.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you trolling? Every point I made in the above was referenced. All of the references gave evidence to the points made. Nothing was strung together. Which exact part of the text do you think was made up, which assumptions, if any?

I wrote that it could be disabled because of neutrality, giving the user the choice whether or not they want it enabled. I read "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and it talks of "Summary-only descriptions of works.", "Lyrics databases.", "Excessive listings of statistics." and "Exhaustive logs of software updates.". Also the references given are not from independent sources. So WP:IINFO does not apply to this edit in any way, shape or form.

I think we can conclude this discussion, as your only objections to the proposed edit now seem to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please indent your messages properly and sign it. And not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. If you are unconvinced, you can invite additional input via WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to sign. I don't think we need additional input yet, I'm just still left waiting for you to tell me (specifically), which parts of the edit you disagree with and why.J05HYYY (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't call those who object with you trolls. I appreciate Codename Lisa's edits and rational thought process: I did not read the linked sources and obviously Codename Lisa has. I defer to that editor on this.

I also appreciate J05HYYY's additional and willingness to discuss. Other than what I stated above, I have no opinion, but it's clear that that this material is SYNTHESIS and should not be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis how? It's not original research - There are many sources pertaining to this, I just linked to a tiny fraction of them, so I don't understand why this edit shouldn't be accepted. Nobody, including Codename Lisa has objected to any specific points in this edit, which is why I asked if she was trolling.J05HYYY (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just coming here and saying "Nothing was strung together" does not make it true, because I am afraid from what I see, in fact it is so. For example, "According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals"; the source explicitly says that the cookie is not for identifying; rather, it is for finding someone who is already identified. (It uses a laser designator analogy.) So, you seriously might want to have a fresh set of eyes looking at it. Unfortunately, it also appears to me that all you did so far was trying to twist the meaning of what you read. For example, you nitpick on IINFO's example list, disregarding its lead that says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context". In addition, whether you did intent to imply something is a entirely different matter than whether your context-free sentence ends up implying something. After all, there is so much contents about the anti-phishing mechanism and nothing about other cookies, which the source makes it a case from the beginning.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, your objection is false.

A slide from an internal NSA presentation indicating that the agency uses at least one Google cookie as a way to identify targets for exploitation. (Washington Post)

The slides also suggest that the agency is using these tracking techniques to help identify targets for offensive hacking operations.

According to the documents, the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, are using the small tracking files or "cookies" that advertising networks place on computers to identify people browsing the Internet.

they do contain numeric codes that enable Web sites to uniquely identify a person's browser.

J05HYYY (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The data is put into context, if you have anti-phishing enabled in FF, then you use 'safe browsing' and thus have the PREF cookie. Any other false objections? J05HYYY (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't put the data into context, let the data speak for themselves and let the experts speak for themselves. Don't draw conclusions. That's what we're saying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You spend way too much effort into falsifying sentences to suit your own need and calling me a liar. Did you even read what you quote? Number One: You are abusing on the ambiguous meaning of "identify". Except the source does clarify:

The NSA's use of cookies isn't a technique for sifting through vast amounts of information to find suspicious behavior; rather, it lets NSA home in on someone already under suspicion - akin to when soldiers shine laser pointers on a target to identify it for laser-guided bombs.

...which the same thing that Walter said, without even looking at the source. Number Two: All the while this source does not peep about Firefox. Number Three: How all this going to justify the askewed point of view resulted from leaning too much on vilifying a security feature of Firefox, while millions of other forms of cookies are and may be used for the same purpose? Your own quotation reads: "cookies that advertising networks place on computers".

My opinion about the article remains what it was. If you think you can really put up a discussion that hold water, take it to WP:DRN; but mind you, they can drop your case and take disciplinary actions, should you resort to gaming the system like this.

Some regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You know, if he hadn't made all these strange claims and insinuations, he could have added some decent sentences to the article; in fact we still can do. The DarkReading source from InformationWeek is rather convincing, though without conspiracy theories. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but as it stood, it was not acceptable. Perhaps we could craft something that might be more NPOV and less SYNTHESIS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You read my mind. Only our NPOV effort would go into not saying it is "but nothing to worry about" as opposed to J05HYYY's doomsday version. And no more interpretation of "PREF cookie" = "the PREF cookie".

I'd wait to see if we have a DRN case, so we can discuss this as a compromise there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Misplaced Pages through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs)

That would be great. It's not censorship, but you'll be told that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but it'd be easier if you told me what specifically in the proposed edit you disagree with. To recap here is the edit, (I've taken into account what you said about the NSA link):

According to the "Safe Browsing" API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". "Safe Browsing" also stores a mandatory 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site. According to the Washington Post, the NSA use this cookie to, identify and "home in on someone already under suspicion." It is worth noting, that, although enabled by default, anti-phishing and thus "Safe Browsing" can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes and then by restarting the browser. J05HYYY (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Since no-ones responded within the past day, I can only assume it's OK. 86.152.89.167 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing worthwhile has been added or needs to be discussed in the past day. It's still a poor addition. I removed your addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it "still a poor addition"? J05HYYY (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read the rebuttals above? Not enough has changed since then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the user should be informed, so they can turn it off if they wish. J05HYYY (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

1. "Safe Browsing API — Google Developers". Developers.google.com. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
2. http://ashkansoltani.org/2012/02/25/cookies-from-nowhere/
3. "NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
4. http://www.darkreading.com/risk/google-safe-browsing-feature-could-compromise-privacy/d/d-id/1131636
5. "How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? | Mozilla Support". Support.mozilla.org. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
6. "Safe Browsing API — Google Developers". Developers.google.com. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
7. http://ashkansoltani.org/2012/02/25/cookies-from-nowhere/
8. "NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
9. http://www.darkreading.com/risk/google-safe-browsing-feature-could-compromise-privacy/d/d-id/1131636
10. "How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? | Mozilla Support". Support.mozilla.org. Retrieved 2014-06-10.

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Internet articles
• High-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• B-Class software articles
• Top-importance software articles
• B-Class software articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• B-Class Apple Inc. articles
• Low-importance Apple Inc. articles
• WikiProject Apple Inc. articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists