Re: Firefox 63 beta 64 and windows 7 64 not working again


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

There is no such thing as a secure system of course as to make one would make it unusable most of the time. You just need to be careful.

Its all a trade off and people should know that its no different to real life in that regard.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Stone" <antony.stone@nvda.open.source.it>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 63 beta 64 and windows 7 64 not working again


Gene said "Accessibility can be a security risk and stating that it is not is
an impairment to credibility."

For a good example of this, the Windows 7 accessibility service, available
before the user has logged in, can be used to get in to a computer which you
do not have the password for.

The short version of how a sighted person can do this is:

1. Boot the computer from the Windows 7 installation CD (or recovery
partition, USB stick, or whatever method you have to repair the machine)

2. Select "repair your computer"

3. Choose "Command Prompt" as the recovery tool and type the following three
commands:
cd windows\system32
ren utilman.exe utilman.exe.bak
copy cmd.exe utilman.exe

4. Remove the installation CD and reboot the machine.

5. At the Login screen, press Windows+U and you have a Command Prompt running
with System privilege - you can do anything, including resetting the password
to log in to the machine.

You can read the full version of how to do this at
https://www.technibble.com/bypass-windows-logons-utilman/


Regards,


Antony.

On Tuesday 16 October 2018 at 12:40:53, Gene wrote:

Accessibility can be a security risk and stating that is not an impairment
to credibility. It depends on how it is implemented whether and to what
extent it is a security risk. Mozilla could have implemented
accessibility in a different way that would not have slowed things down.
That is my understanding because I saw a critical comment by a
knowledgeable person somewhere criticizing them for that. But Firefox is
not crap. Some people have slow performance now and some don't and I
haven't seen any explanation of why. I don't know if anyone knows. But
categorically saying it is crap is not true nor fair. How quickly people
forget. Firefox was accessible maybe a decade before Google finally got
around to making Crome properly accessible. And now, because of a speed
problem, and a factually true statement that accessibility can be a
security risk, Firefox is crap?

In addition, there are many other reasons Mozilla changed the internal
workings of the program. This was not just a change to accessibility.
and Chrome isn't perfect either. It is a Google product and, from what
I've read, collects more information about what you do to feed the Google
selling aedvertising machine. I don't particularly care, there is no
privacy these days anyway, but some people still care, in their quixotic
way. Google is faster and I mostly use it now but Firefox isn't crap.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:27 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 63 beta 64 and windows 7 64 not working again


Reguardless of what they say, firefox is crap.

Simply that they deem accessibility could be a security risk and will
slow things down is my main reason not to trust mozilla anymore.

The only reason I use thunderbird is that I don't need to access the
addons interface which is flat out crap and inaccessible but I don't
need it.

New firefox is crap and will always have a bad reputation in my books.

Waterfox 56 seems to adopt both classic and new tech, and as long as we
users can get the scripts for it it will be good.

There are a few downsides to it though.

The first is because of firefox 60 and up we will not get any more new
addons ever for it and will have to run older versions of addons for ever.

Depending on what those are it may not matter in most cases, noscript
works as it always has, nav sounds, privacy badger, and https everywhere
just work and its all I really give a damn about.

I'd like it in ccleaner but as I have set it to never remember my
history at all well who knows.

Its also not secured as often or updated as often, trying to stay as
close to the esr versions as it can.

Right now its still showing firefox 56.

The authors say that it will eventually have to change and its getting
rewritten and also that there is an addon store coming.

The users are happy though and I suspect the dev is taking his sweet
time about any real change and is in no hurry.

If you really want a secure as up to date program waterfox is probably
not for you chrome is good, though they have their own issue.

If you can stomach firefox then its your best bet to continue I guess.

But if like me you just want the same old net to work, waterfox just
does that.

No tracking etc.

Ofcause you loose things like extra shields by default, and a few other
things like internal app updates, and autoupdates by mozilla updaters.

It does update itself so I don't think that matters.

On 10/16/2018 9:35 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Anyone tried Firefox 63 beta 64bit on windows 7?; I cannot get
anything to read on the screens; it just says unknown.; Is this a bug
in the Firefox beta?; If somebody could test other than myself then if
it is; have a poke at Mozilla.; 62.03 seems to work fine here which is
why I was concerned. I had to do a system restore in case the reason
it fails is that its messed with the registry somehow.; Remember its
windows 7 64. I am still keeping waterfox as default due to it having
system sound capability. its about time Firefox built these in to
their browser as well.; Brian
--
How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
No.

Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.

Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.