This bug was fixed in the package firefox - 3.6.8+build1+nobinonly-
0ubuntu3
---
firefox (3.6.8+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu3) maverick; urgency=low
[ Chris Coulson ]
* Fix LP: #605336 - "Report Broken Web Site" option missing - don't
disable the reporter extension when building
** Branch linked: lp:~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.6.maverick
--
firefox apparmor profile is too lenient
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/592121
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lis
Thank you
--
firefox apparmor profile is too lenient
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/592121
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listin
I have changed this to Fix Committed since at least part of the issue in
this bug is that the shipped profile is a conffile which makes
restricting the profile more difficult than it needs to be.
With the next firefox in Ubuntu 10.10, this easier to configure.
Specifically, a stripped down /etc/ap
** Changed in: firefox (Ubuntu)
Status: Won't Fix => Fix Committed
--
firefox apparmor profile is too lenient
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/592121
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubun
Here you have plenty of reasons why the current state of the ubuntu
firefox/thunderbird apparmor configuration is a security nightmare:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-
vulnerabilities/firefox36.html#firefox3.6.7
--
firefox apparmor profile is too lenient
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/59
hi
I also think that the default profile is too loose,
but apart want not to deviate from the basic security policies mozilla
what are real problems that would cause a limitation of Firefox folders
. Firefox
public
Downloads
?
what are the cases in which a restriction like this (which I think
Rather than discussing the issue, you also speak of me being an American
and all the ignorance that that brings, my qualifications for working in
security, and accuse me of ignoring your arguments. I did not
reciprocate, but instead, attempted to answer the points at hand. You
also quoted me out of
@Hadmut Danisch:
Please review the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, and cease the personal attacks
immediately:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct
> > The browser is supposed to be able to read and write files from the user's
> > directory.
>
> Technically wrong.
>
> The browser is supposed to r
On 10.06.2010 17:40, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> I'll put your personal attack aside
Unfortunately, it is a major american attitude and a trained form of
ignorance to void and discard a complete class of critics. When making
a mistake which's reasons are in the personal views and mind of the one
w
** Changed in: firefox (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid => Won't Fix
--
firefox apparmor profile is too lenient
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/592121
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bug
I'll put your personal attack aside and address your point as I think
your main question is valid. I would appreciate it if you would
discontinue these attacks.
I did not miss your point. The browser is supposed to be able to read and write
files from the user's directory. This is *by design* of
12 matches
Mail list logo
