Re: Announcing Project Things An Open Framework For Connecting Your Devices To The Web. The Mozilla Blog
Myong Killings
We believe the future of connected devices should be more like the open web. The future should be decentralized, and should put the power and control into the hands of the people who use those devices. This is why we are committed to defining open standards and frameworks.
As explained in the announcement blog post ( -the-web-of-things/) the Things Gateway is just one component of Project Things which is intended to bridge existing off-the-shelf smart home devices to the web. We are currently also working on a device framework with re-usable software libraries for building native web things with existing platforms like Arduino and Android Things.
Announcing Project Things An open framework for connecting your devices to the web. The Mozilla Blog
Download File https://vlyyg.com/2yVj3M
web2py Python framework now supports App Engine
We are always interested in frameworks that natively support App Engine, and the web2py framework recently came to our attention. Completely written in Python, web2py is described as a "free and open source full-stack enterprise framework for agile development of fast, secure and portable database-driven web-based applications." If your framework has native App Engine support let us know and we'll include you in a future blog post.
Actually, it does explain it pretty well on FF2. If they changed that it would be news.
FYI, here's the text in the popup for Firefox 2.0.0.7:
If you choose to check with Google about each site you visit, Google will receive the URLs [google.com] of pages you visit for evaluation. When you click to accept, reject, or close the warning message that Phishing Protection gives you about a suspicious page, Google will log your action and the URL of the page. Google will receive standard log information [google.com], including a cookie, as part of this process. Google will not associate the information that Phishing Protection logs with other personal information about you. However, it is possible that a URL sent to Google may itself contain personal information. Please see the Google Privacy Policy [google.com] for more information.
Parent SharetwitterfacebookHash (Score:2, Insightful)by Arthur B. ( 806360 ) writes: Why not send a hash with a salt ? It makes it fast to check if the url is in the malware blacklist but if Google wants to know the list of websites you visited, they have considerably more work to do. You could also send fake hashes along each request.Salt won't help you. (Score:5, Informative)by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) writes: on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @02:08PM (#20747101)Journal Salt helps for things like passwords, where two users with the same password will have it appear differently in the password file.
It makes no sense here. It would prevent a third-party from intercepting your browsing history -- but then, they can do that anyway, by simply being your ISP.
But if Google has the list of malware sites, obviously they know that foo.com resolves to a particular hash (with a particular salt). The only way this could possibly work is if Google stored a separate list for each user, each with its own salt, which would still require you trusting Google to be doing this and not to be keeping a mapping of hash+salt -> website.
There is no way hashes can solve this problem. The only solution is to either be smart, so you don't need a blacklist, or to download the entire blacklist periodically, which is an option, but not everyone likes it.Parent SharetwitterfacebookOh joy. (Score:2)by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * writes: Why does this need to be included by default? Am I the only one who finds the anti-phishing stuff to be annoying? Fine, some people want it, make a plugin or an extension, but stop adding tangential stuff to the codebase! Adding a piece of "functionality" to a web browser that does a name check on every website you load is bound to add a huge chunk of overhead.
Am I the only one who remembers The Kitchen Sink [mozilla.org]? Adding stuff like this into a pure vanilla install is ridiculous. I don't care if they want to makeRe:Oh joy. (Score:4, Insightful)by moore.dustin ( 942289 ) writes: on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @02:35PM (#20747455)Homepage The people who have no idea about about extensions and plugins(the average user), are the people who want the anti-fishing features. Being the more advanced user, it is far easier for you to turn it off than it is for the average user to seek, install, and maintain(update) a plugin.
I would agree that it is annoying for me as well though - I do not need the help of the browser to ward off phishing, especially at the cost of a performance hit. That said, Firefox is not a pet project of the geek world anymore. FF is aggressively seeking the mind and market share of the everyday user, so they must produce a product those users want. Outside of security, what is the real benefit of abandoning IE6 and more importantly IE7? Pages rendering correctly/standard compliance is not an issue with the average user, not in the least. So that only really leaves security, interface/usability, and I suppose can throw in the great extension selection as a motivator to switch as well. This is a move in the direction of better security to offer its users who value it.Parent Sharetwitterfacebooktoolbar (Score:2)by wwmedia ( 950346 ) writes: wait aint this the same google that pays people per firefox download (thats conveniently bundled with google toolbar which sends every url to google)...WordPress Now FireFox (Score:2)by WED Fan ( 911325 ) writes: I thought only MS could be evil. Well, Google, too. Now, you are telling me that open sourcers are evil, too? Now, how many of you that use WordPress...wait, firefox...dug into the code to find that out? Hands? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Nah, didn't think so. But, I bet a number of you upgraded. Doesn't matter, closed or open, you're argument about security is bogus unless you crawl through the code, otherwise, it might as well be closed.Old troll. (Score:2)by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) writes: Fact is, I don't have to, because a LOT of people already have -- the people responsible for developing and shipping Firefox, for example.
"May as well be closed"? Maybe, if no one outside the development team looks at it. But the difference is between a diverse development team, everyone paid by a different group, some not paid at all for their Firefox work, and a single, homogeneous team, working for one company, who may not even care what spyware goes in.
By the way, if you'd bothered to check, this featurGet a clue (Score:2, Insightful)by Anonymous Coward writes: Edit > Preferences > Security > Tell me if the site I'm visiting... >
[X] Check using a downloaded of suspected sites
[ ] Check by asking [Google, .. oh no other one in this dropdown] about each site I visit.
Also saves your bandwidth.Clueless users don't change defaults (Score:5, Insightful)by lowy ( 91366 ) writes: on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:57PM (#20746961)Homepage It seems to me that the users who most need anti-phishing protection are the ones least likely to change their defaults.SharetwitterfacebookThis is Idiotware (Score:2)by Burz ( 138833 ) writes: Because the people who put it in FF are acting like idiots by assuming average users are dumb and won't learn a couple of simple instructions. Hence, the idiots (i.e. many people in IT) don't even bother to suggest proper URL usage and instead concoct convoluted and invasive crap based on what a central authority considers socially acceptable for web browsing (and don't tell me the blacklist won't be expanded beyond suspected phishers-- you know it will).
The best thing they could do, IMO, is to render everyRe: (Score:2)by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) writes: First, realize the feature is disabled by default, and can be enabled without sending your browsing history to Google. Also, it's fairly likely it will let you visit those sites, it'll just prompt you first.