What is XULRUNNER and why is it disabled?

[Jeff Barnett]

Just let my browser update itself to Version 11.0. It proudly announced
that XULRUNNER was being disabled. Since I know nothing about this
addon, I looked around to see what it is. The claim is that it's
provided by Mozilla! Am I being spoofed or doth the right hand not know
what the left hand is doing?
-- Jeff Barnett

[Good Guy]

I wonder if this is what you installed to see what it can do for you:

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Getting_started_with_XULRunner>

hope this might remind you of something.

Good luck.

--
Good Guy
Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk
Website: http://html-css.co.uk
Forums: http://mytaxsite.boardhost.com
Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us

[Jeff Barnett]

Nope, I never installed it. In fact I've never heard of it. My best
guess is that one of the FF updates gratuitously included it. At one
time there was a Mozilla "default" plugin, and at other times other such
stuff.

I followed your URL and it's just not the kind of thing I'd load either
for use or experimenting. Now that I see what it is and know I don't
want it there is an obvious next question: How do I get rid of the damn
thing?

FF has the annoying (and seemingly stupid) habit of inhibiting and or
disappearing the "remove" button when it disables an addon. Thus, you're
stuck with it in the list of addons.
-- Jeff Barnett

[Chris Ilias]

xulrunner 1.9.1? That's not from Mozilla. That's malware.

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[Jay Garcia]

On 02.04.2012 23:17, Jeff Barnett wrote:

Please bottom post, thanks.

More than likely malware. See
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner for
more on this addon.


--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/

[Jeff Barnett]

I am a bottom poster except when someone replies to me and TOP posts.
Both-ways posting, as I'm doing now, seems to be a lot worse.

Since you have stuck your oar in the water, tell me how to delete this
unwanted addon, not just disable it.
-- Jeff Barnett

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/2/2012 11:22 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-04-02 11:33 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> Just let my browser update itself to Version 11.0. It proudly announced
>> that XULRUNNER was being disabled. Since I know nothing about this
>> addon, I looked around to see what it is. The claim is that it's
>> provided by Mozilla! Am I being spoofed or doth the right hand not know
>> what the left hand is doing?
>
> xulrunner 1.9.1? That's not from Mozilla. That's malware.
>

Alright. In the list of addons, it seems to claim to be from Mozilla.
Now how do I get rid of it; it's already disabled?
-- Jeff Barnett

[WLS]

I think that was already provided to you.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner

--
Thunderbird Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane

[»Q«]

Others have posted links to instructions to get rid of it and its
registry keys.

I uploaded a copy to VirusTotal to see what anti-virus apps
currently detect it, in case you want to try one of them for cleaning
it automagically.
<https://www.virustotal.com/file/ffa7acc3d558414abdacd1ceb1f26adbe0067a009bb9a2e6efb73f1dc3d323a8/analysis/1333469826/>

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/3/2012 9:51 AM, WLS wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 11:43 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 4/2/2012 11:22 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 12-04-02 11:33 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> Just let my browser update itself to Version 11.0. It proudly announced
>>>> that XULRUNNER was being disabled. Since I know nothing about this
>>>> addon, I looked around to see what it is. The claim is that it's
>>>> provided by Mozilla! Am I being spoofed or doth the right hand not know
>>>> what the left hand is doing?
>>>
>>> xulrunner 1.9.1? That's not from Mozilla. That's malware.
>>>
>> Alright. In the list of addons, it seems to claim to be from Mozilla.
>> Now how do I get rid of it; it's already disabled?
>> -- Jeff Barnett
>
>
> I think that was already provided to you.
>
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner

Thanks. It's now deleted.

[John Thompson]

On 2012-04-03, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:

> xulrunner 1.9.1? That's not from Mozilla. That's malware.

It's from mozilla; it's just not very current:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/xulrunner/releases/1.9.1/>ls -l
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 3818 Jul 22 2009 KEY
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 711 Jul 22 2009 MD5SUMS
drwxr-xr-x 2 ftp ftp 4096 Jul 22 2009 runtimes
drwxr-xr-x 2 ftp ftp 4096 Jul 22 2009 sdk
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 783 Jul 22 2009 SHA1SUMS
drwxr-xr-x 2 ftp ftp 4096 Jul 22 2009 source




--

-John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-03 5:33 PM, John Thompson wrote:
> On 2012-04-03, Chris Ilias<nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
>
>> xulrunner 1.9.1? That's not from Mozilla. That's malware.
>
> It's from mozilla; it's just not very current:
>
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/xulrunner/releases/1.9.1/>

The XULRunner you're pointing to is not an add-on. It's a development
platform that applications like Firefox and Thunderbird are built from.
See how clever that malware author was? :)

[Jeff Barnett]

Aha. I also found this link:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Getting_started_with_XULRunner

I've now deleted it from my machine but still wonder how it got there
and why the FF update thought it would make my machine unstable.

More than anything, I wonder why when FF marks an addon code non grata
(or how ever that's spelled), it gets rid the "remove" button.
-- Jeff Barnett

[Jay Garcia]

On 03.04.2012 22:45, Jeff Barnett wrote:

--- Original Message ---

May not be "malware" by definition but surely problematic and caused a
lot of problems.

See this Mozillazine Forum article:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner

[Je...@nospam.fake]

Now I am worried!
I searched for XULRUNNER and found it on my system as a folder under
profilemanager-win32\profilemanager\xulrunner\

Should I be worried and uninstall profilemanager which I use to start
different Firefox profiles?

Jeff

[Bob Henson]

I'd certainly do some research as to what is *supposed* to be part of
the Profile Manager before deleting it. Xulrunner is an essential part
of some legitimate programs. My TomTom satnav program installs it under
Windows 7, and it is found in and/or used by most Linux distros that I
have seen.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


I'm retired. I was tired yesterday, and I'm tired again today.

[WLS]

Is it an add-on (extension) in your Firefox? That is what this thread is
about.

As Chris pointed out in one of his replies, xulrunner is a development
platform that Firefox and Thunderbird are built from. The standalone
profile manager probably is also built upon it.

[WLS]

On 04/04/2012 08:44 AM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:

I removed the xulrunner folder from profilemanager, and the profile
manager will not open without it.

[Je...@nospam.fake]

On 4/4/12 9:17 AM, WLS wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 08:44 AM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:
>> On 4/2/12 11:33 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> Just let my browser update itself to Version 11.0. It proudly announced
>>> that XULRUNNER was being disabled. Since I know nothing about this
>>> addon, I looked around to see what it is. The claim is that it's
>>> provided by Mozilla! Am I being spoofed or doth the right hand not know
>>> what the left hand is doing?
>>> -- Jeff Barnett
>> Now I am worried!
>> I searched for XULRUNNER and found it on my system as a folder under
>> profilemanager-win32\profilemanager\xulrunner\
>>
>> Should I be worried and uninstall profilemanager which I use to start
>> different Firefox profiles?
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> Is it an add-on (extension) in your Firefox? That is what this thread is
> about.
>
> As Chris pointed out in one of his replies, xulrunner is a development
> platform that Firefox and Thunderbird are built from. The standalone
> profile manager probably is also built upon it.
>

No it is not an add-on. So. I guess it is OK as part of profilemanager.
Thanks.

[Ron K.]

Je...@nospam.fake on 4/4/2012 11:16 AM, keyboarded a reply:

For some open source projects, the Mozilla Gecko run-time environment is
just the ticket for developers who know the XUL (eXtensible User interface
Language) developed by Mozilla. For them the packaging of Gecko and its
related components provides them a tested and proven backend for projects.

One I evaluated was a Font Manager for Windows. Had some nice features not
existing in font managers built from MS Visual Studio. Down side of using
XULRunner for a project is versions. Over time an app will become version
sensitive, needing an increasingly outdated build of XULRunner.

--
Ron K.
Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
Kernel Restore reported Major Error used BSOD to msg the enemy!

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/4/2012 8:52 AM, WLS wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 08:44 AM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:
>> On 4/2/12 11:33 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> Just let my browser update itself to Version 11.0. It proudly announced
>>> that XULRUNNER was being disabled. Since I know nothing about this
>>> addon, I looked around to see what it is. The claim is that it's
>>> provided by Mozilla! Am I being spoofed or doth the right hand not know
>>> what the left hand is doing?
>>> -- Jeff Barnett
>> Now I am worried!
>> I searched for XULRUNNER and found it on my system as a folder under
>> profilemanager-win32\profilemanager\xulrunner\
>>
>> Should I be worried and uninstall profilemanager which I use to start
>> different Firefox profiles?
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> I removed the xulrunner folder from profilemanager, and the profile
> manager will not open without it.
>

After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager. I see, also, from other
messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is not malware, as also claimed
in this thread.

So can someone tell me how to reinstall XULRUNNER without, repeat
without, creating a new profile?
-- Jeff Barnett

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-04 1:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager. I see, also, from other
> messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is not malware, as also claimed
> in this thread.

Folks, the xulrunner *extension* has nothing to do with the XULRunner
*platform* by Mozilla.
The malware extension is just cleverly named, so when you go searching
the web for the name, it looks like it's authored by Mozilla. The
XULRunner by Mozilla is *not an extension*.

There are plans to blocklist the extension.

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/4/2012 11:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-04-04 1:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
>> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager. I see, also, from other
>> messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is not malware, as also claimed
>> in this thread.
>
> Folks, the xulrunner *extension* has nothing to do with the XULRunner
> *platform* by Mozilla.
> The malware extension is just cleverly named, so when you go searching
> the web for the name, it looks like it's authored by Mozilla. The
> XULRunner by Mozilla is *not an extension*.
>
> There are plans to blocklist the extension.
>

Chris,

Then why does profile manager in TB go away when removing XULRUNNER
files (per Mozilla site instructions)to get rid of it in FF? At a
minimum, Mozilla articles should describe methods that don't harm the
Mozilla products.

Several people responding in this thread point at these articles as if
they were authoritative. They, apparently, were posted by well-meaning
but ignorant folks. Ignorant in this case means either they never tried
what they described and/or never examined the consequences of the
proposed remedies. I'm sure the people who posted incorrect and/or
harmful stuff in this thread were unaware of what they were doing and
just trying to show off. You know: do a little search, post a URL to an
article they haven't read or used, then sit back and believe you are at
the forefront of computer science.

I was using Version 10 of TB. I tried installing Version 11 and it
restored profile manager functionality. It did not install anything for
FF as best I can see. So I'm okay for the moment but a little
disappointed that Mozilla-provided information isn't in better shape.

For the record, I would be willing to pay a few for the use of TB, FF,
and Nvu so there could be some (more) vetting activities of releases and
more stable development. The products to date are terrific examples of
what freeware can be. Now I'd like to see those products and the
associated life cycle mature.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:06:25 -0600
Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 4/4/2012 8:52 AM, WLS wrote:
> > On 04/04/2012 08:44 AM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:

> >> I searched for XULRUNNER and found it on my system as a folder
> >> under profilemanager-win32\profilemanager\xulrunner\
> >>
> >> Should I be worried and uninstall profilemanager which I use to
> >> start different Firefox profiles?
> >

> > I removed the xulrunner folder from profilemanager, and the profile
> > manager will not open without it.
>
> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager.

I am not one of the allegedly ignorant people who were allegedly
showing off when posting those links, but I did look at them and didn't
see any steps there that would affect the Profile Manager. Can you
point to the specific page you followed?

> I see, also, from other messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is
> not malware, as also claimed in this thread.

This has been explained several times over, and I don't know what else
to say about it.

> So can someone tell me how to reinstall XULRUNNER without, repeat
> without, creating a new profile?

Reinstalling your Mozilla apps should repair the damage, if there is
any.

[Jeff Barnett]

One pointer was:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner where
it even instructs you to download a freeware search utilities for
Windows. That was utter, ruckus non-sense - the MS built-in search will
do everything necessary. The writer of the referenced page describes a
procedure - will call it an XULRUNNER ectomy - that destroys part of a
TB installation. Clearly, this is a very bad thing that was not vetted
or even checked very carefully. It was just tossed in the wind. Further,
I have difficulty with people tossing references to pages THEY haven't
properly evaluated.

And, by the way, reinstalling things like TB with a decade of history
embedded in a profile, is not my idea of a casual step, particularly
when one is using Windows. Way too much crude can go wrong and often
does if one is to believe posy=tings of the flavor: I just installed
Version x.y.z or auto updated me to Version x.y.z and capability C
disappeared, or file F was removed, or my inbox with 10,000 messages is
nowhere to be found, or ...., or .... Update and reinstall are
inherently dangerous activities. So is repairing an installation
following developer web-site instructions. I like products that reduce
these inherent risks. I'm not a cowboy who enjoys rebuilding computers
and digging in the guts of applications where I want to be user, not a
problem solver.

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-04 7:22 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 11:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 12-04-04 1:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
>>> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager. I see, also, from other
>>> messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is not malware, as also claimed
>>> in this thread.
>>
>> Folks, the xulrunner *extension* has nothing to do with the XULRunner
>> *platform* by Mozilla.
>> The malware extension is just cleverly named, so when you go searching
>> the web for the name, it looks like it's authored by Mozilla. The
>> XULRunner by Mozilla is *not an extension*.
>>
>> There are plans to blocklist the extension.
>

> Then why does profile manager in TB go away when removing XULRUNNER
> files (per Mozilla site instructions)to get rid of it in FF?

Did you have the same file location as Je...@nospam.fake? If so, you
probably installed the profile manager utility from
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Profile_Manager>.
Which means you had that *and* the malware xulrunner extension.

> At a
> minimum, Mozilla articles should describe methods that don't harm the
> Mozilla products.
>
> Several people responding in this thread point at these articles as if
> they were authoritative.

I'm not sure which articles you're referring to, but if you're referring
to the ones at mozillazine.org, it should be clarified that MozillaZine
and Mozilla are completely separate. And the links to mozillazine were
to forum posts, not articles.

[Ron Hunter]

All your personal data is stored in the profile, which a reinstall will
not affect. If you are concerned, then making a backup of the whole
profile should provide the suspenders you seek to supplement the 'belt'
provided by Mozilla by separating the profile data from the program data.

[Dave Symes]

In article <asydnT-1oOrVzuDS...@mozilla.org>,
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

[Snippy]

> All your personal data is stored in the profile, which a reinstall will
> not affect. If you are concerned, then making a backup of the whole
> profile should provide the suspenders you seek to supplement the 'belt'
> provided by Mozilla by separating the profile data from the program data.

If the OP is so worried... Personally I'm not, but after many years of
working with computers, I still take a few precautions.

I've got a .BAT file on my Desktop which when double clicked at the end of
the day session, copies various bit's 'n bobs from their usual halls of
residence to a second HD on the machine, including the Fx profiles of the
two users of the machine.

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

[»Q«]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:28:03 -0600

Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 4/4/2012 9:10 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:06:25 -0600
> > Jeff Barnett<jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/4/2012 8:52 AM, WLS wrote:
> >>> On 04/04/2012 08:44 AM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:
> >
> >>>> I searched for XULRUNNER and found it on my system as a folder
> >>>> under profilemanager-win32\profilemanager\xulrunner\
> >>>>
> >>>> Should I be worried and uninstall profilemanager which I use to
> >>>> start different Firefox profiles?
> >>>
> >>> I removed the xulrunner folder from profilemanager, and the
> >>> profile manager will not open without it.
> >>
> >> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
> >> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager.
> >
> > I am not one of the allegedly ignorant people who were allegedly
> > showing off when posting those links, but I did look at them and
> > didn't see any steps there that would affect the Profile Manager.
> > Can you point to the specific page you followed?

> One pointer was:
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2224643&hilit=XULRunner
> where it even instructs you to download a freeware search utilities
> for Windows. That was utter, ruckus non-sense - the MS built-in
> search will do everything necessary. The writer of the referenced
> page describes a procedure - will call it an XULRUNNER ectomy - that
> destroys part of a TB installation.

No, there's nothing there that would harm a Thunderbird installation.

> And, by the way, reinstalling things like TB with a decade of history
> embedded in a profile, is not my idea of a casual step, particularly
> when one is using Windows. Way too much crude can go wrong and often
> does if one is to believe posy=tings of the flavor: I just installed
> Version x.y.z or auto updated me to Version x.y.z and capability C
> disappeared, or file F was removed, or my inbox with 10,000 messages
> is nowhere to be found, or ...., or ....

Just install the same version you're already using.

[Je...@nospam.fake]

Please help me understand: if one installs something from
developer.mozilla.org why would that contain the malware extension? The
mozilla name would suggest it is a vetted extension since they host the
site. No?

In any case, I do not recall where I downloaded the profile manager
from, but my add-on screen does not show a xulrunner extension or
plugin. Would it perhaps be hidden or am I safe?

[»Q«]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:04:52 -0400
"Je...@nospam.fake" <Je...@nospam.fake> wrote:

> Please help me understand: if one installs something from
> developer.mozilla.org why would that contain the malware extension?
> The mozilla name would suggest it is a vetted extension since they
> host the site. No?

The malware didn't come from an extension hosted on a Mozilla site or
from anything else hosted on a Mozilla site.

> In any case, I do not recall where I downloaded the profile manager
> from, but my add-on screen does not show a xulrunner extension or
> plugin. Would it perhaps be hidden or am I safe?

As far as I can tell from your posts in this thread, there's no reason
to think you were ever infected.

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-05 3:04 PM, Je...@nospam.fake wrote:
> Please help me understand: if one installs something from
> developer.mozilla.org why would that contain the malware extension?

It doesn't contain the malware extension. They are to separate things
with the same name.

So how do you tell the difference? The one from Mozilla is not an extension.

[Jeff Barnett]

I do make regular backups. We even, periodically, save backups in a bank
vault. So that's not the issue. The issue is unvetted procedures.

[Jeff Barnett]

That's not the problem. See answer to post above.

[Jeff Barnett]

I see that everybody is in problem-solving mode to the wrong problem. If
there was no harm to a TB installation, why do I need to reinstall
it???????? Why, indeed, when the (non)harm is done while following a FF
fix-it procedure???? Please reread your comments and slooowly reflect.

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/5/2012 12:05 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-04-04 7:22 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 4/4/2012 11:41 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 12-04-04 1:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> After following instructions posted on a Mozilla web site to remove
>>>> XULRUNNER, I too lost the TB profile manager. I see, also, from other
>>>> messages in this thread that XULRUNNER is not malware, as also claimed
>>>> in this thread.
>>>
>>> Folks, the xulrunner *extension* has nothing to do with the XULRunner
>>> *platform* by Mozilla.
>>> The malware extension is just cleverly named, so when you go searching
>>> the web for the name, it looks like it's authored by Mozilla. The
>>> XULRunner by Mozilla is *not an extension*.
>>>
>>> There are plans to blocklist the extension.
>>
>> Then why does profile manager in TB go away when removing XULRUNNER
>> files (per Mozilla site instructions)to get rid of it in FF?
>
> Did you have the same file location as Je...@nospam.fake? If so, you
> probably installed the profile manager utility from
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Profile_Manager>.
> Which means you had that *and* the malware xulrunner extension.
>

Yes, though the folder had a different name. In both cases it was a
string of MS gibberish in squiggly brackets. Let me restate something,
I have never downloaded anything from the developer website. In
particular, I have negative interest in developing network code so I
would be repelled, not attracted to download XULRUNNER. It might have
been bundled with TB or FF at sometime. I use very few extensions: in TB
extra column, mail redirect, launchy (to get to FF), and reminder fox;
in FF Java, IE tab, extension list dumper, and something from Adobe.

I may have had both. My original question was "what is" and "how to get
rid of" the bad one in FF. I really wasn't asking the FF newsgroup how
to screw up my TB installation.

>> At a
>> minimum, Mozilla articles should describe methods that don't harm the
>> Mozilla products.
>>
>> Several people responding in this thread point at these articles as if
>> they were authoritative.
>
> I'm not sure which articles you're referring to, but if you're referring
> to the ones at mozillazine.org, it should be clarified that MozillaZine
> and Mozilla are completely separate. And the links to mozillazine were
> to forum posts, not articles.

This question has already been asked and answered in this thread.
-- Jeff Barnett

[»Q«]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:40:17 -0600

Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 4/5/2012 12:18 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:28:03 -0600

> > Just install the same version you're already using.
>
> I see that everybody is in problem-solving mode to the wrong problem.
> If there was no harm to a TB installation, why do I need to reinstall
> it????????

Because you said you'd harmed it, disabling Thunderbird's Profile
Manager. From the way you talked about it, it seems reasonable to
believe the harm came from deleting stuff you shouldn't have, and
reinstallation is the simplest way to put things back in place. (You
also said you were following instructions that were linked to from
here, but I don't see any such instructions.)

If the harm done to Thunderbird isn't a problem you're trying to solve
here, I'm sorry to have tried to help you with that problem.

> Why, indeed, when the (non)harm is done while following a FF fix-it
> procedure????

If you don't believe you did any harm while trying to follow
instructions, I don't know why you're still in the thread. And if you
did, I'm not clear on why you're calling it "(non)harm".

> Please reread your comments and slooowly reflect.

I wish you luck with whatever troubles you're experiencing.

[Chris Ilias]

On 12-04-06 4:50 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 12:05 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Did you have the same file location as Je...@nospam.fake? If so, you
>> probably installed the profile manager utility from
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Profile_Manager>.
>> Which means you had that *and* the malware xulrunner extension.
>
> Yes, though the folder had a different name. In both cases it was a
> string of MS gibberish in squiggly brackets.

Then it's not the same. :)

Let me restate something,
> I have never downloaded anything from the developer website. In
> particular, I have negative interest in developing network code so I
> would be repelled, not attracted to download XULRUNNER. It might have
> been bundled with TB or FF at sometime.

It never was.

> I use very few extensions: in TB
> extra column, mail redirect, launchy (to get to FF), and reminder fox;
> in FF Java, IE tab, extension list dumper, and something from Adobe.
>
> I may have had both. My original question was "what is" and "how to get
> rid of" the bad one in FF. I really wasn't asking the FF newsgroup how
> to screw up my TB installation.

I'm sorry something went wrong with your Thunderbird installation after
applying the instructions from the MozillaZine discussion.

The xulrunner extension is malware, and is not related in any way to the
XULRunner offered by Mozilla. The documentation on how to remove the
malware is not official Mozilla documentation.

If you're having problems with Thunderbird after applying those
instructions, post in the mozilla.support.thunderbird newsgroup, and the
people there will help you get TB running properly again.

[Jeff Barnett]

On 4/6/2012 4:17 PM, »Q« wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:40:17 -0600
> Jeff Barnett<jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2012 12:18 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:28:03 -0600
>
>>> Just install the same version you're already using.
>>
>> I see that everybody is in problem-solving mode to the wrong problem.
>> If there was no harm to a TB installation, why do I need to reinstall
>> it????????
>
> Because you said you'd harmed it, disabling Thunderbird's Profile
> Manager. From the way you talked about it, it seems reasonable to
> believe the harm came from deleting stuff you shouldn't have, and
> reinstallation is the simplest way to put things back in place. (You
> also said you were following instructions that were linked to from
> here, but I don't see any such instructions.)

Yes indeed. Following a posted FF fix-it procedure caused harm to my TB
installation; specifically, following that FF procedure killed TB's
profile manager. I harmed it in one interpretation of "I harmed it" I
guess. Actually, it seems the FF procedure (or its poster) is actually
doing the damage to anyone following that procedure and that includes at
least two co9contributors to this thread. My guess is the number of
installations harmed is much greater than two. If you want to see the
instructions, there are two possibilities: 1) a post in this thread with
a pointer to the procedure or 2) my reply repeating that pointer to
someone else who didn't look through the thread for it. I only retain
messages for a few days before TB deletes them but you can go to the
archive for this mail group and recover the URL. For myself, I don't
keep a list of URLs to bad pages.

>
> If the harm done to Thunderbird isn't a problem you're trying to solve
> here, I'm sorry to have tried to help you with that problem.
>
>> Why, indeed, when the (non)harm is done while following a FF fix-it
>> procedure????
>
> If you don't believe you did any harm while trying to follow
> instructions, I don't know why you're still in the thread. And if you
> did, I'm not clear on why you're calling it "(non)harm".

the expression "(non)harm" is a lame joke. I think there was a fair
amount of harm. Someone else thought not. Since I think it is pretty
obvious that there was harm, I jokingly gave the posters a "security
blanket" as a feel good while he/she decide whether or not damaging a TB
installation could, maybe perhaps, count as harm. It seems that you don
not think so and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

>
>> Please reread your comments and slooowly reflect.
>
> I wish you luck with whatever troubles you're experiencing.
>

Thanks

[Jeff Barnett]

It is running again; as I said earlier, I reinstalled TB and that seemed
to cure the problem.

If the articles on Mozilla web sites are not "official" and not vetted,
I highly recommend that the be marked a such in red. In fact, why not
mark the FF download site as having no "official" or "vetted"
documentation or help. Why not make it really clear up front rather than
waiting for screw ups.

I think I recognize your name as one of the people that tries to help
all comers in this mail list/newsgroup. If that is so and you have some
connection to Mozilla, I would like to make a recommendation through
you: Charge for TB and FF and have some "official" and "vetted" help
available, I'd be more than willing to pay for it. I made this
suggestion/statement earlier in this thread. I know these products are
freeware but to many of us are using them to be told that the only help
available is not "official" and, therefore, not trustworthy. I don't
think anything short money can cure this sort of dilemma. Freebie
implementers and document writers are chiefly stroking their egos and
having a good time but we may be past the point where that is a
sufficient model.

Part of the original thrill of Mozilla was; Microsoft, in your face. A
lot of us thought and still think that is a fun objective. However, MS
does occasionally support their products and take some responsibility
for problems. Don't let them pass Mozilla by, it would be a shame.

[»Q«]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:58:34 -0600
Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Yes indeed. Following a posted FF fix-it procedure caused harm to my
> TB installation; specifically, following that FF procedure killed
> TB's profile manager. I harmed it in one interpretation of "I harmed
> it" I guess. Actually, it seems the FF procedure (or its poster) is
> actually doing the damage to anyone following that procedure and that
> includes at least two co9contributors to this thread. My guess is the
> number of installations harmed is much greater than two. If you want
> to see the instructions, there are two possibilities: 1) a post in
> this thread with a pointer to the procedure or 2) my reply repeating
> that pointer to someone else who didn't look through the thread for
> it.

I was the one who asked for them, and you replied by pointing to a
procedure that could not possibly have affected Thunderbird's Profile
Manager. Either you followed some other procedure, or you didn't
understand the procedure at that page well enough to follow it. If you
ever decide to follow such a procedure again, I'd recommend reading the
procedure, deciding what files it would cause you to delete and what
settings to change, and posting those specifics before actually making
any changes.

Anyway, I'm glad you got things working again eventually, and I hope
you won't have to go through anything like this again.

[Chris Ilias]

If you're looking for official documentation, look at the KB (knowledge
base) section of support.mozilla.org. You get taken there when you go to
Help-->Firefox_Help. It's still community powered, but there's a review
process before changes are public.

The website you were referred to (MozillaZine) is not owned by Mozilla,
let alone not official. It's not a Mozilla product. Neither is the
malware you had installed and were trying to get rid of. You were
pointed to a *forum* post. This is a forum too. If someone wants to try
help you with a problem here, you shouldn't treat it as "official"
advice either.