Installation of unsigned plugin for my Foscam Camera

[Den]

Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
Camera. Reason: unsigned plugin. (And I don't want to use IE)

If I set to FALSE "expinstall.signatures.required" as suggested by
many... it still won't let me install the plugin.

Any suggestion to overcome this situation ?

Den

---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Andy Burns]

Den wrote:

> Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
> Camera.

I thought that

1) 64 bit didn't ever support NPAPI plugins

2) with 52.0 the only plugin supported by bit 32 is flash

You could use 52.0 ESR for another year or so, and that should support
plugins, but then it's game-over.

[Den]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 21:18:36 +0100, Andy Burns <an...@usenet.invalid>
wrote:

Thanks for the tip; I'll try the 32 bits. As the flash plugin it was
to be my next question. :-)

[Den]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 21:18:36 +0100, Andy Burns <an...@usenet.invalid>
wrote:

I've tried the 32 bits and it also refuse unsigned plugins.

[Mark12547]

In article <mailman.1366.1491689899.10543.support-
fir...@lists.mozilla.org>, nom...@nomail.net says...

> I've tried the 32 bits and it also refuse unsigned plugins.
>
>

It has to be Firefox 52 ESR 32-bit. Be sure you are getting the ESR
(Extended Support Release) flavor, not the one in the Release Channel.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all/

Notice that that page identifies itself as "Download Firefox Extended
Support Release in your language".

Again, if you are using Windows, you want the one for your language and
the "Windows" column. And once installed you would again have to make
sure that expinstall.signatures.required is set to FALSE.

You do NOT want the one labeled "Windows 64-bit". No! No! No!

[WaltS48]

On 4/8/17 6:17 PM, Den wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 21:18:36 +0100, Andy Burns <an...@usenet.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Den wrote:
>>
>>> Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
>>> Camera.
>> I thought that
>>
>> 1) 64 bit didn't ever support NPAPI plugins
>>
>> 2) with 52.0 the only plugin supported by bit 32 is flash
>>
>> You could use 52.0 ESR for another year or so, and that should support
>> plugins, but then it's game-over.
> I've tried the 32 bits and it also refuse unsigned plugins.
>
> Den
>
>

Extensions that are unsigned are not allowed in 32-bit or 64-bit Firefox
release versions.

I believe they are still allowed in the Developer and Nightly versions
with the "xpinstall.signatures.required" preference set to "false".

<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/all/>

The Developer version starts with it's own profile and you could
probably use it only for your Foscam camera needs, while using the
Release version for all other needs.

That will change with Firefox 57 when Web Extensions are the only
extensions allowed.

It appears that your problem is with a NPAPI plugin and those (except
for Flash) are no longer allowed in Firefox.

You could try adding "plugin.load_flash_only" to your
about:config,setting it to "false", restart the browser and try
installing the plugin.

Note that Mozilla will remove the workaround in Firefox 53.0.

Good luck!

--
Go Bucs and Pens!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

[Chris Ilias]

On 2017-04-08 4:00 PM, Den wrote:
> Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
> Camera. Reason: unsigned plugin. (And I don't want to use IE)
>
> If I set to FALSE "expinstall.signatures.required" as suggested by
> many... it still won't let me install the plugin.
>
> Any suggestion to overcome this situation ?

What plugin is it trying to install?

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

[WaltS48]

On 4/8/17 7:41 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 2017-04-08 4:00 PM, Den wrote:
>> Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
>> Camera. Reason: unsigned plugin. (And I don't want to use IE)
>>
>> If I set to FALSE "expinstall.signatures.required" as suggested by
>> many... it still won't let me install the plugin.
>>
>> Any suggestion to overcome this situation ?
>
> What plugin is it trying to install?
>

One installed by the Foscam software according to this video.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZAThe94Pg>

[Dave Royal]

Den <nom...@nomail.net> Wrote in message:

> Firefox 52.0.2 (64b) won't let me install a plugin for my Foscam
> Camera. Reason: unsigned plugin. (And I don't want to use IE)
>

Does it really say 'unsigned plugin'? Extensions can/should be
signed. This is a plugin.
--
(Remove any numerics from my email address.)

[Dave Symes]

In article
<mailman.1377.149169305...@lists.mozilla.org>,
WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaol.com> wrote:
[Snippy]

> Note that Mozilla will remove the workaround in Firefox 53.0.

As a mere user/abuser of Firefox as my net browser, and the rigmarole now
required to make it (For Me) usable, I'm beginning to ask...

After Australis turning Firefox into a Google Chrome clone, and what's
following now... Is there any point in continuing with Firefox as the
browser?

Well I guess yes for a few version more, but what toilet contents are
waiting to be flushing on our heads after the latest round of hacking has
passed...

Dave

A long time Fx user in despair, so much so, that even the appalling MS
Edge is looking usefull. :-( ;-)

--

Dave Triffid

[Ryan P.]

On 4/9/2017 1:56 AM, Dave Symes wrote:
> In article
> <mailman.1377.149169305...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaol.com> wrote:
> [Snippy]
>> Note that Mozilla will remove the workaround in Firefox 53.0.
>
> As a mere user/abuser of Firefox as my net browser, and the rigmarole now
> required to make it (For Me) usable, I'm beginning to ask...
>
> After Australis turning Firefox into a Google Chrome clone, and what's
> following now... Is there any point in continuing with Firefox as the
> browser?
>
> Well I guess yes for a few version more, but what toilet contents are
> waiting to be flushing on our heads after the latest round of hacking has
> passed...

This is why many people install an older version of Firefox and then
disable updates. Many things require support that Firefox no longer
offers. And "buy new hard hardware that supports current security
standards" is not always an option. I'm sure most power users would
prefer that such support remained available, but disabled by default,
requiring an opt-in approach.

To be fair, Firefox isn't the only one moving in that direction. And
any of us who choose to disable updates is taking a risk.

>
> Dave
>
> A long time Fx user in despair, so much so, that even the appalling MS
> Edge is looking usefull. :-( ;-)

Let's not get silly, now! ;)

[Den]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:10:19 -0400, WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaol.com>
wrote:

>From Mark12547 and WaltS48 I get the message that even if I use the
Developer version I may still need to play around with settings
if I update that installed Developer version.

I think that using IE11 *JUST* for connecting with my foscam camera
may be a simpler solution. When I tried the 32bits version
with the installed 64bits version there were annoying situation with
the links.

With all the comments received I get the feeling that with Firefox it
will be a continuous battle.

You've giving me all the necessary knowledge to make a decision and
even go from one method to the other.

Thanks to every one

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<mailman.1369.149169206...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Mark12547 <mark...@xyzzy.invalid> writes:
>In article <mailman.1366.1491689899.10543.support-
>fir...@lists.mozilla.org>, nom...@nomail.net says...
>> I've tried the 32 bits and it also refuse unsigned plugins.
>>
>>
>
>It has to be Firefox 52 ESR 32-bit. Be sure you are getting the ESR
>(Extended Support Release) flavor, not the one in the Release Channel.
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all/

Thanks for that.

>
>Notice that that page identifies itself as "Download Firefox Extended
>Support Release in your language".

When I click "Check the system requirements" on that page, it takes me
to a page headed "Firefox 45.0 System Requirements" - I thought it was
52? (And I was going to say it says I need Vista, I though 52 was XP,
but then I realised that it did say XP, but a big white bar with "get
Firefox News" at its right was obscuring the XP. I hate opaque overlays
....)

>
>Again, if you are using Windows, you want the one for your language and
>the "Windows" column. And once installed you would again have to make
>sure that expinstall.signatures.required is set to FALSE.
>
>You do NOT want the one labeled "Windows 64-bit". No! No! No!

Thanks! (I'm 32 on this machine anyway, but I do have a 64 one: why do I
not want it?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

[Chris Ilias]

On your own, list the criteria that are important to you in a browser,
then compare the ones that meet your criteria, and try them out. If you
have any questions, start a separate thread.

[Dave Symes]

In article
<mailman.1385.149176014...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-04-09 2:56 AM, Dave Symes wrote:

[Snip]

> >
> > A long time Fx user in despair, so much so, that even the appalling MS
> > Edge is looking usefull. :-( ;-)

> On your own, list the criteria that are important to you in a browser,
> then compare the ones that meet your criteria, and try them out. If you
> have any questions, start a separate thread.

I was of course joking about Edge... I think death would be more alluring
than using Edge. ;-)

Over the years I've tried out a lot of browsers, and just before the
Australis debacle I again tried out a number of others, but so far always
end up back at Firefox.

Since then (Australis) I always run a copy of PaleMoon alongside Firefox,
so if and probably when it goes TU, I can just sidestep into PaleMoon.

When Fx version 57 arrives, if the Classic Theme Restorer is not
available, then Firefox, with a Chromified UI, will be (For me) totally
unusable.

I have alt options, but that's not the point...

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

[WaltS48]

On 4/9/17 2:58 PM, Dave Symes wrote:
> When Fx version 57 arrives, if the Classic Theme Restorer is not
> available, then Firefox, with a Chromified UI, will be (For me) totally
> unusable.

You might be interested in the Firefox 57 mockups post in
mozilla.general, or just skip to
<http://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/09/firefox-57-photon-mockups-activity-stream-library-compact-mode-more/>

[Den]

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 19:58:45 +0100, Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk>
wrote:

SOLVED!
For now, I tried IE11. With a minimum settings regarding (Active X)
I now can log into the foscam camera without addon from my computer,
tablet and phone. This will be the only purpose of IE11.

Thanks Dave, with your post, I discoved PaleMoon that I have already
downloaded and will experiment in the next few days.

Thanks again

[Dave Symes]

In article
<mailman.1393.149176765...@lists.mozilla.org>,

WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaol.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/17 2:58 PM, Dave Symes wrote:
> > When Fx version 57 arrives, if the Classic Theme Restorer is not
> > available, then Firefox, with a Chromified UI, will be (For me) totally
> > unusable.

> You might be interested in the Firefox 57 mockups post in
> mozilla.general, or just skip to
> <http://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/09/firefox-57-photon-mockups-activity-stream
> -library-compact-mode-more/>

Now that I've managed to pick myself up from rolling on the floor in
hysterical laughter, and with my rectum intact...

Thanks for that link Walt.

Unfortunately the UI still looks like a paving slab so it'll be about as
much use as a paving slab would be as a browser.

I don't doubt the folks who do coding for apps are all wonderful in the
maths world they inhabit, but in the world of aesthetics, they are grey
and boring (Insert own epithet as mine would be a pejorative).

A friend has a personal phrase I like, it's a bit like the "Silk purse
into a Sow's ear."

"Turning a bottle of Chanel into a Septic tank". ;-)

Dave

--

Dave Triffid