Question about 9.5
SD
this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It made
it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and save
otherwise.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both naive
users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain about
virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious drawbacks, namely
making things harder for those legitimately interested in cached files.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
Bill P
<ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>
>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It made
>> it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and save
>> otherwise.
>
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both
> naive users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain
> about virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious drawbacks,
> namely making things harder for those legitimately interested in cached
> files.
>
Is this set in stone? Can it be made optional?
"virus scanners (who can complain about virusses)" seems more an
annoyance than a risk?
--
OpenSuse 10.2 x64, KDE 3.5, Opera 9.x weekly
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:54:31 -0400, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> <ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>>
>>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It
>>> made it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and
>>> save otherwise.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both
>> naive users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain
>> about virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious
>> drawbacks, namely making things harder for those legitimately
>> interested in cached files.
>>
>
> Is this set in stone? Can it be made optional?
I really doubt an option will be made available, the issue is too obscure
for that. But we are aware of the issue. Another option would be to
improve the opera:cache page, to make it possible to interact with the
files there. But, I've no idea if/when you'll see changes.
> "virus scanners (who can complain about virusses)" seems more an
> annoyance than a risk?
Yes. But we don't want to make software that annoys users.
SD
> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>
>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It
>> made it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and
>> save otherwise.
>
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both
> naive users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain
> about virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious drawbacks,
> namely making things harder for those legitimately interested in cached
> files.
>
would be most welcome so I don't have to guess by approximate file sizes
what is the content I'm looking for.
SD
problem with Avast, AVG, Norton and PC-cillin. So the blame lies
entirely on the problem virus scanner.
Matthew Winn
> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>
> > - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
> > this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It made
> > it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and save
> > otherwise.
>
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both naive
> users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain about
> virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious drawbacks, namely
> making things harder for those legitimately interested in cached files.
How about removing the extensions from executable files only? Having
access to cached files is important to me, so unless opera:cache is
improved to allow sorting in various ways and saving of files into
other locations I can't use 9.50 for many purposes.
And now I think about it, this change actually increases the risk of
security problems because it's now much harder for someone wanting to
extract a file from the cache to identify the file they want. If I
want, say, a JPEG, then under earlier versions of Opera I can look at
the JPEG files in perfect safety. Under 9.50 I don't know which files
are JPEGs, and I have to peek into many more files to find the one I
want, trying out various extensions in the hope of hitting one that
matches the real contents of the file. That strikes me as both tedious
and risky, as I'm now having to open files that I would otherwise have
left untouched.
I don't think useful functionality should be removed simply to protect
halfwits from the consequences of arrant stupidity. If someone goes to
the trouble of tracking down their cache directory and digging through
it, it's not unreasonable to assume they have some level of competence
and won't think "Oh look, an exe file; I wonder what'll happen if I run
it?" If they are so stupid as to do that then sooner or later they'll
find some other way of wrecking the system, so Opera is only postponing
the inevitable.
This is like banning all electrical products because of the fear that
someone might try to watch television in the bath.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Bill P
wrote:
nicely put
David W. Hodgins
Agreed. Especially when trying to find videos, that have been downloaded,
but for whatever reason, refuse to play in the selected plugin/application.
Having the file extentsion's kept, even if it's a non-default option,
is one of the reasons I've preferred opera, over firefox.
Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <op.tyaiqrr...@hodgins.homeip.net>
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:45:42 -0400, SD <nos...@ibookdb.net> wrote:
>
>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It made
>> it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and save
>> otherwise.
>
>Agreed. Especially when trying to find videos, that have been downloaded,
>but for whatever reason, refuse to play in the selected plugin/application.
>
>Having the file extentsion's kept, even if it's a non-default option,
>is one of the reasons I've preferred opera, over firefox.
>
>Regards, Dave Hodgins
I share the same cache directory with ver 9.23 also (I'm not
going to blow than much disk space for a seperate cache). It
seems to pick up the new 9.50 entries so far, but I don't
know if it can make use of them. I just checked and 9.23
does indeed use the cache entries made by 9.50.
New problem though is trying to pass the cached file to an
external program. I use Irfanview for instance to view
cached images. It isn't too happy receiving file names
without the proper extension and says so. I know other
programs won't just complain, they will refuse to load the
unknown file...
Make this naming idea optional or get rid of it.
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
Opera 9.23-8808/PII/NT4sp6a
FV
2007 15:54:31 +0200:
> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>
>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It made
>> it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and save
>> otherwise.
>
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both
> naive users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain
> about virusses) were a problem, apparently.
I can agree with the naive users point of view, albeit not wholeheartedly.
But is there conclusive evidence about the virus scanner argument? Virus
scanners that only scan files based on their extension seem severely
flawed to me. And if virus scanners do scan extensionless files (which
they should), they should give an alert anyhow.
--
Fabian
John H Meyers
>> Cache files no longer use file extensions
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both naive
> users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain about
> virusses) were a problem, apparently.
If a virus scanner detects a virus in a properly named file,
but omitting the extension manages to bypass detection,
how is this an "improvement" to security?
--
FV
23:02:40 +0200:
The improvement to security is that naive users can no longer click.
Trying to fool virus scanners is just an improvement to the sanity of
paranoid users who throw their computer out of the window in fear of being
infected as soon as they see a warning on Opera's cache folder. There was
quite an amusing thread on that a week ago.
--
Fabian
John H Meyers
JHM
>> If a virus scanner detects a virus in a properly named file,
>> but omitting the extension manages to bypass detection,
>> how is this an "improvement" to security?
FV
> The improvement to security is that naive users can no longer click.
Zero improvement -- if a virus scanner recognizes the properly named file,
it will quarantine it anyway, before it can be opened.
> Trying to fool virus scanners is just an improvement
> to the sanity of paranoid users who throw their computer out of the window
> in fear of being infected as soon as they see a warning on Opera's cache folder.
How about removing the seat belts and air bags from cars,
to help drivers avoid fear of crashing?
--
Marko Koivuniemi
> Op Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:45:42 +0200 schreef SD <nos...@ibookdb.net>:
>
>> - Cache files no longer use file extensions: What is the reason behind
>> this?? I really liked the fact that cache files had extensions. It
>> made it easy to find plugin content that was not easy to download and
>> save otherwise.
>
> If I understand correctly, this was done for security reasons. Both
> naive users (who can doubleclick) and virus scanners (who can complain
> about virusses) were a problem, apparently. There are obvious drawbacks,
> namely making things harder for those legitimately interested in cached
> files.
I like this change because of two reasons.
1. Couple of times I have search certain file in my computer (by
extension and date) and search results found zillions of useless cache
files. I keep my Opera profile in my documents-drive and back up whole
tings so sometimes it's easier to search entire drive.
2. I have repaired corrupted filesystems with recovery programs. Cache
files with extensions seems valuable when recovery program cannot find
exact names of the files. So in the end I have rescued also all cache
files and its annoying to find real important files.
Maybe work around for all could be somekind of .cache -extension after
normal extension. For example cached_image.jpg.cache? Could this
solutions help dealing with antivirus programs and still help users to
find certain cache files if needed.
--
Marko
FV
04:03:53 +0200:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:54:00 -0500:
>
>> The improvement to security is that naive users can no longer click.
>
> Zero improvement -- if a virus scanner recognizes the properly named
> file,
> it will quarantine it anyway, before it can be opened.
Who says everyone has a virus scanner that recognizes and quarantines the
file?
>> Trying to fool virus scanners is just an improvement
>> to the sanity of paranoid users who throw their computer out of the
>> window
>> in fear of being infected as soon as they see a warning on Opera's
>> cache folder.
>
> How about removing the seat belts and air bags from cars,
> to help drivers avoid fear of crashing?
My thoughts exactly. I was not justifying current behaviour, only trying
to explain it. I'm only afraid Opera's developers won't come back on this
decision.
--
Fabian
Jernej Simončič
> 2. I have repaired corrupted filesystems with recovery programs. Cache
> files with extensions seems valuable when recovery program cannot find
> exact names of the files. So in the end I have rescued also all cache
> files and its annoying to find real important files.
Recovery programs usually set file extensions from the file contents, so
not having the extension when the disk is in normal state won't prevent the
recovery program from attaching one when you're rescuing data.
--
begin .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej simoncic at isg si >
end
John H Meyers
> I like this change [remove extensions from cache] because of two reasons.
> 1. Couple of times I have search certain file in my computer
> (by extension and date) and search results found zillions
> of useless cache files.
Clear cache before searching.
And before backups :)
Searching by file content brings similar severe penalties,
which "extension removal" does not solve.
Current Opera Mail also makes backups and searches work extra hard
(and moves indexing load into the Windows directories),
because of the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of individual files.
--
John H Meyers
> Who says everyone has a virus scanner that recognizes and quarantines the file?
Is Opera offering itself as a cure for having no anti-virus,
for people who won't even install free AV,
and who also don't know enough not to open foreign files?
Free AV for personal, non-profit use:
http://free.grisoft.com
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-for-linux-workstation.html
>> How about removing the seat belts and air bags from cars,
>> to help drivers avoid fear of crashing?
> My thoughts exactly. I was not justifying current behaviour,
> only trying to explain it. I'm only afraid Opera's developers
> won't come back on this decision.
I think I'll keep 9.23 for a long while :)
--