Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:52:32 -0500
- From: Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override
On 02/09/2017 02:39 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
On 2/9/2017, 2:03:06 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/09/2017 01:31 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
Initially, yes, but the specific reply of yours in question that Walt
responded to with 'Bullshit' is the one that misunderstood what he was
That, or you did a piss poor job of quoting to keep the context of your
It was the exact quote that I just quoted to you that you
just said yes.
And being so that was the question that I asked. So the
answers given to that question refer to that question.
"Any bug a user sees as ACCESS DENIED is a security vulnerability."
"In the Eyes of the beholder. It's up to the user. I have
been using said extensions for years with no security
problems. If I want/need to use them then I have the choice
to do so which harms no one.
Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with what Walt said.
I said as Walt had stated in a previous thread. Which was
the same as Q stated-
filing a bug about the fact that Fx can be configured not to
verify add-ons. Evidently you didn't read the other thread
at the time. Walt knows what I am talking about. It was in
the m.s.firefox group which Walt said-"Thanks for reminding
me I want to file a bug to block that patch."
Thread-Addon not verified.
In the Bug report that Q posted not all thought that it
needed to be resolved a a couple were against banning the
user from making changes that give him what he wants. A
couple wanted it made so that the use can make those changes
but stop malware from making those changes.
So, as I said, you either misunderstood Walt, or failed to properly
limit the quoted text to provide the correct context for your response.
general mailing list