Re: Allow/Disallow Java applets per site

I prefer to remove large chunks of functionality for sites that might be 
questionable; i.e. sites not in my white list.  I would prefer to enable 
java, javascript, flash and other stuff only for specific sites.  While 
it is good to fix the security problems, I like to play it conservative 
and I don't really like folks telling me I only have the choice to 
enable/disable a feature like java for all sites.  It would be 
preferable to have a white list for such feature.

When I was using the IE monopoly software, I used conservative settings. 
  A good chunk of the security issues were avoided due to my 
conservative settings.

Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
> Fabrizio Marana wrote:
> 
>> 1.0.4 is the proof  I needed to escalate this again.
>>
>> [...]
>> So again:  per site java plug-ins/applets control would make FireFox more
>> secure...
> 
> 
> There is *no* connexion between the very serious problems that were 
> fixed in 1.0.4 and java/applet.
> Honestly I was tempted to stop my answer your message there.
> 
> But let's try to be constructive.
> 
> What you seem to want would be best be solved, with a more generic 
> thinking, by a method to filter content to remove/inactivate unwanted 
> elements per site.
> 
> This is very near to what Adblock does. Per site CSS, or grease scripts 
> is another way.
> 
> But still there's no way to know where the attackers will shoot before 
> they do, so you don't know *what* to filter in advance. And when they've 
> done it, the correct solution is to fix the vulnerabilities, not to do 
> filtering around it.
> 
> Don't try to create security by using filters, because people will do 
> errors when setting them up, so they will end up insecure.
> It works well for pop-up or advertissement, because it's very obvious 
> when you fail, and you can correct from them, but not for actual 
> security risks.
> 
> What you're saying here is that java/applets are so dangerous we should 
> remove them. They are not so dangerous, they were the source of only 
> recent vulnerability. And also the same argument could be construed 
> about any functionnality, they always bring some level of security 
> risks. The good solution is not to remove, but to make safe. Or suppress 
> fully if there's no way to make it safe. But you'd better show why 
> exactly it can't be safe, and not rely on generic FUD.