![]() ![]() ![]() Again, AFAICT, all that is needed is for them to post a signed version of the plug-in - I can imagine its taking some time to revise procedures and tools to do that automatically with each update, but posting a signed version as an emergency patch should be easy if it is seen as a priority. I think Mozilla could have handled it better - e.g., by providing for exceptions for particular plug-ins rather than having only a "completely disable checking" option - but, again, complain to them rather than Adobe about that.Īs far as I can tell, all that is going on here is that Adobe, despite the acknowledgment over a week ago that "engineering is aware of the issue and working on it", doesn't care enough about non-online or SAAS versions of Acrobat to put the resources and energy into getting this fixed quickly. The change was announced months in advance. The requirement for plug-in signing is a legitimate security improvement, responding to a well-understood threat (not a fantasy one). However, this issue isn't any of those things. I've got some of the same concerns about updates, quality control, and the apparent effects of the supposedly non-profit Mozille foundation making deals with vendors, often for-profit ones, to promote particular products and create disadvantages for others. If you are dissatisfied with Firefox, complain to them or switch browsers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2023
Categories |