Microsoft Accused of “Sabotaging Firefox”
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2009-05-31 19:24:51 UTC
- Modified: 2009-05-31 19:24:51 UTC
Summary: Microsoft changes Mozilla's software without permission from the users and the aim is self promotion
THE FIRST self-explanatory report is
this one:
Microsoft Sabotaging Firefox With Sneaky .NET Updates?
Sabotage may be a strong choice of word, but it immediately came to mind with the news of Microsoft’s latest .NET update.
The Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, unleashed in February, forces an undisclosed Firefox extension on Windows users, called “Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0ââ¬Â³, and it does so without asking the users permission.
It is not an unusual development and this was also
entered into Slashdot and
into Stefano Forenza's Web site.
The
Washington Post used much gentler words (
Melinda Gates is in charge, so it's wise to be cautious) and so did
this Web site.
A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla's Firefox Web browser.
Here at Techgeist, we do not like it when software does stuff to other software without asking. The problems are made that much worse when it's the operating system doing the dirty work. So we are all pretty angry at Microsoft right now. As part of a service pack for the .Net Framework, which they rolled out as a critical update via Windows Update, Microsoft also installed the ".Net Framework Assistant" add-on onto users' Firefox installations.
The story in short: Microsoft uses its Windows Update franchise (monopoly) for unwanted/uninvited intrusion that's justified by a EULA people cannot refuse. Moreover, Microsoft shoves its software down people's throats to advance its business by interfering with rival software.
⬆
Comments
Joe
2009-06-02 22:35:22
to remove it.
However, unlike Microsoft, AVG will ask you if you want to add their extension to FF. Kinda niffty how they did it in the first place.
Btw, I had some malware/payware that infected IE and FF but not Chrome. Perhaps you should keep that just in case and/or a copy of FF in portable app guise.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-02 23:01:55
Is there any response from Mozilla?
the11thplague
2009-05-31 20:03:27
pcolon
2009-05-31 20:33:13
Updates, including security patches, do not occur without asking in the GNU/Linux distros I use. These forced modifications to the os and extended applications is reason enough for discontinuing the use of microsoft products and services altogether.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-05-31 20:34:56
suresh
2009-06-02 13:55:35
Bogdan Bivolaru
2009-06-02 12:03:22
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-02 12:38:22
aeshna23
2009-06-01 13:36:34
I could not follow those directions. There appears to be no longer be any reference to this add-on in the firefox configuration options (steps 5-7). I hope I'm not being paranoid in wondering why Microsoft would make it so difficult to remove this add-on.
alex
2009-06-03 12:59:49
Juan Pablo Angamarca
2009-06-05 20:29:55
PaulGaskin
2009-06-06 17:54:45
This .net extension will undoubtably cause pop-ups, crashes and become a security problem. This was a desperate and probably illegal act by Microsoft.
They should face the full force of the law for compromising people's computers and illegally interfering with a business competitor.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-06 19:01:09
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-07 08:18:13
"dealing with the .NET ClickOnce add-on" http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/06/02/dealing-with-the-net-clickonce-add-on/
pcolon
2009-06-07 20:37:32
Many people elected to use Firefox instead of IE thinking Mozilla and the owner of the computing device would be the only party to modify Firefox's behaviour.
Bogdan Bivolaru
2009-06-08 05:29:50
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-08 05:37:11
Yuhong Bao
2009-06-12 03:37:55
Yuhong Bao
2009-06-12 03:45:04
buck
2009-06-08 04:59:31