Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Firefox 18 without social api


12 posts in this topic

Posted

Thought I'd make a new thread for Firefox 18. This is the publically available Firefox 18 with all references to the social API removed before compilation. I'll see if I can get the windows build to have official branding instead of being auroa. Nothing else has been changed in the code.

Please note: Arch builds should work for other linux distros, extract the archive and see if it runs :)

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Arch Linux x86_64

http://www74.zippyshare.com/v/78496965/file.html

(pacman -U firefox-18.0-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz)

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Arch Linux x86

(About to go and start the compilation in a moment)

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Windows

(About to go and start the compilation in a moment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[Can a mod edit the above post?]

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Windows [32 bit I believe... might be 64 though] (Zip, no auto-updater)

http://www44.zippysh...77029/file.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Windows [32 bit I believe... might be 64 though] (Zip, with auto updater and crash reporter, etc. so please either set to MANUAL or DISABLE autoupdate to stop antisocialfox getting overwritten with social firefox!)

http://www62.zippysh...81734/file.html

Firefox 18 Without Social API (antisocialfox) compiled for Arch Linux x86

(I don't really ever want to use the god-****ing-awful arch tools to cross compile this for x86 on x86_64 ever again, not only did I have to keep hacking around at the PKGBUILD, I need to keep changing how it tried to build and eventually had to just chroot in manually and build it like that, then it wouldn't package so I had to run all the package commands in the chroot and then it wouldn't put the files into an archive so I had to hack away at that again, honestly, I really do sometimes think the arch linux team have their heads shoved so far up their arses. Anyway, enough ranting, hope it actually works and you enjoy.) Oh and again, this might work for non-arch linux x86 installs, give it a try :)

http://www43.zippysh...70875/file.html

(pacman -U firefox-18.0-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cool! While you're at it, can you also remove garbage stuff like the panorama feature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Panorama feature? What? Don't think I've heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorry, I just won't use a Browser that someone complied. Has this been tested? Is it secure? I am using Firefox 21 and I just do not have the social stuff turned on and I have no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorry, I just won't use a Browser that someone complied. Has this been tested? Is it secure? I am using Firefox 21 and I just do not have the social stuff turned on and I have no problems.

The diff it on the previous firefox 17 page. I'm running it on my Shift2 VM, Windows 7 VM and main desktop, and all that's missing is the social features, so why would it need more testing than normal firefox? It's more secure than firefox because there's no social api in the browser. So you use firefox 21 and don't have the social API turned on, it's still there active and running (feel free to go and look through the firefox code or use my diff to see how it's still active) and all it'd take is one exploit in that to open up a huge can of works.

It'd be like walking around with an ID badge round your neck, is is secure? Will someone nick my identify? Can the cards be cloned? What if there's a bug in the cards that allows them to be remotely wiped or reprogrammed? Etc. I wouldn't walk around with an ID card on my neck all the time just like I'd never used a web browser with such un-needed potentially-exploitable rubbish built into it.

I can upload the source if anyone wants it, no-one wanted it last time so I just stuck the diff up, true the diff doesn't work 100% in firefox 18 because they're added more **** of the API to it but it's not hard to make a diff. If you didn't want to use it, why are you even posting or looking at this topic anyway?

And as your side says you use windows 7 I'm more inclined to think you just get a precompiled binary off the net for firefox 21 and run that - you don't compile it yourself, so you're asking me about security when you're using an untested base that hundred if not thousands of people are contributing to and you're not checking it or compiling it yourself? I think you need a quick revision class in security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The diff it on the previous firefox 17 page. I'm running it on my Shift2 VM, Windows 7 VM and main desktop, and all that's missing is the social features, so why would it need more testing than normal firefox? It's more secure than firefox because there's no social api in the browser. So you use firefox 21 and don't have the social API turned on, it's still there active and running (feel free to go and look through the firefox code or use my diff to see how it's still active) and all it'd take is one exploit in that to open up a huge can of works.

It'd be like walking around with an ID badge round your neck, is is secure? Will someone nick my identify? Can the cards be cloned? What if there's a bug in the cards that allows them to be remotely wiped or reprogrammed? Etc. I wouldn't walk around with an ID card on my neck all the time just like I'd never used a web browser with such un-needed potentially-exploitable rubbish built into it.

I can upload the source if anyone wants it, no-one wanted it last time so I just stuck the diff up, true the diff doesn't work 100% in firefox 18 because they're added more **** of the API to it but it's not hard to make a diff. If you didn't want to use it, why are you even posting or looking at this topic anyway?

And as your side says you use windows 7 I'm more inclined to think you just get a precompiled binary off the net for firefox 21 and run that - you don't compile it yourself, so you're asking me about security when you're using an untested base that hundred if not thousands of people are contributing to and you're not checking it or compiling it yourself? I think you need a quick revision class in security.

I am running The Nightly Builds of Firefox 21 directly from Mozilla. I don't know you, I have never heard of you so why would I trust you? I have been running Nightly builds way before Firefox 4 came out. I still have The Phoenix build around here somewhere. So thank you for your effort and maybe if you had some sort of website and not a DL from a File Sharing site I may try it. I have never had my ID stolen and I do not use any Social Networking stuff and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am running The Nightly Builds of Firefox 21 directly from Mozilla. I don't know you, I have never heard of you so why would I trust you? I have been running Nightly builds way before Firefox 4 came out. I still have The Phoenix build around here somewhere. So thank you for your effort and maybe if you had some sort of website and not a DL from a File Sharing site I may try it. I have never had my ID stolen and I do not use any Social Networking stuff and never will.

Although your concerns are legitimate. It would be better to requestthat the op post the source. Then if the op is misrepresenting his changes call him out with facts.

There are a large number of widely used ff unofficial builds, like water fox. Just because you prefer ff from Mozilla doesn't mean others don't find the unofficial builds better.

After all, unofficial builds and forking is why ff is open source in the first place. So users can control their software and not some entity like we get with ie.

Maybe you don't share the same views as the free software movement, but don't baselessly attack someone else for embracing its principals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Panorama feature? What? Don't think I've heard of it.

Press Ctrl+Shift+E (on windows) and the dumb tab panorama thing will pop up. Mozilla added that since FF4 and it's useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Although your concerns are legitimate. It would be better to requestthat the op post the source. Then if the op is misrepresenting his changes call him out with facts.

There are a large number of widely used ff unofficial builds, like water fox. Just because you prefer ff from Mozilla doesn't mean others don't find the unofficial builds better.

After all, unofficial builds and forking is why ff is open source in the first place. So users can control their software and not some entity like we get with ie.

Maybe you don't share the same views as the free software movement, but don't baselessly attack someone else for embracing its principals.

Waterfox and Palemoon have legit websites , they just do not provide a dl link on a file sharing site and ask people to try his version of Firefox 18 without Social stuff. How many times have you downloaded a program from an unknown source? I did not attack anyone. I just do not download programs from unknown sources. Why don't you download it, test it for a few days and then get back to us with a review? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Press Ctrl+Shift+E (on windows) and the dumb tab panorama thing will pop up. Mozilla added that since FF4 and it's useless.

You know I've never seen that before, how interesting! Unfortunately I think the code for that would be buried deep within firefox. I've never seen it before either and it doesn't cause any problems/security vulnerabilities/privacy concerns as far as I'm aware though so can't see the point in removing it.

Waterfox and Palemoon have legit websites , they just do not provide a dl link on a file sharing site and ask people to try his version of Firefox 18 without Social stuff. How many times have you downloaded a program from an unknown source? I did not attack anyone. I just do not download programs from unknown sources. Why don't you download it, test it for a few days and then get back to us with a review? :)

Yeah but that's not his nor my point, just because there is a website for something means nothing. Pirate bay's got a website, must mean everything on it's legit and legal!

If you're as worried about security as you say you are, you wouldn't be running alpha software that isn't checked for what updates have been included. Kernel.org had the hosted source code hacked the other year, just think if the same happens with mozilla - you'd never know about it. Everything is done as a compromise, you don't want to (or sometimes can't) look through the entire source code of a program so you just trust it based upon the author/company that has released it and anti-virus/malware software, that's good but it will never, ever, guarantee that the software is 'safe'.

I'll post the FF18 diff in a minute then so you can compare or whatnot the modifications done.

EDIT: AntiSocialFox patched for FF18 included. Please note that if you are using this patch and are going to compile for/on windows you either need to ignore/remove the last edit in the patch or apply the patch and:

1) Open mozilla-release/media/webrtc/trunk/build/common.gypi

2) Go to line 385 (Or search for sas_dll_path%)

3) Uncomment the line (remove the # at the beginning)

4) Save the file

5) (if you used notepad/wordpad; you need to convert the line endings from DOS to UNIX type before compiling)

AntiSocialFox.patch.txt

Edited by n_K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.