Recommended Posts

I really don't think this is a good idea, to disable direct text input in the <input type="file"> input box, as a security "fix" against a theoretical attack. The reasoning is IMHO ridiculous, it's like saying to prevent potential phishing attacks, all text input box should be disabled. Or to prevent possible trojan downloads, file download should be disabled. The change is really annoying and a great usability drawback, especially when uploading multiple files at once. And it can be easily bypassed by truly malicious sites with flash, java applet, silverlight, etc. making this security "fix" mostly moot. And that's why Firefox 3 has anti-phishing and anti-malware features from the first place right?

Also I think there can be many better alternatives than just disabling the file input box and leaving a confusing interface, like disabling certain stylings of the file input control, gave warnings when there are file uploads to a site for the first time, etc.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/644517-file-input-box-in-firefox-3/
Share on other sites

How is it not a reasonable security measure? And where is there a confusing interface now? If you've used a file open dialog, you know how to choose a file for upload.

The interface is confusing as there's a text input box, but when you click the input box, a file open dialog pops up, that goes against any user expectation of a text input box (or at least the appearance of one).

It's not a reasonable security measure because it outright disabled the text input function just because someone can custom style it to trick people into entering sensitive data. It's like saying, since someone can custom style a page to look like some online banking service and trick people into entering their bank account password into it (phishing), so we should outright disable direct text input in web pages? I think Firefox 3's anti-phishing and anti-malware features are added exactly to counter this kind of bad guys, so we don't need to disable text input or file download to prevent possible exploits from them.

And it's mostly a moot security measure since real malicious people can bypass it easily. So Firefox 3 tried to fix a theoretical security hole (and this "fix" can be bypassed easily) by completely altering the expected behavior of the file input box that leads to great usability problems and resulting in a completely non-sensical UI (a text input box that functions like a button). And this same "security hole" can be fixed with far less drastic means. I don't think this is a good idea IMHO.

And people are allowed to turn the Anti-Phishing and Anti-Malware features off in Firefox3, but there's no option to turn the file input box back on? I'd say that makes little sense.

Safari doesn't even have a text field with a file form element.

yea, and Safari didn't even have a download confirmation dialog (until they just fix it in 3.1.2). It's from Apple, so I guess it's expected to have some great neat features accompanied by some really strange weird usability problems and/or quirks. But then at least Safari's implementation doesn't show a text input box, thus less confusing.

The real problem for me is that Firefox 3 file inputs only seem to return the file name, not the full path.

This is different from Firefox 2 and with Internet Explorer when working from the same 'URL security zone' (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535128.aspx).

See www.samdutton.com/firefox.html for an example.

The reason they've done this, is so you can't hide the button via CSS and trick people into thinking it's a normal text-box (so you can upload files on their system without them knowing it).

People whined and bitched at Safari for doing the same thing.

There is a work around for it: http://damnmachine.com/128/fx3_upload-fix.html

well, "drag n' drop" doesn't help the situation much, since one still can't just copy&paste multiple file names without the file browser popping up repeatedly, a real usability drawback with multiple file uploads.

The reason they've done this, is so you can't hide the button via CSS and trick people into thinking it's a normal text-box (so you can upload files on their system without them knowing it).

well, by the same logic, to prevent phishing, they should disable all input box by default, and enable them only after you have scanned through the whole URL with the mouse pointer or cursor keys.

really, there are much better ways to deal with this potential "security hole", without drastically changing the behavior of the file input box and ending up with a confusing UI.

But then people can be tricked into uploading files with a simple flash form anyway.

People whined and bitched at Safari for doing the same thing.

Apparently they still need to whine and bitch some more to make Apple add an option to prompt before saving files in the Mac OS X version :laugh:

The file selector uploads files, it isn't comparable to a plain text box, I don't see why you're even using that argument.

And just because there are multiple ways to do it (like through Flash), doesn't mean we shouldn't bother fixing any of them ("I was going to lock my door, but then I noticed my window was open, so I left my door unlocked").

The file selector uploads files, it isn't comparable to a plain text box, I don't see why you're even using that argument.

It's changing the behavior of the file input box drastically, so it's very comparable to drastically changing the behavior of the plain text box for some potential exploits.

A site exploiting the file input box to trick you into uploading files in disguise of a normal text input is comparable to a site exploiting the password text input to trick you into entering your password in disguise of an online banking site. So Firefox "fixing" the file input box by completely disabling the text input, it's indeed comparable to "fixing" the password text box by requiring you first scan through the URL to prevent phishing.

They are both examples of over-reactions against some "security holes", one is already implemented in Firefox 3, the other hypothetical, but both are at the same level of absurdity, both are "let's fix a security hole by a drastic measure that greatly reduces the usability, while other much less drastic and more user-friendly alternatives are clearly available". That's why I'm using this argument. There's no good reason behind this file input "fix", just like there'd be no good reason to disable password input box until a full scan of URL.

And just because there are multiple ways to do it (like through Flash), doesn't mean we shouldn't bother fixing any of them ("I was going to lock my door, but then I noticed my window was open, so I left my door unlocked").

The point is that such drastic "fix" leads to great usability problems, in the name of "fixing" a "security hole" which it doesn't patch up anyway. It's like giving your door a complex lock that takes hours to open, but leaving the windows with a normal lock, so the legal inhabitants of the house has to spend hours to enter their own home, while a real thief can still enter the house easily under minutes, is just not logical.

Not to mention when they have enforced such drastical measures against the file input box with no option to turn it off, but give easy options to turn off the anti-phishing and anti-malware features, it's simply ridiculous and shows a severe lack of consistency in their logic and reasoning regarding "security".

This new text box drove me CRAZY. I couldn't take it one more minute so now I use IE (ugh) when I'm doing a lot of uploads or other such activities.

At work I upload updated data files to various websites, ours and our clients', so there are endless variations of the same bunch of data. I might need to import a set of 5 files in 3 or 4 different formats (ex: NewData1.csv, NewData2.csv; NewData1.txt, NewData2.txt, etc.) to 9 different websites.

Before this crappy new feature ruined my life, I was able to browse for the first file, then copy and paste the path/filename into the other admin pages, and THEN simply change a number in the filename and click import to upload the next file. Now with copy/paste and editing disabled I have to browse through dozens or hundreds of files and click the file I need every single time, over and over and over and over and over and over. It's a MAJOR pain. I broke up the dir with hundreds of data files, then I made separate "recent ULs" dirs, but with so many formats that filled up too, so then I was constantly shifting files into old, new, staging, recent (and onandonandon) directories, trying other things to make life easier. By the time I got to making "AAADataFile6.csv", then renaming it after the upload, I realized I'd gone off the deep end and was going to need to check into a rest home. I wised up and dusted off my IE icon.

I haven't had IE visible on my desktop in years, but now there it is in all it's glory. I hope the FF developers that came up with this garbage feature are proud of themselves.

I hate, hate hate that new feature.

It's changing the behavior of the file input box drastically, so it's very comparable to drastically changing the behavior of the plain text box for some potential exploits.

A site exploiting the file input box to trick you into uploading files in disguise of a normal text input is comparable to a site exploiting the password text input to trick you into entering your password in disguise of an online banking site. So Firefox "fixing" the file input box by completely disabling the text input, it's indeed comparable to "fixing" the password text box by requiring you first scan through the URL to prevent phishing.

They are both examples of over-reactions against some "security holes", one is already implemented in Firefox 3, the other hypothetical, but both are at the same level of absurdity, both are "let's fix a security hole by a drastic measure that greatly reduces the usability, while other much less drastic and more user-friendly alternatives are clearly available". That's why I'm using this argument. There's no good reason behind this file input "fix", just like there'd be no good reason to disable password input box until a full scan of URL.

The point is that such drastic "fix" leads to great usability problems, in the name of "fixing" a "security hole" which it doesn't patch up anyway. It's like giving your door a complex lock that takes hours to open, but leaving the windows with a normal lock, so the legal inhabitants of the house has to spend hours to enter their own home, while a real thief can still enter the house easily under minutes, is just not logical.

Not to mention when they have enforced such drastical measures against the file input box with no option to turn it off, but give easy options to turn off the anti-phishing and anti-malware features, it's simply ridiculous and shows a severe lack of consistency in their logic and reasoning regarding "security".

Can you explain to me exactly what has your panties in a twist? Like what action I need to take to duplicate the behaviour this non-issue fix, as you call it?

Can you explain to me exactly what has your panties in a twist? Like what action I need to take to duplicate the behaviour this non-issue fix, as you call it?

can you explain to me exactly what you mean by this? I think I've already stated quite clearly what this so-called "security fix" affects, the file input box, ie. any <input type=file> HTML control.

if you want an example, then just go to http://xs.to and click the input box before the "Choose..." button.

Can you explain to me exactly what has your panties in a twist? Like what action I need to take to duplicate the behaviour this non-issue fix, as you call it?

Well, did you read my post (right before yours)?? You just TRY selecting 10-20 files and see how long it takes in FF as opposed to IE or the old FF, where you can copy and paste, or [heaven forbid!] actually TYPE a path/filename.

In the new FF, at least 5-10 seconds each. 20 files with dir browsing is well over 3 mins, just to select the files.

In old FF or IE, it takes as long as you need to go to the next tab, click the box, and hit CRTL-V. Less than 2 secs, all 20 files ready for upload in less than a minute. Less than ONE THIRD the time.

And, yes, 3 mins is a big deal. It means just one of my tasks takes 3x longer than necessary. 3 mins or 3 hours, it adds up.

  • 2 weeks later...
Well, did you read my post (right before yours)?? You just TRY selecting 10-20 files and see how long it takes in FF as opposed to IE or the old FF, where you can copy and paste, or [heaven forbid!] actually TYPE a path/filename.

You know you can type paths in the file upload dialog box, right? What's the difference? You click in the upload field in Fx3 (like you would anyway to make the cursor go there). and you paste the path in the File Name line.

The time you waste opening multiple tabs and hitting Upload multiple times is a saver to you?

can you explain to me exactly what you mean by this? I think I've already stated quite clearly what this so-called "security fix" affects, the file input box, ie. any <input type=file> HTML control.

if you want an example, then just go to http://xs.to and click the input box before the "Choose..." button.

It does the same as if you hit the browse button. What is the big deal?

  • 4 weeks later...
You know you can type paths in the file upload dialog box, right? What's the difference? You click in the upload field in Fx3 (like you would anyway to make the cursor go there). and you paste the path in the File Name line.

The time you waste opening multiple tabs and hitting Upload multiple times is a saver to you?

Another problem with this "feature": because you can not edit in the text box, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove a file once it's in there. I selected a file and then made a lot of edits on the page. Then I decided that I didn't want to replace the file on the server, but there was NO WAY to remove the contents of that box. I had to cancel the entire transaction.

THIS can not be fixed by pasting into the File Open dialog box.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I recently tried edge. It seems a lot better. A lot of the junk in it is gone. It seems less bloated and snappy.
    • Lethal fake phone chargers are still being sold on Amazon and eBay, UK watchdog warns by Paul Hill Credit: Pexels The UK consumer rights organization, Which?, is claiming that “potentially lethal knock-off chargers” are still being sold on online marketplaces seven years after it exposed the danger of these chargers. In its latest investigation, it bought 15 USB phone chargers from several online marketplaces and found they were missing key information, meaning they cannot be legally sold in the UK. Which? bought the 15 chargers from seven online marketplaces. These were Amazon (including Amazon Haul), AliExpress, B&Q Marketplace, Debenhams Marketplace, and eBay. It said that the chargers were so badly made that anyone using them was at risk of electric shock. Over half the chargers also posed fire and explosion risks. Of the chargers purchased, one was a fake Apple USB-C 35W power adaptor charger. To confuse buyers, the box was branded with an Apple logo, but testing found it to be a fake. Further testing picked up arcing sounds after 10 seconds of use, where a current jumps between two parts of the electrical circuit, which can cause fires, explosions, or electric shock. The manufacturers of this particular charger also put modeling clay inside it to make it feel more weighty, robust, and genuine. Not all of the chargers were technically faulty; however, some were missing key packaging, markings, and documentation, meaning they can’t be sold in the UK legally. Which? said that it is now campaigning alongside a coalition of safety groups and businesses for new laws that make online marketplaces responsible for ensuring the safety of products that they choose to list on their websites. It also said the government needs to start using powers under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which was adopted last July, to impose safety requirements on online marketplaces via secondary legislation, but so far, there have been delays. No matter what country you are in, be sure to properly research what you are buying and only buy authentic chargers to prevent fires. You can read more about Which?’s research here.
    • Visual Studio finally gets long-awaited feature that developers will love by Usama Jawad Visual Studio Code is Microsoft's popular, lightweight, open-source code editor, it is actually Visual Studio that is the company's flagship integrated development environment (IDE). Although the IDE already offers a boatload of useful features for developers, Microsoft has finally introduced a long-requested capability that will be loved by many. While developers have already been able to create Git pull requests (PRs) directly within Visual Studio for the past couple of years, it had not been possible to review a PR without switching to the browser, until now. Microsoft revealed in December 2025 that it is working on UX that enables developers to do just that, and fast-forward to June 2026, and Visual Studio finally has native capabilities to open and inspect a PR, discuss feedback, and wrap up the review, all without switching to the browser. This integration works for both GitHub and Azure DevOps (including on-prem). Developers have access to multiple surfaces to open a PR, including Git Repository, Git Changes, and the Git menu in Visual Studio. Once you open a PR, all the important details will be immediately visible to you, from where you can navigate to various levels of granularity and branch states, depending on the reviews that you are engaged in. As you would expect, you also get a diff view that enables you to see code changes inline or side-by-side in a separate panel. You can also review commit-by-commit. Additionally, this UX fosters collaboration as you can leave comments, reply to threads, and resolve conversations easily. Naturally, you can also leverage Copilot to apply a code suggestion to fix a potential issue. When you are done, you have the ability to approve, complete, and merge the PR. This is a pretty major feature as it has been requested heavily for the past few years. You can try it out in Visual Studio 2026 version 18.7, made available here recently. Microsoft plans to enhance this experience further in future releases with comment filtering, a timeline of PR activity, and more.
    • This AdGuard Family lifetime deal is still only $15.97 by Steven Parker Today's highlighted Neowin Deal comes via our Apps + Software section, where you can get a lifetime subscription and save 90% on a lifetime AdGuard Family Plan. AdGuard is a unique program that has all the necessary features for what they claim to be "the best web experience." The software combines the an advanced ad blocker, a privacy protection module, and a parental control tool—all working in one app. This software deals with annoying ads, hides your data from a multitude of trackers, protects you from malware attacks, and even lets you restrict your kids from accessing inappropriate content. Install AdGuard and see the internet as it was supposed to be: clean and safe. Get rid of annoying banners, pop-ups & video ads once and for all Hide your data from the multitude of trackers & activity analyzers that swarm the web Avoid fraudulent and phishing website and malware attacks Protect your kids online by restricting them from accessing inappropriate & adult content Good to know Family Plan Length of access: lifetime This plan is only available to new users Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Max number of devices: 9 Access options: desktop & mobile Software version: AdGuard Family Updates included A lifetime subscription of AdGuard Family Plan normally costs $169.99, but this deal can be yours for just $15.97, that's a saving of $157.02. For full terms, specifications, and license info please click the link below. Get this AdGuard Family lifetime deal for just $15.97 (was $169.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support! Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. Why we post these deals We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. So for those that keep moaning and complaining, be thankful we're still online for you to even do that. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • the MCT currently downloads 26200.8653, so not completely up to date.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Timaximus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Timaximus earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      FBSPL went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      davidbazooked earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      davidbazooked earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      499
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      174
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      160
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      75
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!