From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25FC6138E3E for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BC6CE0B7D; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D85FE0B6D for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r30so161313269ioi.1 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:06:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shumkar-ru.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=y6BkeQ9qqyDl93f2cHalfnQApFeMQ7OPymJJAGjsuKg=; b=H4COJBvXibZEflfvTnsbuC6jWDIyRUqohySMNqJ9B020dzDSLrVnu0graN7uOkHtfn Kv4100+LXUYV1NORz0rEFlOqwGSnfdwATfnXkT5CtAclbQmBiwd+OIn7bRIUHBOudPxJ x04m4942Vg+oDyE9mrSoozEtfAjtZSzAddCw1gt238AREqkzQ1VH/X095p++E7enYJUo q7Xk0UmsCfKxudUrNJThSd969atYbIm6kJzkf+rjVnzbjcIwpO2dKyn4EPoVE5y4rwzO 36et7NJCvl64lay5rnuENL/bgIcQrxKFHmqYCW25ig1r70eMIAOWXN9ie336AqnL/Sly WMsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=y6BkeQ9qqyDl93f2cHalfnQApFeMQ7OPymJJAGjsuKg=; b=iZY/mSbQYPCd2p3c4aTzeW+dbUUZLm20WNDYNZVtAvOGh1WSPEVFRVA139jcVY3lGO 6zmM7Ychm7Unyr1h/6Nmsr1KtCBrD8lwSse3M9EPX99w+4lmG5kmQQXL8gdU9bwDvBdA tnEFhqVHbr/g80Xv6bsfvf1NmHlGCqzrF8lXwMaX34njwIpUj/Xl8kgq0KQdrh3Bu0Ou uNnoAQoh4MvulGCxnErtonXLc2KcCZjYgamoVvTUGcbOJsGBV5ASczFIAchl2f9oemWD v15rHHkpW4O/q9MApF6NESX1jTJztpkVzMQF5CQf6NyIKou0STrMuZRlHQMorP4YNEje DSng== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmSXmSHxvvB0KGsMsoT/BaYkUDvSf5oXr7lU0xhpMkngg6nW84kvJlZu/piEQWyPiPR8dB+0XXjZZSmuA== X-Received: by 10.107.53.14 with SMTP id c14mr20910677ioa.144.1476608803891; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.223.68 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [176.58.97.122] In-Reply-To: <20161015234131.GF12322@g0n.xdwgrp> References: <20161014175927.8360.2C6B93AA@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20161015234131.GF12322@g0n.xdwgrp> From: Alexey Mishustin Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:06:43 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Old Firefox ebuild? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 19e6b8fb-b49f-4bbb-97c5-786e4c650e35 X-Archives-Hash: 9a63e8a51551df7960617b784fe04834 2016-10-16 2:41 GMT+03:00 Miroslav Rovis : > On 161014-21:39+0300, Alexey Mishustin wrote: >> Hello. >> >> 2016-10-14 21:02 GMT+03:00 Ian Zimmerman : >> > Does anyone have a copy of the firefox 38.x ebuild around? >> >> Attached. >> >> > The latest update wiped it out, and now if I take the plunge to the >> > current versions (i.e. at least 45.x) and I find then insufferable, >> >> Agree! >> > I may agree too, if some facts fall into place. Read on. > > I was wondering how safe is running Firefox 38.x at this day and age? > > If you look up: > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/mozilla-checks-if-firefox-is-affected-by-same-malware-vulnerability-as-tor/ > ( continued and improved from: > https://hackernoon.com/tor-browser-exposed-anti-privacy-implantation-at-mass-scale-bd68e9eb1e95#.ctpp9u5fl ) > and especially the Jacob Appelbaum's: > https://blog.torproject.org/blog/detecting-certificate-authority-compromises-and-web-browser-collusion > So if you recall (some of the readers must have read those) the issues > there, and how badly Firefox was exposed and pretty often, then my query > is how do you assess how secure Firefox 38.x that you install might be? > > Regards! Yeah, it's an usual dilemma: old version is vulnerable, new version sucks. >From my point of view, if there's a MITM, then Firefox is not the only problem. Besides ruining the cookies management (should one install an addon now? like Cookies Manager+?), new versions of Firefox succeeded to hang all the OS, when I was working with Google maps (never been with older versions). -- Regards, Alex