MozillaZine

[BUSTED] Globally Disable FF Update - System-wide

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted February 7th, 2018, 2:02 pm

Grumpus wrote:there is no such thing as a secure computer

My post has nothing to do with security.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Grumpus

User avatar
 
Posts: 12021
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted February 8th, 2018, 6:44 am

@therube - Actually it does. Regardless of intent it is an unblocked avenue of access which is used by the software designers.
You're choice to remain at a certain level of use and maintain your changes does not fit with the default consideration of the designer(s)
You therefore have a security issue where your control and needs are being overridden, again, regardless of your reasons.

videobruce
 
Posts: 146
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: Buffalo NY

Post Posted March 8th, 2018, 11:48 am

therube wrote:Similarly...
Code: Select all
C:\Users\{username}\AppData\Local\Mozilla\updates\{guid}\updates\0

C:\Users\{username}\AppData\Local\Mozilla\updates\
may have multiple {guid} subdirectories.
Seems "trash" (updates; partially downloaded, fully downloaded; partial or full .mar) has a tendency to accumulate in there.
Their very existence, depending on circumstances, probably relates to some claims of "I turned off updates, but FF still updated me", so (IMO) zapping that entire \updates\ sudirectory structure can't hurt.
(There are any number of ways unintended updates can happen. And I believe this is one - even if it may only occur under a particularly odd set of circumstances - as I have had an unexpected update that I can only attribute to this. [And IMO, the "update service" has no bearing on this at all. I have never had the "update service'.])
I just checked and that folder was already marked as read only and I was never in that specific area.

Is the any way to actually check if any of these fixes actually work other than waiting to see what doesn't happen? 8-[
Chrome-Dome is a poor excuse for a browser. It doesn't even have a Menu Bar which should be standard for any & all programs in spite of M$ 'toy phone' change in W7.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted March 8th, 2018, 1:39 pm

I just checked and that folder was already marked as read only and I was never in that specific area.

It was not my intent that ...\Mozilla\updates\{guid}\updates\0\ was set to read-only, but rather the FF Installation directory.

Is the any way to actually check if any of these fixes actually work other than waiting to see what doesn't happen?

Set the instalDir file/directories to read-only as noted.
Put an older version of FF in.
Allow or attempt to force it to update.
If the update is unsuccessful, does not happen, then you've succeeded.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

videobruce
 
Posts: 146
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: Buffalo NY

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 7:17 am

therube wrote:It was not my intent that ...\Mozilla\updates\{guid}\updates\0\ was set to read-only, but rather the FF Installation directory

Then I misread that other post of yours.

Is there any difference between running an 'Installed' vs a 'Portable' version of FF as to this problem?
Does deleting that update folder have any affect?

FYI;
I added those 4 addresses to my Router to block those domains instead of to the host file (I have two other computers), but those addresses can change. I also renamed the extension of those three 'update' files.
Chrome-Dome is a poor excuse for a browser. It doesn't even have a Menu Bar which should be standard for any & all programs in spite of M$ 'toy phone' change in W7.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 11:11 am

'Installed' vs a 'Portable'

I wouldn't think there would be any issue in doing this to "portable" too.
(I know nothing of "portable", but) if I'm understanding "portable", I would expect it to not have any bearing on any installed version, as in what is done in "portable" should be "self-contained".
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20084
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 12:01 pm

therube wrote:... as in what is done in "portable" should be "self-contained".

Yep, set it not to update, take 4 copies of the entire portable and move on with your life.

If 'the worst happens' i.e. it updates (1st world problem) then just use one of the copies instead and then, only then, figure if you need to do something more.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

videobruce
 
Posts: 146
Joined: March 25th, 2006, 11:38 am
Location: Buffalo NY

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 12:04 pm

Portable as in; USB, Stand Alone.
Something you don't 'install' (that leaves plenty of leftovers when it is uninstalled). C&P the programs folder wherever you want to (I have a separate folder in the root of 'C'), but it could go anywhere outside the active partition and/or main HDD. :wink:

I already have made copies.
Chrome-Dome is a poor excuse for a browser. It doesn't even have a Menu Bar which should be standard for any & all programs in spite of M$ 'toy phone' change in W7.

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 3850
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 1:51 pm

each build uses its own update storage, example (located in %localappdata%\Mozilla\)
Code: Select all
updates\56A0749C103C7308
updates\574EB51B8E1B8C4F
updates\6F46E07C08C8A0CD
updates\FF89FD3028C28292

(all folders empty because no update option chosen // dont update)
ofc valid for quantum, i left v56 and others behind.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted March 9th, 2018, 2:16 pm

Where do you find what the number like "56A0749C103C7308" corresponds back to?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Brummelchen
 
Posts: 3850
Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am

Post Posted March 10th, 2018, 7:24 am

i dont know (and i dont care*), these were only folders in in %localappdata%\Mozilla\

*i dont care because firefox is running flawless, i can not confirm in any way update problems or involuntary updates.

"system wide" means that user has some kind of "GPO" (eg mozilla.cfg) to avoid updates. but this a manually configuration of the installation folder.
(which means copy such file into the portable firefox folder to "firefox.exe")
or user.js into profile.

the maintenance service is only an upgrade helper, the update itself is fired by firefox.

starting with firefox v60 mozilla is going to respect windows gpo.
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/03/10/firef ... y-support/
just running v55 with its profile - where updates are set to "ask" - firefox asked me to upgrade or not.
set to "disabled" firefox wont bother me. tools > about firefox offer me to search for updates. and offer me to upgrade to v56 (strange because v58 is current)

anytime firefox behavior about its updates it concerns the addons too. you can not set one and decline second. but i am not familiar with special settings in pref, i dont know if there is a switch to separate both (or to set intervall to zero for one component).

to add:
those folders had no content here, while regular updates hold an xml file and another subfolder

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted September 10th, 2018, 4:55 pm

edit: 9/10/2018

BUSTED
THIS METHOD NO LONGER WORKS
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted September 10th, 2018, 5:00 pm

It could be, that if you also created a file named, update.test, in your installation directory, & set that to read-only, that would get things "fixed" again.

But at that point, you might as well just use Frank's method, & set {instalDir}\defaults\pref\channel-prefs.js to some bogus value.


Note that on checking for updates, manual or automatic, the instalDir does get touched (set to current date/time).
Additionally creating the update.test file & setting it to read-only may thwart that too - if that (touching) matters to you.

---

Frank Lion's method, I guess here is a decent spot to point to, viewtopic.php?p=14802632#p14802632.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

4td8s
 
Posts: 607
Joined: June 24th, 2009, 1:07 pm

Post Posted September 12th, 2018, 8:39 pm

therube wrote:edit: 9/10/2018

BUSTED
THIS METHOD NO LONGER WORKS


yup. does not work anymore - at least with Firefox 63

https://techdows.com/2018/07/firefox-63 ... moved.html
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/28/mozil ... x-updates/

Return to Firefox General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests