Why not warn users about "Reported attack sites" BEFORE they download HUGE FILES just to find that the file has been silently deleted AFTER DOWNLOADING by FFox?
Hi, From what aspect is it rational or even a bit sane to allow users to download possibly VERY LARGE files, using up bandwidth, human and computer time, electricity and other renewable/non-renewable resources just do DELETE the downloaded file AFTER downloading the whole thing without even asking or hinting about it to the user? Quietly putting a marker in download history beside a file that the user have been maybe downloading for hours (or maybe days on slow connection) isn't much use IF THE FILE IS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY AND SILENTLY ALREADY DELETED by Firefox!! How about WARNING (better yet - ASK!) the user BEFORE the download starts (or even while the download progresses) about the dangers of that particular file/website but doing it BEFORE downloading the WHOLE file and then silently DELETING it immediately?! :O
Wšě wotmołwy (3)
see cor-el answer
Wot the-edmeister změnjeny
Firefox uses data from Google's Safe Browsing to check whether files from a website are safe to download. You can set the browser.safebrowsing.appRepURL pref to an empty string value to disable this feature. Bypass Firefox's Blocked: May contain a virus or spyware message - gHacks Tech News: http://www.ghacks.net/2014/11/19/bypass-firefoxs-blocked-may-contain-a-virus-or-spyware-message/
- [/questions/1050944] How can be this virus or spyware?
Note that there is being worked on this issue in a few bugs:
- bug 1066133 - Provide a way to override application reputation checks on a per-download basis
- bug 1068656 - Implement new Downloads Panel item state for items that can be unblocked
Please do not comment in bug reports
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html
You can vote for a bug to show your interest
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html
Wot cor-el změnjeny
The way this feature works makes ANY sense only if the suggested (mentioned in the Bugzilla links above) components were part of it (already), but they are not. So the whole feature should have not been implemented at this stage at all, because it lacks essential components and because of that it works totally illogically. Allowing users to download files without any warning only to then delete them immediately on completion without any notice is sub-par, bordering idiotic. Either NOTIFY the user BEFORE the download starts that it's forbidden (and the user won't be given access to the file) so the user will not waste bandwidth, time etc OR provide user with a CHOICE AFTER the download has finished between deletion or access to the downloaded file. In short - downloading a whole file only to delete it is idiotic. Something in development process has failed on this feature.