MacInTouch Amazon link...

Safari, Firefox & other web browsers

Channels
Security, Troubleshooting, Products
I need a recommendation for an ad blocker. I currently am using AdBlock (the new version, which is an app), and it is not blocking most ads but it is blocking links in newsletters and some Google search results. For both types of links I need to copy the link and open in Chrome.
 


I made the mistake of installing Firefox 65 today, and discovered that it forces you to keep the tabs all the way at the top. Apparently people running the betas knew that this change to the position of tabs was coming, but I did not. I've been using the userChrome.css trick to restore tabs to the bottom, just below the address/tool bar, but this no longer works. I really, really hate having the tabs at the very top. There have apparently been a lot of complaints to the developers about this, and the complaints have been ignored.

Anyone who is fussy about their Firefox setup may want to avoid this update for now.

I don't like any of the browser alternatives that I have looked at, unfortunately.
 



I made the mistake of installing Firefox 65 today, and discovered that it forces you to keep the tabs all the way at the top.
Don't have Firefox 65 yet, and the way I use browser windows favors menus, controls and tabs at the top. Still, I was curious what 65 will bring, as I haven't installed it yet, and in my shallow dive into the topic found that the userChrome.css "trick" you referenced may be back as outside developers make responsive changes. Firefox developers are themselves said to be planning to facilitate more user customizations within Firefox GUI options.

Since I'm not familiar with what the code is doing, I have no idea if the link below is the same "trick" you tried, or if it actually purports to put Tabs at the bottom as the link suggests, but it it refers specifically to Firefox 65.
MrOtherGuy said:
 




I made the mistake of installing Firefox 65 today, and discovered that it forces you to keep the tabs all the way at the top.
I don't like any of the browser alternatives that I have looked at, unfortunately.
I updated to Firefox 65 without blinking, and frankly I never noticed that the tab bar had jumped up above the main menu bar. It's a non-issue for me. I used this "feature" without thinking about it and would not have even noticed it, had it not been pointed out here.

But now that you mention it, I wish there were an extension or something that allowed me to keep a copy of the open tab bar down at the bottom of the browser window, above the Dock of my Mac. Would it be that difficult to have a tab row on top and bottom?
 


I made the mistake of installing Firefox 65 today, and discovered that it forces you to keep the tabs all the way at the top.
I used the solution suggested on the Mozilla support forum. It moves the tabs to the bottom, but I'm not really happy with the location of the red, yellow, and green buttons. It would be nice if they were in the tab, but that would probably violate some UI standard.

I use Firefox both at home and at work; it would be nice if the developers would provide an easier way to control the tab locations other than editing the userChrome.css file.
 


I started to "upgrade" to Firefox 65 today and it refused to proceed unless I used admin privileges to let it install some vague new "Helper Tool". Vague is being generous, I couldn't find any mention of it in the release notes or with a quick web search. Anyone know what Mozilla is trying to do?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I started to "upgrade" to Firefox 65 today and it refused to proceed unless I used admin privileges to let it install some vague new "Helper Tool". Vague is being generous...,
This popped up in a quick search:
Martin Brinkmann/Ghacks said:
Application Update Service Helper new Firefox system add-on
Application Update Service Helper is a new system add-on for the Firefox web browser that is pushed to all Firefox 50 or newer versions of the browser.

System add-ons work in many regards like regular add-ons that users install manually. They are installed and maintained independently from the browser core which is the greatest advantage.

This enables Mozilla to push updates to the browser without having to ship a new version of Firefox. The effect is that updates reach user systems faster and without service interruption.

Updates may modify preferences of the browser among other things.

One downside of system add-ons is that users don't have control over them in Firefox. While you can go ahead and delete the respective directories on the local system, there is no option currently to disable them directly from within Firefox.
 


I started to "upgrade" to Firefox 65 today and it refused to proceed unless I used admin privileges to let it install some vague new "Helper Tool".
Did you update from within Firefox or download an installer? I did the former and did not get such a request. I selected "About Firefox...", agreed to the 65 update, watched it download and then clicked restart. I feel quite confident that nothing ever requested my admin password during that time period.

I have also searched my entire boot drive for anything containing "mozilla" and "helper tool" with nothing found. I'm afraid I can't deal with "vague" here... I need the exact name of that helper tool to give you any better answer.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I started to "upgrade" to Firefox 65 today and it refused to proceed unless I used admin privileges to let it install some vague new "Helper Tool".
Entering about:support in the Firefox browser showed this:
...
Firefox Features
...
Application Update Service Helper 2.0 aushelper@mozilla.org
I also poked around my macOS Sierra system and found this this file in my Firefox ESR app:
Bash:
ls -la /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/Resources/browser/features/aushelper@mozilla.org.xpi
(There was also this interesting folder:)
Bash:
ls -la /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools
 


So evidently the reason I didn't experience this with 56 is because it came with my update to 50 several months ago.

Checking preferences, I see I have changed it to "Check for updates but let you choose to install them" so I didn't notice any differences to my update experience. I suspect that add-ons and perhaps other things may be updating automatically, but not the app itself.
 


Did you update from within Firefox or download an installer? I did the former and did not get such a request. I selected "About Firefox...", agreed to the 65 update, watched it download and then clicked restart. I feel quite confident that nothing ever requested my admin password during that time period.

I have also searched my entire boot drive for anything containing "mozilla" and "helper tool" with nothing found. I'm afraid I can't deal with "vague" here... I need the exact name of that helper tool to give you any better answer.
The link that Ric showed was for version 50, and since I was at version 64, I must have installed that helper a long time ago. This is a new request.

My change to version 65 was done from within Firefox, starting with About Firefox and accepting the offered update.

The name of the Helper Tool is unknown to me; the screen said "Helper Tool" with no hint of any other identifying information.
 



(There was also this interesting folder:)
Bash:
ls -la /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools
I think that folder has been around for awhile. In my Mojave install I see helpers for Pacifist, Carbon Copy Cloner, iStatMenus, Disk Sensei, amongst others. Or do you mean it is just "interesting" in the context of a Firefox install?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Or do you mean it is just "interesting" in the context of a Firefox install?
I just meant that it was "interesting" that such a folder exists to hold "priviliged helpers", not really understanding exactly how they become "priviliged" or how that process relates to them being located in a special folder.
 


I just meant that it was "interesting" that such a folder exists to hold "priviliged helpers", not really understanding exactly how they become "priviliged" or how that process relates to them being located in a special folder.
Privileged helpers have been a thing for several OS's, having been Apple's recommended way of giving an app a means to obtain limited system level privileges without having to ask for admin passwords each time the app needs them. The helper app(s) are placed in that folder by either an installer or the first time the app is launched, and requires admin approval at that time.
 


I administer a small web site for a non-profit organization, and we’re having problems with jpegs that I cannot figure out. Many of the pages have text and thumbnail images, and the thumbnails are links to a larger jpeg. On Safari 12.0.3, the thumbnails appear correctly, but clicking the link simply brings up a blank page with a tiny question mark in a blue box at the center top of the page. The links work fine in Firefox and Chrome, displaying the larger jpeg properly.

I downloaded one of the large jpeg files from the web site. When I try to open it in Preview, I get the message: “The file xxxx could not be opened. It may be damaged or use a file format that Preview doesn’t recognize.” I opened that file successfully in Graphic Converter. I then simply clicked “Save” in Graphic Converter. It did not ask me if I wanted to replace the file. After that, I can open the file in Preview.

I’ve asked two other people to check the site, and they have gotten the same results. I’m pretty sure this was not a problem a few years ago when I took over administration of the site, so something might have changed in the way macOS handles jpegs in the interim.

Does anyone know how I can fix the problem without touching and reuploading all the jpegs?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I administer a small web site for a non-profit organization, and we’re having problems with jpegs that I cannot figure out....
I wonder if this might be a server-side problem with file types. You can check the info with the curl command, e.g.:
Bash:
curl -Is https://www.macintouch.com/logo.png | grep  'Content-Type'
(Replace this URL with the URL of your problematic JPEG.)
 


I administer a small web site for a non-profit organization, and we’re having problems with jpegs that I cannot figure out. Many of the pages have text and thumbnail images, and the thumbnails are links to a larger jpeg. On Safari 12.0.3, the thumbnails appear correctly, but clicking the link simply brings up a blank page with a tiny question mark in a blue box at the center top of the page. The links work fine in Firefox and Chrome, displaying the larger jpeg properly. I downloaded one of the large jpeg files from the web site. When I try to open it in Preview, I get the message: “The file xxxx could not be opened. It may be damaged or use a file format that Preview doesn’t recognize.” I opened that file successfully in Graphic Converter. I then simply clicked “Save” in Graphic Converter. It did not ask me if I wanted to replace the file. After that, I can open the file in Preview.
I’ve asked two other people to check the site, and they have gotten the same results. I’m pretty sure this was not a problem a few years ago when I took over administration of the site, so something might have changed in the way macOS handles jpegs in the interim.
Does anyone know how I can fix the problem without touching and reuploading all the jpegs?
One thing I would check is the color space of the JPEGs. I've seen goofy things when JPEGs are saved as CMYK instead of RGB.
 


Thank you, Ric and Bryan. Ric, the response to the curl command is 'image/jpeg' and Bryan, Photoshop Elements says the image is RGB.

Any other thoughts?
 





Good idea, Todd. Thank you. Just go to http://www.graphics-stamps.org and click on any of the thumbnail images.
So, I tested on the following platforms: El Capitan, Sierra, and High Sierra with both Safari and Chrome on each. All Chrome rendered the JPEGs, Safari 11/QuickLook/Preview on El Cap rendered it, and Safari 12/QuickLook/Preview on Sierra and High Sierra all did not render. I download the JPEG file with both Safari and Chrome on several of them, and they all had the same MD5 checksum.

The fact that the file was exactly the same in all instances, but with different render results on different platforms, made me rule out anything going on with the server, and suspect the file itself. Running it through jpeginfo (on a Linux machine) gave the following results:
Bash:
$ jpeginfo -c bulgaria0384.jpg
bulgaria0384.jpg  Corrupt JPEG data: 2 extraneous bytes before marker 0xe0  639 x 882  24bit JFIF  N  219575  [WARNING]
So, basically, the JPEG files are corrupt, not adhering to the JPEG specification. Chrome and El Cap are apparently ignoring the corruption and rendering the file anyway. Safari/QuickLook/Preview probably all rely on the same image rendering framework in the OS, which probably had an update in Sierra that makes it more strict in not attempting to render corrupt files, in order to protect against potential arbitrary code execution in maliciously-crafted malformed image files.
 




Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts