No Hassle Browser

[WHVW]

Hi:
I've got a lot of routers and audio devices in my system (for radio station).
The problem is that Firefox keeps displaying that INFURIATING "this site is untrusted " page that sometimes denies makes me access and makes me want to smash the whole thing. Opera is a bit better, but not perfect.
From what I've discovered on the internet, there's no hope for Firefox (hopefully you guys/gals out there might know better). Opera looks a bit more promising. Do any of you know the real fixes for this annoying behaviour? (I don't need and certainly don't want a 'net nanny)
Perhaps better yet: is there an esoteric "real" browser out there? One that just goes where you want it to go, does what you want it to do, sans B.S. , nannying and (occasionally) turning your URL into a search? The (non-productive) time you waste on this nonsense really adds up!
This is extremely frustrating, I really hope someone has a solution, please!

[z31fanatic]

Have you tried Google Chrome?

[GeneBenson]

Hi WHVW,

In Firefox: Menu -> Edit -> Preferences -> Security tab disable "Block reported attack sites" and if that doesn't do it disable "Block reported web forgeries" as well.

[Cosmo.]

Ti might be a problem with your Firefox-profile.
To find this out do the following:
Close FF.
Open your file-manager and make hidden files visible (press ctrl-h).
Rename the folder .mozilla to .mozilla.bck
Start FF, this will create automatically a new FF-profile.
Check.

To get back to your old profile:
Close FF.
Delete the new folder .mozilla
Rename the folder .mozila.bck back to .mozilla
Start FF. Done.

[all41]

You can also disable the url search by:
Enter about:config in the url window
Press enter, press enter again at the warning, then in the Search window browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete
toggle that line to false

[elina]

Hello,You can try to reinstall your browser.

[LinuxJim]

Firefox keeps displaying that INFURIATING "this site is untrusted " page
[...]
Do any of you know the real fixes for this annoying behaviour?

Yes. The 'fix' is to educate yourself.

Seriously, whining about such 'annoying' behavior and asking us to tell you how to turn it off shouts loudly that you don't know what you're asking for.

Don't visit sites using https:// if they have expired/bad ceriticates. Turning this off opens you up to all kinds of man-in-the-middle attacks, among other nasty things. If the sites have been blacklisted, find out why. If they're your own sites, then your servers are broken.

It's like asking us how to turn off that annoying smoke alarm....while your house is burning down.

[LinuxJim]

Hi WHVW,

In Firefox: Menu -> Edit -> Preferences -> Security tab disable "Block reported attack sites" and if that doesn't do it disable "Block reported web forgeries" as well.

Translation:

Q: I want to withdraw money from the bank, but I didn't bring my ID so they won't let me.

A: Shoot all the security guards. If that doesn't work, shoot all the tellers, too.

Amazing...

[GeneBenson]

Hi LinuxJim,

The OP wrote:

I don't need and certainly don't want a 'net nanny'

It's on him/her to accept the risks. I only answered the question.

[austin.texas]

Translation:
Q: I want to withdraw money from the bank, but I didn't bring my ID so they won't let me.
A: Shoot all the security guards. If that doesn't work, shoot all the tellers, too.
Amazing...

Berating someone unnecessarily does not add to the discussion, and is not consistent with the forum rules or the general atmosphere in the forums.

[LinuxJim]

Translation:
Q: I want to withdraw money from the bank, but I didn't bring my ID so they won't let me.
A: Shoot all the security guards. If that doesn't work, shoot all the tellers, too.
Amazing...

Berating someone unnecessarily does not add to the discussion, and is not consistent with the forum rules or the general atmosphere in the forums.

I was not berating the poster - merely pointing out the silliness of the suggestion by analogy. The 'intent' often comes from the mind of the reader, not the writer - a shortcoming of text-only communication.

[LinuxJim]

Hi LinuxJim,

The OP wrote:

I don't need and certainly don't want a 'net nanny'

It's on him/her to accept the risks. I only answered the question.

Hey, I know your intentions were well placed.

Another analogy: If someone says 'I don't need and certainly don't want the police to protect me', is it responsible of us to tell him how to evade them - in a public forum where thousands of others will read our advice?

With true freedom comes responsibility. Unchecked freedom is called anarchy.

If the OP had a specific situation that was giving him trouble, that would deserve discussion. But the OP was clearly annoyed by general protections that he considers a 'hassle', and his rationale to fix that was to remove ALL protection - without even knowing what he was being protected from! (BTW, the protection he had a problem with is NOT a net nanny - that is something entirely different - which further indicates his lack of understanding)

Of course, he has freedom to choose for himself - just as you have freedom to help him - but the flip side of freedom is responsibility. Isn't it our resposnsibility to the REST of the community to NOT help him down the wrong road publicly?

You guys can go on with your discussion as you wish - I've made my point. I'm simply asking for a little forethought before handing out potentially damaging advice.

[WHVW]

WOW! Seems as if I've opened up a little hornet's nest here!
So, to give it to you straight: The "sites" I'm visiting are my own routers! If I decide to start exploring HTTPS sites in the wild, I'll plug in a special drive reserved for that purpose- if something bad happens, so what, I'll just wipe the drive. By the way I don't do anything sensitive on the internet I don't trust it period.
I suppose I could buy new routers or go through some such machinations to satisfy Firefox, but it should do what I want-not the other way around.
z31finatic: No I haven't tried Google Chrome. Funny you should mention it, for after this, my next question was to be "how do I get Google's tentacles out of my computer?".
GeneBenson:changing the profile did not work, nor did the web forgeries and attack site settings.
Cosmo: The profile fix didn't work.
all41:I've already done that, the pgm probably needed a restart.
I'm sorry if I've ruffled any feathers: but information is information, we either have a free exchange of information or we don't. I prefer the free exchange (accepting the risks).
If others have any ideas, I'd still like to hear them. To all who have helped, thanks.

[LinuxJim]

Firefox, but it should do what I want-not the other way around.

Says who? This is free software - you're not paying anyone for support, nor are you paying for the product itself (correct me if I'm wrong).

If it doesn't do what you want, you're free to modify it until it does, or write your own. That's the whole point of FOSS.

In any case, your web browser is not to blame, it's your routers and how they're configured. I think you're attacking the problem from the wrong end.

[WHVW]

LinuxJim:

"If it doesn't do what you want, you're free to modify it until it does, or write your own. That's the whole point of FOSS".

That, my friend is the whole point, and why I'm here; to wit: I want to find out how to "modify it until it does"
Also, I don't think I'll be able to modify the firmware of the routers.

[LinuxJim]

That, my friend is the whole point, and why I'm here; to wit: I want to find out how to "modify it until it does"

Well, that's not what I meant by 'modify', but no matter. You're right.

Also, I don't think I'll be able to modify the firmware of the routers.

That would be beyond the scope of this forum anyway, especially if you're dealing with more than one brand/model of router.

Is there a special reason why you're using SSL encryption to connect to the in-house side of your routers? You seem to be unconcerned with security anyway, so why not use simple http?