You are here

Does FF portable install Java (TM) Platform SE plugin by default?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
4cheers 4 John ...
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2010-10-28 15:10
Does FF portable install Java (TM) Platform SE plugin by default?

Hi folks,

When I clean install Firefox Portable v3.6.24, no Java anything shows in the plugins but when I clean install Firefox Portable v15, the 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin is always present. SO...

Is the 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin now a standard part of a clean Firefox Portable install?

a) If so, given the security alert re Java (and the fact that, to my knowledge, I never use it anyway), how do I remove it? Particularly since the removal instructions I have read...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-issues-with-plugins-fi...
...don't work as there's no Java anything to remove under Control Panel>Add or Remove Programs (in XP SP3), or involve a full install of Java from Oracle followed by an uninstall. Is there no other way to get rid of the thing? It seems bizarre that I should have to agree to run third party software and agree to whatever legal dross that party demands, simply to remove some of their crapware that I didn't want in the first place and which from the last week's news is a liability to me.

b) If it's *not* part of the standard install, any thoughts on how the damn thing is latching on, especially given that...
(i) it does it for v15 but not for v3.6.24
(ii) I restore a clean OS partition image immediately before the each clean install of Firefox.

Thanks for any help.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Unsupported

Firefox 3.6.x does not support the new Java plugin style introduced in the last couple versions of Java 6 and in Java 7.

Firefox 3.6.x is no longer supported and has major known security vulnerabilities, just as bad as an outdated Java will expose you to. These vulnerabilities will not be patched. Firefox 3.6.x should no longer be used.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

4cheers 4 John ...
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2010-10-28 15:10
Thanks for the quick

Thanks for the quick response, John.

I am not using Firefox v3.6.x other than to test whether the Java plugin showed up.

To the original question, though, is the 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin now a standard part of a clean Firefox Portable install?

If so, is there a way to remove it? Is simple disabling sufficient? Thanks.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Nope

Java has never been included with Firefox Portable, we give you just what a local Firefox install gives you. It will, however, detect if you have it installed on the local machine. Firefox 3.6 will not detect any modern Java, though.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

4cheers 4 John ...
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2010-10-28 15:10
Hmm. That's what I thought. I

Hmm. That's what I thought.

I just can't see how Java can be getting on the machine as I'm restoring a clean OS image from ages ago before each clean FF install. That OS image...
- definitely didn't show Java plugins in FF previously
- ...or have any Java installed in the OS
- is password protected, on a different drive and
- is restored from a Linux bootable USB key (True Image v12), not from within Windows

After the OS image restore, I'm installing anti-virus and then running the Firefox Portable v15 installer at which point the plugin is already present.

I don't know exactly exactly how the Java security vuln manifests; is it possible either the Firefox Portable v15 installer, or my copy of it, is compromised? Would you mind trying a clean FFv15 install at your end and confirm no 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin? Thanks again.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Tis Clean

A fresh install of Firefox Portable 15.0 on a fully patched Windows XP SP3 system shows no Java plugin under Add-ons Manager. Just the standard Microsoft DRM and Windows Media Player Plug-ins.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

4cheers 4 John ...
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2010-10-28 15:10
Thank you. Looks like I have

Thank you.

Looks like I have some investigating to do.

4cheers 4 John ...
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2010-10-28 15:10
OK. Figured out what's going

OK. Figured out what's going on...

As I was restoring the C:/ drive from a clean image and using a clean install of Firefox Portable, clearly neither of those were the problem. I do, however, run all portable apps from somewhere other than the C:/ drive, as most of us will do: let's call it D:/ and I was using the same D:/ in testing.

The giveaway was when I noticed that the 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin was only present when I ran Firefox portable from inside the D:/PortableApps folder; rename the FirefoxPortable folder while leaving it inside D:/PortableApps (e.g. D:/PortableApps/FirefoxPortable2) and the Java was still there, but move it outside D:/PortableApps folder and presto! no Java.

Turns out that accidental double click of Java_Portable_x_Update_xx_online.paf.exe at some point previously, which didn't look like it had done anything, had created a Java folder in D:/PortableApps/Common Files. From then on, any Firefox launched from within D:/PortableApps had 'Java (TM) Platform SE' plugin activated.

Perhaps John could comment...
Is there a way to have Java run on in some portable apps but not others? e.g. run in
D:/PortableApps/FirefoxPortable with Java
and
D:/PortableApps/LibreOfficePortable
but not in
D:/PortableApps/FirefoxPortable no Java ?

Thanks again for your help, John.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
All or Nothing

Currently, jPortable is an all or nothing affair. If it's in CommonFiles\Java, all the portable apps that support it will access it from there. Nobody ever asked about it being any other way, so we hadn't even considered another option. I supposed it would be possible to disable it for the browsers using a custom INI option for users that desire it.

And, you're welcome Smile

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Ken Herbert
Ken Herbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 19 min ago
DeveloperModerator
Joined: 2010-05-25 18:19
How about the INI option sets

How about the INI option sets the check order instead of just disabling the check for jPortable.

Default would be jPortable then local install, with the INI switch set the launcher checks local then jPortable.

This would provide a more portable solution than disabling the check for jPortable completely.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Why?

What's the purpose behind doing that at all since that isn't even related to portability?

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Ken Herbert
Ken Herbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 19 min ago
DeveloperModerator
Joined: 2010-05-25 18:19
Portability in terms of you

Portability in terms of you set the ini flag to ignore jPortable then move to a system that doesn't have a local Java install. You end up with an app that no longer works despite that you have a perfectly valid jPortable install.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 30 min 32 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Browser Only

The INI I'm thinking of would be for the browsers only and only allow them to disable jPortable search. That's it. Trying to ignore local Java gets dicey as that would mean altering each app's configuration, with hacks in the case of Firefox (changes you can't alter from within the GUI). So, no, we won't be doing that. The only thing being considered is the ability to not do the jPortable add-on code we have in our launchers that adds jPortable into the plugins search paths. Anything else would be a separate and more-complicated feature request.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Log in or register to post comments