Mozilla releases Firefox 3.6.4, adds Crash Protection

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jos

Posts: 3,073   +97
Staff

Mozilla has released a new version of its Firefox browser, 3.6.4, which besides the usual bug fixes and security patches contains a new feature that Mozilla describes as "Crash Protection". This is the much anticipated out-of-process plug-in (OOPP) "sandboxing" feature that prevents software such as Flash, SilverLight, and QuickTime from taking the whole browser down with them when they crash.

When a plug-in freezes or crashes, its contents are replaced with an error message informing the user of the issue while the browser itself will continue running. The new capability should significantly improve the browser's stability and is a first step towards full multi-process browsing, where not only plug-ins but tabs themselves are sandboxed into separate processes -- something that has been touted in Google's Chrome from the start.

For now Firefox's crash protection will work on Windows and Linux only, though; it won't reach Mac OS X until Firefox 4 ships. Firefox 3.6.4 also fixed seven security vulnerabilities, four of them rated as critical and two moderate, so there's even more reason to upgrade. You can read the full release notes here.

Permalink to story.

 
This is what we've been longed for for a while. Now i can't wait for the crash ;)
 
Considering BM's comments, I'd say I've been reasonably lucky because I never had any issues with FF(or with IE or Opera for that matter) :). Although its good to have these improvements in the browser making it bit more stable.
 
I love this song... "You down with the OOPP (Yeah you know me)"

Puns aside, I'm glad Firefox is catching up to the current standards. I won't leave it until something better than AdBlock+, NoScript, LastPass, and FF Sync come out for another browser.

Yes, LastPass is available for Chrome but it's integration isn't nearly as good as it is in Firefox.
 
Chrome + Adblock + Flashblock = Awesome

A LOT of vulnerabilities today take advantage of flash/etc. so blocking all flash elements from loading, and selectively activating only the ones you want (seamlessly), is fantastic.

Plus, IIRC, chrome was the only browser to not get hacked at cansecwest.
 
I am not happy with the multi-process browsing as it confuses me a lot when i view the process in the task manager. For power user this function is very irritating. For instance it will show each individual entry in the task manager for each tab opened. And in my case i constantly work on more than 20-25 tabs at a time. Now when something goes wrong then i lookup to my task manager and find it very difficult to analyse the error or malfunction of my pc. This leads virus to win over & take control of my pc or it slows down pc to the core of my frustration.

Anyways not recomended feature to have. Only reason i am not using chrome is the support for multi-process browsing. Now if i find this on FF then i will have to look for some other browser. Time to dig into IE9 i guess :)
 
ruzveh said:
Anyways not recomended feature to have. Only reason i am not using chrome is the support for multi-process browsing. Now if i find this on FF then i will have to look for some other browser. Time to dig into IE9 i guess :)

HA! Your life is gonna suck in the next year or two. I can see all the major web browsers getting into this. Chrome has done it, firefox is doing it..it's only a matter of time before Opera and IE say "crap, we need to step up"

And not to sound mean, but if you let a virus win because there are so many processes running that you don't want to go through them all, then I say you deserve to get infected. Either stop being lazy, or just close firefox and check the processes (not that hard, lol)
 
Just a few days later Firefox 3.6.6 is already out. Not sure what happened to 3.6.5.
 
Hmm I just upgraded to FF 3.6.6 as well, but I am unsure what all the fuzz is about !

By the way, I am not seeing multiple processes of FF running in the TM hmmm that is bit confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back