Webmaster Forum / Browsers / Opera / August 2008

[Regarding the removale of extensions in Opera cache.]

So you are dumbing down Opera to spare the technically challenged.
Can I assume you have made it so these features can be turned
back on again by more sophisticated users?

In other words, no.  You do not have a foundation of personal
knowledge that would permit you to testify that no such arguments
were considered.

"A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has
personal knowledge of the matter."  Federal Rules of Evidence
602,  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602

And you probably still believe  Marcus Julius Brutus when he said
that he knew nothing about who assassinated Caesar.  He had no
idea of who would have wanted to do such a thing.  The
conservatives certainly didn't conspire to kill Caesar.

For the latest on 9/11 see "Japanese Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts
global,"  Japan Times,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20137.htm

But going into a cache directory with 5,000 to 6,000 files,
separating the .jpg .png and maybe .gif files by size, maybe a
minimum 25KB, identifying maybe 1,000 such files, copying and
pasting them into another directory where you can view thumbnails  
with Irfanview or XnView, maybe 40 a screen, and deleting what
you don't want is very easy and quick with file extensions and a
file manager but extremely time consuming without them.   Opening
with Irfan View or XnView 6,000 thumbnails and identifying,
copying, and pasting isolated individual images to another
directory is extremely time consuming.

I do not buy this claim.

I did some googling to find incidents where some Opera user
surfed the web, then went browsing in his Opera cache with
Internet Explorer, and then opened a html file that contained an
activex control, which IE processed and then hosed down his
system.  I found no such incidents  and question whether in the
history of man, going back at least to Asshur Nirari I, this has
ever even happened.

The user has the same risk if he had surfed to that page with IE.

The same risk exists exploring IE version 6 cache files, which
also have extensions.

As long as active X is around, people will always have dangerous
files on their computer.  Taking the extension off only makes
them marginally less dangerous.  

Probably dozens of .exe files in installed applications on a
computer could do damage to application functionality if executed
by someone randomly browsing application directories with windows
explorer.

Generally speaking, you address the risk of user access to files
through windows explorer at the operating system level, where you
have tools to make a computer a kiosk and turn off windows
explorer, not at the application level, one at a time.

Meanwhile, you can still download an .exe file with Opera.  I
downloaded Opera_950_classic_setup.exe to install Opera 9.50.  
Downloading a .exe file is dangerous.  Many people can testify to
the danger of doing that.  But Opera permits you to do it.

In any security analysis you have to assess dangers, likelihoods,
and benefits of what people can do.  

In case of downloading .exe files and putting extensions on cache
files, users get substantial benefit from doing both.  Working
with cache files without extensions is very time consuming and
costly.

While downloading .exe files is very likely and common, users who
don't know what they are doing browsing cache files hasn't proven
to be a common occurrence.

When we  analyze the risks and benefits of having cache file
extensions, the risks are marginal and far less than other known
accepted risks while the costs to the thousands of Opera users
who use them are extremely high.

This reasoning does not lead to a conclusion that you should
remove cache file extensions.

Thus I do not believe this claim.  This is the kind of story you
make up after the fact.  It is not something that happens before
you do something.


w

In other words, the problem doesn't affect you, so screw everyone
else.

No. I started with the accumulated wisdom of mankind which Cicero
formulated in two words, Cui bono?  

Whoever did something probably benefited from it.

To find the truth you first ask who benefited?  You do that
whether the victim is Nicole Brown Simpson or Caesar or file
cache extensions.

You had no foundation to make your first claim.

Your second story is contradicted by other risks which Opera
allows and does nothing about.  It doesn't contain  a compelling
benefit for Opera.

It has a zero ring of truth to it.  There is a saying among sales
professionals, "If you can't fix it, feature it."  In other words
when your product can't do something, claim  a benefit like
security. Your story sounds like it came from someone trained in
such circles and accustomed to thinking in such a manner.

You did not allege a story I could believe.  Your programmers
were simply lazy, saved some time and a few lines of code by
omitting the extensions, and couldn't have cared less about what
they were doing or if doing that screwed cache extension users.  
With outsourcing these days, this happens all the time.

You could have alleged that the programmers say no one told them
to include them or not include them for the changes to cache.  
They didn't know anyone cared.  Management was to blame for lack
of leadership.  I could believe that too.

The bit torrent decision occurred at a different time.  One would
not assume that considerations that applied at that time applied
now.  For all we know, someone in Opera could have regarded
removing file extensions  as making up for bit torrent.

I think the obvious solution here would be to make this dropping of file
name extensions optional.  The default setting could be enabled so silly
users won't be exposed to any risk.  Competent users could disable the
option and then everybody would be happy.

Look, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I  thought you had a technical  
reason for doing this.
It's really because you think users are stupid and need to be protected  
from clicking on an EXE in their cache?

Is that the same reason I now can't do anything with a right click on  
files in the Transfers window?

Could you at least make it a use option to get back the old bahaviours, I  
will click through a disclaimer and promise not to sue you if that's what  
it takes.

You've broken a lot of useful things by doing this.
I can't view source in my code editor proerly, I can't sort my cache by  
type and date in FAR to quickly find and save a file.

And I really doubt if anyone is protected more.

One Gary Sugar, thought by some to be authorative, at
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=238293 has  
different story:

"Originally posted by ArturoMendez:

...
"I would like to see an answer to the original question. Why does
the filetype not show in the cache4 file names anymore? Can it be
controlled by some setting or is this just another "enhancement"?

"It's something about (1) speed and (2) false positives from some
AV app. There is no setting. You can use opera:cache as
workaround.

So it's not safety, but speed and an antivirus application.

History readers and conspiracy watchers know when two
contradictory stories arise, one is definitely wrong, and, quite
likely, both are wrong.

I learned this lesson in the fifth grade following a broken
window.  Somehow my teacher knew that no one was telling the
truth.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:37:54 -0500, Rijk wrote:

o The files are on the hard disk anyway, just without part of the file name.

o Only people who have knowledge will even find Opera's cache.

o Those same people will, after considerable inconvenience,
 restore the original file names anyway, so that they can use them.

o Some AV programs (e.g. my Symantec AV Corporate)
 RELY ON THE FILE EXTENSION
 to decide whether to check the file for malware as it is being stored!
 In this case, the extension removal DISABLES the anti-malware program
 from recognizing (and immediately quarantining) the files!

IMO, Opera is not a better defender against malware
than the AV program I use, and should have left the job
to companies (e.g. Symantec) which specialize in that,
just as they (e.g. Symantec) should keep their hands
away from tinkering and interfering with web browsers.

--

See:
http://my.opera.com/Lex1/blog/show.dml/1014525

I think people should continue to communicate with Opera about
the extensions.  At the moment management at Opera is preoccupied
with trying to put Opera back together again.  

Sooner or later they will realize how big a screwup removing them
is.  They have thrown away one of the biggest advantages they had
over Firefox.   Firefox does not include the extensions, and the
extensions in Opera is a  big reason to use Opera instead of
Firefox.   At time when Opera is telling people to switch to
Opera they will people, especially developers, switching back to
Firefox as  one big advantage of Opera has gone away.

Opera will realize that removing them defeats its long term
strategic goal of increasing usage.