Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95030 > unrolled thread

System error or Firefox error?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-01 12:06 -0700
    Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 21:05 +0000
      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 21:07 +0000
      Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 11:38 +1300
        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 03:12 +0000
          Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 18:21 +1300
            Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 18:22 +0000
              Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-03 11:32 +1300
                Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 23:17 +0000
                Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-03 04:10 +0000
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 01:56 -0500
                Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 01:54 -0500
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-04 00:14 +1300
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 14:27 -0500
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-03 22:50 +0000
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-03 23:59 +0000
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-04 13:37 -0700
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-05 10:49 +1300
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-04 23:06 +0000
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-04 18:15 -0700
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 03:18 +0000
                          Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-06 00:56 -0500
                            Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-06 07:07 +0000
                              Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-06 10:37 -0500
                                Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-06 22:40 +0000
                                  Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-07 00:37 +0000
                                    Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:43 -0500
                                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-07 20:06 +0000
                                        Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-07 23:06 -0500
                                          Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-08 04:16 +0000
                                          Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-08 11:36 +0000
                                            Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-08 14:22 -0500
                                              Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-08 20:48 +0000
                                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-07 21:59 +0000
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-06 16:33 -0400
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-05 15:42 +1300
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 03:23 +0000
          Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-02 07:27 +0000
        Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-02 13:40 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#95273

On 2016-10-05, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
>> share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
>> application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
>> provide it without having to log into any other account.
>
> So if the wife is to have my admin password, what's the advantage over 
> simply giving her account admin privileges, as at present?

The initial user account Mac OS X creates during installation is an
administrator account, because at the bare minimum you do need to have
at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
normal users for the user name and password of an administrator when you
attempt to do something that requires escalated privileges. So while you
do need to *have* an administrator account, there's really not much of a
reason to log in as administrator for day-to-day use.

Why is it a good idea to avoid logging directly into your administrator
account in Mac OS X? Well, besides the fact that you can do most any
administrative task from a non-administrative account, there are
security reasons having to do with a widely accepted principle of "least
privilege" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege>). 
It's always a good idea to run with as few escalated privileges as
possible, because it reduces the chance of privilege escalation
accidents while also reducing the impact of privilege escalation
accidents should they occur.

While you certainly could use an administrative account daily without
adverse effects, even for months or years without incident, it's the one
time it matters that you may want to be concerned about. For instance, I
can't tell you how many times I've seen Mac users ask for help because
they accidentally deleted some file on their system they might not have
deleted so easily had they not been using escalate privileges at the
time.

When you are logged in as administrator or root, everything you do and
every program you run (directly or indirectly, purposefully or
inadvertently) is executed with administrative or root privileges -
meaning it automatically has access to more parts of the system than
standard user accounts. This means if you make a mistake while changing,
moving, or deleting system files, or running programs, or worse, if you
unknowingly run a trojan / worm in your administrative account, you can
damage and alter critical system files with little or no protection or
acknowledgment from the system.

While the majority of the files in you home folder are owned by you,
lots of files and folders in Mac OS X are owned by the "admin" group, of
which every administrative account is a member. When you are logged in
as a normal user, Mac OS X will not allow you to modify such parts of
the system without first entering the user name and password of an
administrative account. This is an additional layer of security you
won't have if you are running as administrator. In contrast, when you
are logged in as administrator, Mac OS X allows you to change, move, and
delete such files and folders without question. And when you are logged
in as root, you are given even more power since the system allows you to
change *all* files on the entire system without question.

I think the reason Apple doesn't give this advise to all Mac users is
probably because the long explanation needed to convey the reasons for
it and how to do it would probably not be very well received. Most users
don't know enough about security issues to understand, and frankly, most
just don't want to be bothered. Apple probably could automate the
creation of an initial administrative account and a non-administrative
account, but if users aren't properly educated about the issues
involved, there's no guarantee they would actually use them properly.
It's more involved than just offering a one-liner of advice in a user's
guide. ; )

But if you need it hear it from a more credible source than some dude on
the internet, here's what Apple themselves have to say about it (from
page 61 of the Mac OS X Security Configuration Guide @
http://tinyurl.com/augt3w):

"Unless you need administrator access for specific system maintenance
tasks that cannot be accomplished by authenticating with the
administrator's account while logged in as a normal user, always log in
as a non-administrator user.  Log out of the administrator account when
you are not using the computer as an administrator. Never browse the web
or check email while logged in to an administrator's account."

So, a secure thing to do is to create an account just for
administration, then remove administrator privileges from your
day-to-day account. Here's how to do it:

First, open and unlock the System Preferences > Accounts panel.

1. Open System Preferences.
2. Click Users & Groups (or Accounts).
3. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed).

Next, create a new administrator account:

1. Click the [+] button. A new user account sheet appears.
2. If you are running Mac OS X 10.5 or later, from the New Account menu
at the top, choose Administrator.
3. In the Name text box, enter a name, such as "Administrator" (without
quotes). While I personally find "Administrator" to be handy, there is
nothing special about this name.  Just pick something you can remember.
4. In the Short Name text box, enter a short name, such as "admin"
(without quotes). While I personally find "admin" to be handy, there is
nothing special about this name.  Just pick something you can remember.
5. In the Password text box, enter a secure password. If you need help
creating a secure password, click the little key icon next to this text
box and an assistant will help you come up with a secure password.
Personally, I prefer to use an entire phrase (with appropriate spacing,
capitalization, and punctuation) as my password. I try to pick phrases
that contain one or two numbers or special characters. The goal is to
pick a password phrase that you will easily remember, and easy to type,
but will be difficult to guess. 
6. In the Verify text box re-enter the secure password.
7. If you are running Mac OS X 10.4 or earlier, check the "Allow user to
administer this computer" checkbox.
8. Click Create Account.

Next, remove administrator abilities from your normal user account:

1. Log out of your normal user account, and log into the new
administrative account you just created.
2. Open System Preferences.
3. Click Accounts.
4. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed).
5. From the account list on the left side of the Accounts panel,
highlight your normal user account name.
6. Clear the "Allow user to administer this computer" checkbox.
7. Log back into your normal user account.

That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's
credentials, you can enter the administrator user name and associated
secure password.
 
-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95326

On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts

Except update Firefox.  For which it is trivial to go to the admin 
account and do the update.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95327

In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts

> Except update Firefox.

No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.


-- 
It was the sort of grin people use when they stare at your left ear and
tell you in an urgent tone of voice that they are being spied on by
secret agents from the next galaxy. It was not a grin to inspire
confidence. More horrible grins had probably been seen, but only on the
sort of grinner that is orange with black stripes, has a long tail and
hangs around in jungles looking for victims to grin at.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95346

On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>
>> Except update Firefox.
>
> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.

Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do 
keep up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95385

In message <nt5r3s$1l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>>
>>> Except update Firefox.
>>
>> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.

> Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do 
> keep up.

Yes. This was explained. You just either didn't pay attention or didn't
understand.

I update apps while logged in to my non-admin account all the damn time.

-- 
A ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95402

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <nt5r3s$1l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> 
>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>>> 
>>>> Except update Firefox.
>>> 
>>> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.
> 
>> Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do 
>> keep up.
> 
> Yes. This was explained. You just either didn't pay attention or didn't
> understand.
> 
> I update apps while logged in to my non-admin account all the damn time.

I'm not sure why this is even being debated. The Firefox for Mac
"installer" consists of a disk image you mount to drag the app into your
Applications folder. The Finder will prompt you for administrator
credentials when try to modify the Applications folder while you are logged
into a non-administrative account. There's no need to log directly into the
admin account.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95436

On 10-06-2016 19:37, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <nt5r3s$1l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>>>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>>>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>>>>
>>>>> Except update Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.
>>
>>> Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do
>>> keep up.
>>
>> Yes. This was explained. You just either didn't pay attention or didn't
>> understand.
>>
>> I update apps while logged in to my non-admin account all the damn time.
>
> I'm not sure why this is even being debated. The Firefox for Mac
> "installer" consists of a disk image you mount to drag the app into your
> Applications folder. The Finder will prompt you for administrator
> credentials when try to modify the Applications folder while you are logged
> into a non-administrative account. There's no need to log directly into the
> admin account.

Firefox and Thunderbird have built-in self-updating code that needs 
write permission in the folder the old version is installed in. 
Otherwise, they fail instead of asking for authentication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95437

Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-06-2016 19:37, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <nt5r3s$1l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>>> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>>>>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>>>>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Except update Firefox.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.
>>> 
>>>> Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do
>>>> keep up.
>>> 
>>> Yes. This was explained. You just either didn't pay attention or didn't
>>> understand.
>>> 
>>> I update apps while logged in to my non-admin account all the damn time.
>> 
>> I'm not sure why this is even being debated. The Firefox for Mac
>> "installer" consists of a disk image you mount to drag the app into your
>> Applications folder. The Finder will prompt you for administrator
>> credentials when try to modify the Applications folder while you are logged
>> into a non-administrative account. There's no need to log directly into the
>> admin account.
> 
> Firefox and Thunderbird have built-in self-updating code that needs 
> write permission in the folder the old version is installed in. 
> Otherwise, they fail instead of asking for authentication.

So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
deal.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95444

On 10-07-2016 15:06, Jolly Roger wrote:
> So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
> and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
> automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
> deal.

Don't scold me; I didn't start this complaint thread.
I just occasionally log into admin to do updates.
Don't use FF much, but I like Thunderbird for Usenet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95445

Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-07-2016 15:06, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
>> and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
>> automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
>> deal.
> 
> Don't scold me; I didn't start this complaint thread.
> I just occasionally log into admin to do updates.

Nothing wrong with that, but the point is it isn't necessary to log into
the admin account.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95446

In message <nt9rcn$nbi$2@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-07-2016 15:06, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
>> and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
>> automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
>> deal.

> Don't scold me; I didn't start this complaint thread.
> I just occasionally log into admin to do updates.

You do not have to login to admin to do updates. That's the entire point
of this thread.

-- 
I SAW NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THE TEACHER'S LOUNGE Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F17

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95466

On 10-08-2016 06:36, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nt9rcn$nbi$2@gioia.aioe.org>
>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 10-07-2016 15:06, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
>>> and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
>>> automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
>>> deal.
>
>> Don't scold me; I didn't start this complaint thread.
>> I just occasionally log into admin to do updates.
>
> You do not have to login to admin to do updates. That's the entire point
> of this thread.

It started with the accurate complaint that you cannot run the 
auto-update of Firefox from an account (admin or not) that didn't 
install it.  It drifted to whether or not one should have two admin 
accounts.  From there it drifted into a few people's addiction to 
starting arguments.

You have my permission to think you won this one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95468

In message <ntbh2h$17e3$6@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-08-2016 06:36, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <nt9rcn$nbi$2@gioia.aioe.org>
>>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10-07-2016 15:06, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> So what? There's nothing preventing anyone from downloading the disk image
>>>> and dragging the updated app into the Applications folder. If the buggy
>>>> automatic updated feature doesn't work and bothers you, disable it. Big
>>>> deal.
>>
>>> Don't scold me; I didn't start this complaint thread.
>>> I just occasionally log into admin to do updates.
>>
>> You do not have to login to admin to do updates. That's the entire point
>> of this thread.

> It started with the accurate complaint that you cannot run the 
> auto-update of Firefox from an account (admin or not) that didn't 
> install it.  It drifted to whether or not one should have two admin 
> accounts.  From there it drifted into a few people's addiction to 
> starting arguments.

Along the way you entirely lost the solution to the original problem.

> You have my permission to think you won this one.

There was no argument. You just are too thick to comprehend what I and
other have said.



-- 
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people
who believe it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95439

In message <nt8ts3$1dv2$3@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 10-06-2016 19:37, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <nt5r3s$1l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10-06-2016 02:07, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <nt4p22$1kfr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>>> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-04-2016 22:18, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> at least one administrative account on the machine. A lot of Mac users
>>>>>>> probably don't realize it, but you can accomplish all administrative
>>>>>>> tasks from a non-administrative account in Mac OS X. Mac OS X prompts
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except update Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. You can update Firefox to. Please do keep up.
>>>
>>>> Not from a non-administrator account that didn't install it.  Please do
>>>> keep up.
>>>
>>> Yes. This was explained. You just either didn't pay attention or didn't
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> I update apps while logged in to my non-admin account all the damn time.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this is even being debated. The Firefox for Mac
>> "installer" consists of a disk image you mount to drag the app into your
>> Applications folder. The Finder will prompt you for administrator
>> credentials when try to modify the Applications folder while you are logged
>> into a non-administrative account. There's no need to log directly into the
>> admin account.

> Firefox and Thunderbird have built-in self-updating code that needs 
> write permission in the folder the old version is installed in. 
> Otherwise, they fail instead of asking for authentication.

Yes, and that was covered. You just failed to understand it.

-- 
'It's vital to remember who you really are. It's very important. It
isn't a good idea to rely on other people or things to do it for you,
you see. They always get it wrong.' --Sourcery

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95364

On 2016-10-04 21:15, Paul Magnussen wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>
>> There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
>> share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
>> application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
>> provide it without having to log into any other account.
>
> So if the wife is to have my admin password, what's the advantage over
> simply giving her account admin privileges, as at present?

One, generally, should not run as admin.  And given the rising tide of 
malware aimed at OS X, one should really not run as admin.  A given 
computer generally only needs a single admin account.

-- 
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
   -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95271

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2016-10-04, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Happy.Hobo wrote:
> >
> >> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need
> >> two of them?
> >> 
> >> I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all
> >> installations and updates done there.
> >
> > So that when my wife gets an update notification for whatever app she's
> > using, she doesn't have either to
> >
> > 1) Remember to tell me about it, tell me about it, then wait for me to
> > do it, or
> >
> > 2) Stop what's she's doing, remember where she was, log out, log in to
> > my ID, install the update, log out, log back in again and try to recover
> > her lost train of thought.
> >
> > Yes we could enable fast user switching, but there doesn't seem much point.
> 
> There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
> share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
> application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
> provide it without having to log into any other account.

In the case of Firefox, that will make the update headache worse.

Firefox's auto updater is broken enough that it can't update a copy of
Firefox installed by a different user, and it doesn't prompt for admin
privileges. I already tried this combination with a standard account: it
just tells you there is a new version and won't even attempt to download
or install it.

This means Paul's wife would have to manually install Firefox updates:
go to Mozilla's web site, download the new version, open the disk image,
quit Firefox, drag Firefox from the disk image to the /Applications
alias, enter admin credentials when prompted, eject disk image.

As I said in my previous post, it is easier for one account to disable
Firefox auto updates, and rely on the other account (which must be an
admin account for the auto update to work) to deal with updates when
convenient.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95274

On 2016-10-05, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-04, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Happy.Hobo wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need
>> >> two of them?
>> >> 
>> >> I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all
>> >> installations and updates done there.
>> >
>> > So that when my wife gets an update notification for whatever app she's
>> > using, she doesn't have either to
>> >
>> > 1) Remember to tell me about it, tell me about it, then wait for me to
>> > do it, or
>> >
>> > 2) Stop what's she's doing, remember where she was, log out, log in to
>> > my ID, install the update, log out, log back in again and try to recover
>> > her lost train of thought.
>> >
>> > Yes we could enable fast user switching, but there doesn't seem much point.
>> 
>> There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
>> share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
>> application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
>> provide it without having to log into any other account.
>
> In the case of Firefox, that will make the update headache worse.
>
> Firefox's auto updater is broken enough that it can't update a copy of
> Firefox installed by a different user, and it doesn't prompt for admin
> privileges.

So you'd log into the single administrator account to install Firefox
updates, or either one of you would use the sudo (or scripted) command
to set the ownership/permissions of the Firefox application afterwards.
I don't see the "worse" here.

> I already tried this combination with a standard account: it
> just tells you there is a new version and won't even attempt to download
> or install it.

With one administrator account, either one of you logs into the single
administrator account to update it. "Problem" solved.

> This means Paul's wife would have to manually install Firefox updates:
> go to Mozilla's web site, download the new version, open the disk image,
> quit Firefox, drag Firefox from the disk image to the /Applications
> alias, enter admin credentials when prompted, eject disk image.

That's the price of using Firefox. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95061

In message <e5bc9nF5602U1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
>>>> (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update
>>>> that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
>>>>
>>>> "Unable to Update
>>>>
>>>> A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not
>>>> have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour
>>>> system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to
>>>> install software on this computer."
>>>>
>>>> There's no further information.
>>>>
>>> To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
>>> files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
>>> access to her user account or group.
>>
>> No deep mystery here: I've seen the same issue on someone else's
>> computer where they had two admin accounts and were using Firefox.
>>
>> When the Firefox application is copied (manually) from the distribution
>> disk image into /Applications by one admin account, it is owned by that
>> account, and the permissions on the application package only allow write
>> access to the owner (not the group or everyone).
>>
>> If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
>> it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
>> refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
>> it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
>> application package.)

> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.

But if it were a well-written Mac app it wouldn't be Firefox.


-- 
'Pcharn'kov!' Footnote: 'Your feet shall be cut off and be buried
several yards from your body so your ghost won't walk.' --Interesting
Times

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95077

David Empson wrote:

> No deep mystery here: I've seen the same issue on someone else's
> computer where they had two admin accounts and were using Firefox.
> 
> When the Firefox application is copied (manually) from the distribution
> disk image into /Applications by one admin account, it is owned by that
> account, and the permissions on the application package only allow write
> access to the owner (not the group or everyone).
> 
> If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
> it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
> refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
> it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
> application package.)
> 
> It works if the update is run from the admin account which installed the
> application.

Yep, that's the problem: I've just updated from my own account with no 
difficulty.

Thanks to all who replied, particularly Roger & David.

Roger, I'll take your advice and change the permissions.

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web