This forum is a discussion about improving the "How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections" article. If you'd like to participate, please register.

If you need help with Firefox, please ask a question.

Article rewrite (was: [Attn: Admin] Should this article be maintained?)

  • 25 Replies
  • Last reply by AliceWyman
  1. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    There are lots of changes needed to make this article current, as philipp noted in his [Fx36] thread. I've been looking through the list of discussion threads that were started but never acted on and adding them as "Needs change" entries. I discovered that his article was previously archived but was un-archived and updated based on the following discussion:

    /en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatica.../1873 [Approved] Updates to make this article current (was: Consider unarchiving, it is linked from Mozilla) ... where John99 said on September 19, 2011

    Continued from /forums/contributors/704981?page=4#post-42599 this article is linked from http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox.html so maybe it should continue to be maintained.

    The article was then un-archived and updated.

    The mozilla privacy page that John99 referred to now redirects to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ where I don't see any links to this article ... but it does cover the following items, some of which is missing from this article:


    Browser and add-ons updates
    Add-ons Blocklist 
    Snippets (for the default home page)  
    Firefox Health Report
    Security 
     Secure Website Certificates   
     Firefox Forgery and Attack Protection  
    Usage statistics (also called "Telemetry" in non-release builds) 
    Tiles 
    Default Search  
    

    If we no longer need or wish to update this article then it should be archived. Hopefully Joni will see this, and make a decision.

    There are lots of changes needed to make this article current, as philipp noted in his [Fx36] thread. I've been looking through the list of discussion threads that were started but never acted on and adding them as "Needs change" entries. I discovered that his article was previously archived but was un-archived and updated based on the following discussion: [/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections/discuss/1873] ''[Approved] Updates to make this article current (was: Consider unarchiving, it is linked from Mozilla)'' ... where ''John99 said'' on September 19, 2011 <blockquote> Continued from [/forums/contributors/704981?page=4#post-42599] this article is linked from http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox.html so maybe it should continue to be maintained. </blockquote> The article was then un-archived and updated. The mozilla privacy page that John99 referred to now redirects to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ where I don't see any links to this article ... but it does cover the following items, some of which is missing from this article: ----- Browser and add-ons updates Add-ons Blocklist Snippets (for the default home page) Firefox Health Report Security Secure Website Certificates Firefox Forgery and Attack Protection Usage statistics (also called "Telemetry" in non-release builds) Tiles Default Search ----- If we no longer need or wish to update this article then it should be archived. Hopefully Joni will see this, and make a decision.
  2. philipp 1024 posts
    Report Abuse

    in case we decide to maintain the article i'd propose an overhaul of this article and grouping related topics into expandable/collapsible sections

    for example (bold would be sections, italic content that is missing at the moment):

    Automatic updates & Security Auto-update checking Blocklist updating Anti-phishing list updating Anti-malware list updating OCSP

    Prefetching Link prefetching DNS Prefetching New Tab Page prefetching Add-on list prefetching

    User Invoked Content Home page loading Extensions (maybe move the autoupdating of extensions here) Live Bookmarks updating Downloads restarted Firefox Hello

    Mozilla Content Tiles Snippets Geolocation for Default Search What's new page after update Add-on metadata updating

    Diagnostics Health Report Telemetry Crash Reports

    Media Capabilities Open h264 WebRTC STUN/ICE (bug 959893) SSDP for roku/chromecast detection in local network (EME in future?)

    Loopback connection Infected with malware

    in case we decide to maintain the article i'd propose an overhaul of this article and grouping related topics into expandable/collapsible sections for example (bold would be sections, italic content that is missing at the moment): '''Automatic updates & Security''' Auto-update checking Blocklist updating Anti-phishing list updating Anti-malware list updating ''OCSP'' '''Prefetching''' Link prefetching ''DNS Prefetching'' New Tab Page prefetching Add-on list prefetching '''User Invoked Content''' Home page loading Extensions (maybe move the autoupdating of extensions here) Live Bookmarks updating Downloads restarted ''Firefox Hello'' '''Mozilla Content''' ''Tiles'' ''Snippets'' ''Geolocation for Default Search'' ''What's new page after update'' Add-on metadata updating '''Diagnostics''' ''Health Report'' ''Telemetry'' ''Crash Reports'' '''Media Capabilities''' ''Open h264'' ''WebRTC STUN/ICE (bug 959893)'' ''SSDP for roku/chromecast detection in local network'' ''(EME in future?)'' '''Loopback connection''' '''Infected with malware'''
    Modified by philipp on
  3. ideato 567 posts
    Report Abuse

    Also the article is too long, maybe we have to split it a little ?

    Also the article is too long, maybe we have to split it a little ?
  4. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    On balance I would be for retaining the article.

    I realise there are security concerns with publishing some of this sort of information

    However some of the content or proposed content is a lot less controversial, and useful; although admittedly hardly likely to be a high traffic article.

    Some find the snippets highly annoying, especially those on low band width connections. Some are always going to complain about any Mozilla content, and I think the Tiles were. initially rather controversial.

    I am all for the diagnostics, and I can see the potential benefits, but I am certain a vocal minority will expect options to disable these to be openly published.

    On balance I would be for retaining the article. I realise there are security concerns with publishing some of this sort of information * as in ''Posting answers on the support forum that are potentially harmful (e.g., bypassing the blocklist)'' [/forums/contributors/711071] However some of the content or proposed content is a lot less controversial, and useful; although admittedly hardly likely to be a high traffic article. Some find the snippets highly annoying, especially those on low band width connections. Some are always going to complain about any Mozilla content, and I think the Tiles were. initially rather controversial. I am all for the diagnostics, and I can see the potential benefits, but I am certain a vocal minority will expect options to disable these to be openly published.
  5. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    I drafted a rewrite of this article based on philipp's suggested outline. (I also edited the intro and added a link to Mozilla's Firefox Browser Privacy Notice.)

    See /kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-ma.../90998

    There's a lot that needs to be filled in and it will greatly expand this article.

    I drafted a rewrite of this article based on philipp's suggested outline. (I also edited the intro and added a link to Mozilla's [https://www.mozilla.org/privacy/firefox/ Firefox Browser Privacy Notice].) See [/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections/revision/90998] There's a lot that needs to be filled in and it will greatly expand this article.
  6. philipp 1024 posts
    Report Abuse

    since https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1079413 certain kb articles can be assigned to have collapsible sections - if we fill in all the blanks here, this article may be another candidate for it...

    since https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1079413 certain kb articles can be assigned to have collapsible sections - if we fill in all the blanks here, this article may be another candidate for it...
  7. Joni 318 posts
    Report Abuse

    I'm in favor of archiving this article. The Privacy Notice should address these concerns, and I'm not entirely comfortable with telling users how to bypass these options - in case things break.

    I'll ask UA for their thoughts.

    I'm in favor of archiving this article. The [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Privacy Notice] should address these concerns, and I'm not entirely comfortable with telling users how to bypass these options - in case things break. I'll ask UA for their thoughts.
  8. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    BIG OOPS!

    I said before, The mozilla privacy page that John99 referred to now redirects to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ where I don't see any links to this article ...

    Well, I was wrong. There's a link to https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections#w_auto-update-checking under Things you should know, in the first "Learn More" section of Mozilla's Firefox Browser Privacy Notice:


    Browser and add-ons updates
    
    Browser Updates: Once per day, Firefox sends the following info to Mozilla when it checks for browser updates: your Firefox version information, language preference, operating system and version. You can turn off updates by following these instructions but it may leave you open to security vulnerabilities.
    

    Joni said

    I'm in favor of archiving this article. The Privacy Notice should address these concerns, and I'm not entirely comfortable with telling users how to bypass these options - in case things break. I'll ask UA for their thoughts.

    By UA you mean User Advocacy .... would that be Tyler Downer or someone else?

    Before archiving this article, maybe you should contact whoever is responsible for that page and get the link changed? The Update Firefox to the latest version article (at the very end) links to https://support.mozilla.org/kb/advanced-panel-accessibility-browsing-network-upda#w_update-tab so maybe that should be used instead.

    BIG OOPS! I said before, ''The mozilla privacy page that John99 referred to now redirects to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ where I don't see any links to this article ...'' Well, I was wrong. There's a link to https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections#w_auto-update-checking under Things you should know, in the first "Learn More" section of Mozilla's [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Firefox Browser Privacy Notice]: ----- Browser and add-ons updates Browser Updates: Once per day, Firefox sends the following info to Mozilla when it checks for browser updates: your Firefox version information, language preference, operating system and version. You can [https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections#w_auto-update-checking turn off updates by following these instructions] but it may leave you open to security vulnerabilities. ----- ''Joni [[#post-11419|said]]'' <blockquote> I'm in favor of archiving this article. The [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ Privacy Notice] should address these concerns, and I'm not entirely comfortable with telling users how to bypass these options - in case things break. I'll ask UA for their thoughts. </blockquote> By UA you mean User Advocacy .... would that be [/user/Tylerdowner Tyler Downer] or someone else? Before archiving this article, maybe you should contact whoever is responsible for that page and get the link changed? The [[Update Firefox to the latest version]] article (at the very end) links to https://support.mozilla.org/kb/advanced-panel-accessibility-browsing-network-upda#w_update-tab so maybe that should be used instead.
  9. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    philipp said

    Diagnostics Health Report Telemetry Crash Reports

    If we do update this article then we can link to Advanced panel - Accessibility, browsing, network, updates, and other advanced settings in Firefox (Health Report, Telemetry, and Crash Reports are all listed, along with "more info" links, under the "Data Choices Tab" section).

    ''philipp [[#post-11402|said]]'' <blockquote> '''Diagnostics''' ''Health Report'' ''Telemetry'' ''Crash Reports'' </blockquote> If we do update this article then we can link to [[Advanced panel - Accessibility, browsing, network, updates, and other advanced settings in Firefox#w_data-choices-tab_2]] (''Health Report'', ''Telemetry'', and ''Crash Reports'' are all listed, along with "more info" links, under the "Data Choices Tab" section).
    Modified by AliceWyman on
  10. Joni 318 posts
    Report Abuse

    Yes, I asked Tyler and he's in favor of keeping this article. Let's make our updates and review when ready.

    Yes, I asked Tyler and he's in favor of keeping this article. Let's make our updates and review when ready.
  11. philipp 1024 posts
    Report Abuse

    i have put updates for the missing parts into the article - please someone proof-read it before it is getting reviewed.

    in addition the article will be of quite monstrous length now - is this a case where we could add collapsible sections joni?

    i have put updates for the missing parts into the article - please someone proof-read it before it is getting reviewed. in addition the article will be of quite monstrous length now - is this a case where we could add collapsible sections joni?
  12. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    Should the "Firefox Hello" section be {for fx34} and above? WebRTC {for fx33} or earlier? What about the Speculative Pre-connections section, which is a rewrite of the New Tab Page section that was {for fx22} and above? What about Diagnostics (Health Report and Telemetry) ? The "Data choices tab" ... was that added in fx21?

    Other than adding {for fx} for those sections (and some may argue not to bother for fx21 or fx 22 and below) it looks OK to me as far as proofreading goes.

    As for the monstrous length, removing the Table Of Contents (TOC) would shorten it ... and that won't be needed if collapsable secions are implemented.

    Should the "Firefox Hello" section be {for fx34} and above? WebRTC {for fx33} or earlier? What about the Speculative Pre-connections section, which is a rewrite of the New Tab Page section that was {for fx22} and above? What about Diagnostics (Health Report and Telemetry) ? The "Data choices tab" ... was that added in fx21? Other than adding {for fx} for those sections (and some may argue not to bother for fx21 or fx 22 and below) it looks OK to me as far as proofreading goes. As for the monstrous length, removing the Table Of Contents (TOC) would shorten it ... and that won't be needed if collapsable secions are implemented.
  13. philipp 1024 posts
    Report Abuse

    ah yeah, you're right - "Firefox Hello" should be {for fx34}! as i'm not editing the KB that often i'm not sure about guidelines around this, but during writing the changes my thinking was that only firefox 31 esr is still supported still and to not bother with any differentiation before that.

    webrtc has been in the browser for quite a while & the underlying bug that describes the issue from the webrtc-section was filed from firefox 26 - i didn't investigate the "regression" range any further... pretty much the same applies to the speculative pre-connections, i think they came for the new tab thumbnails in firefox 22, for the search bar in firefox 24 and what i just found out about for search on about:home & about:newtab in firefox 34 (bug #781006), so maybe there is a case to at least document the later part.

    ah yeah, you're right - "Firefox Hello" should be {for fx34}! as i'm not editing the KB that often i'm not sure about guidelines around this, but during writing the changes my thinking was that only firefox 31 esr is still supported still and to not bother with any differentiation before that. webrtc has been in the browser for quite a while & the underlying bug that describes the issue from the webrtc-section was filed from firefox 26 - i didn't investigate the "regression" range any further... pretty much the same applies to the speculative pre-connections, i think they came for the new tab thumbnails in firefox 22, for the search bar in firefox 24 and what i just found out about for search on about:home & about:newtab in firefox 34 ([https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781006 bug #781006]), so maybe there is a case to at least document the later part.
  14. Marcus320 0 posts
    Report Abuse

    Hello everyone and thanks for updating this - it was overdue. I just wanted to point out that there is one more point which could be added: see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections/discuss/5030.

    It's affects the first start of Firefox, similarly to "OpenH264 Codec" or "Geolocation for Default Search".

    Hello everyone and thanks for updating this - it was overdue. I just wanted to point out that there is one more point which could be added: see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-automatically-making-connections/discuss/5030. It's affects the first start of Firefox, similarly to "OpenH264 Codec" or "Geolocation for Default Search".
  15. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    I approved the last revision by philipp but didn't mark it ready to localize yet. I added the following to the article description:


    Needs Change: Joni: Can this article include collapsible sections? See discussion on article rewrite. Also, should "Fetching of search plug-in icons" section be added? (see discussion)


    P.S. I also made a small edit to the Intro and "Blocklist updating" warning {for fx37} that I self-approved.

    I approved the last revision by philipp but didn't mark it ready to localize yet. I added the following to the article description: ----- '''Needs Change''': Joni: Can this article include collapsible sections? See discussion on article rewrite. Also, should "Fetching of search plug-in icons" section be added? (see discussion) ----- P.S. I also made a small edit to the Intro and "Blocklist updating" warning {for fx37} that I self-approved.
    Modified by AliceWyman on
  16. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    I added Marcus320 to the article contributor list.

    I added Marcus320 to the article contributor list.
  17. Joni 318 posts
    Report Abuse

    Chatted with Philipp on IRC. I do agree with adding collapsible sections to this article. I'll file a bug and link it back here.

    Edit - Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1141669. Adding it to the prioritized backlog as well.

    Chatted with Philipp on IRC. I do agree with adding collapsible sections to this article. I'll file a bug and link it back here. Edit - Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1141669. Adding it to the prioritized backlog as well.
    Modified by Joni on
  18. Joni 318 posts
    Report Abuse

    This article now has collapsible sections, thanks to Philipp! The article is much easier to skim now.

    This article now has collapsible sections, thanks to Philipp! The article is much easier to skim now.
  19. philipp 1024 posts
    Report Abuse

    one bug that was unearthed from that is that the collapsible sections don't work for headings within a {for} yet...

    one bug that was unearthed from that is that the collapsible sections don't work for headings within a {for} yet...
  20. AliceWyman 4912 posts
    Report Abuse

    philipp said

    one bug that was unearthed from that is that the collapsible sections don't work for headings within a {for} yet...

    Bug 1142285 - in article with collapsed sections <h1> headings are not shown properly when used with {for}

    The affected headings are "Loopback connection" {for not linux} and "Infected with malware" {for win}.

    If it looks like this bug will be around for awhile, we could remove {for} from the two affected headings and add a note. I have a pending revision to do that (plus a few other edits).

    ''philipp [[#post-11479|said]]'' <blockquote> one bug that was unearthed from that is that the collapsible sections don't work for headings within a {for} yet... </blockquote> ''[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1142285 Bug 1142285] - in article with collapsed sections <nowiki><h1></nowiki> headings are not shown properly when used with {for} '' The affected headings are "Loopback connection" {for not linux} and "Infected with malware" {for win}. If it looks like this bug will be around for awhile, we could remove {for} from the two affected headings and add a note. I have a pending revision to do that (plus a few other edits).
  1. 1
  2. 2