I have noticed that when being in offline mode (the computer is not connected to the Internet), Developer Tools (AKA Dragonfly) in Opera are not accessible. When choosing them from the menu, Opera thinks for a while then displays a connection error.
Is there any way to use Developer Tools without being connected to Internet?
As stated in Dragonfly documentation, it should be cached in persistent cache.
But if it is not, then you could try to download actual release of dragonfly to your computer from https://dragonfly.opera.com/app/zips/, unzip and add it's url to opera:config#DeveloperTools|DeveloperToolsURL (that's addres to paste in location bar, but SO doesn't want to output it as link because it has not http in front, I think).
Here is link: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2008/05/07/opera-dragonfly-is-here-and-it-works-offline with article describing that
Opera Dragonfly has now moved to use HTML5 AppCache, so this should work as expected now.
Related
I'm working on an app on my machine and run it on local host. Sometimes browsers dev tools are not accurate and once I am making the changes in my code and then run, it doesn't look like how it was in dev tools. I'm talking about some alignment, responsiveness, not about styling, colors etc.
When I am comparing my app in different browsers it doesn't look the same in all of them, so I'm no sure which one is actually the accurate view.
I have tried Edge, Opera, Mozilla, Chrome. My company is monitoring my pc, so I can't install random stuff on it.
Is there any other option to preview accurately my app? Any extension or some site?
Thanks in advance.
You can always use other browsers like Opera which has developer mode, as well as, Microsoft Edge and Safari that offer web development tools. As for the alternatives for Firefox, I believe it was already answered, check this: What are the alternatives to the Firefox Developer Tools?
Moreover, these might not directly solve your problem but if you are looking for plugins or apps, check these useful tools out: Plunker, Percy, Ghost Inspector, Requestly.
I have a problem at my job.
I am totally dependent on a website which must certainly date from the eighties ...
In one of the web pages, there is a link to download an excel file (xls). Let's say for example http://example.excel.xls
In this file, there are hyperlinks to other files (sometimes i think the death penalty is a good thing! ^^).
These links are relative :'( (for example \myfile.pdf)
Internet explorer, strangely, are correcting these links by transforming them in absolute path (http://example.myfile.pdf)
Other browsers (chrome, firefox, even the old edge) don't do it natively. By clicking on the link, we arrive in the local cache, where of course there arenot my files ...
I will soon have to remove IE from computers.
I had considered sending a bombshell on the administrators of this website, but afraid of legal repercussions :)
Is it possible, via settings, an addon or whatever, to make one of the browsers behave in the same way as IE?
I am very grateful for the help you will give me
You had asked,"Is it possible, via settings, an addon or whatever, to make one of the browsers behave in the same way as IE?"
I suggest you make a test with the MS Edge (Chromium) browser.
The MS Edge (Chromium) browser comes with the IE mode feature.
IE mode on Microsoft Edge makes it easy to use all of the sites your organization needs in a single browser. It uses the integrated Chromium engine for modern sites, and it uses the Trident MSHTML engine from Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) for legacy sites.
To configure IE mode, I suggest you refer to Configure IE mode policies. You can refer to the document and configure the necessary policies to enable the IE mode.
It can help you to load your legacy site in the Edge browser using the IE mode which can help you to fix the said issue.
This is the context: Suppose there is a plug-in, P, available at the Mozilla Firefox add-on site.
Consider a malicious user that modifies P, for example, to make it deviate from the normal behavior. My first question is:
Could the Firefox browser detect that the plug-in is not the original one (i.e., the one that was downloaded from Firefox site? If this can be detected, could the Firefox browser disable the (modified) plug-in?
Now consider the case of a Web site that interacts with the plug-in P. For example, the site allows access to the web content only if the plug-in is original (it has not been modified).
My second question is:
Could the site be able to detect that this malicious user modified the plug-in?
Firefox detecting changes
All extensions which are downloaded from AMO are cryptographically signed by Mozilla (link 2). If the extension is modified in any way, Firefox will automatically detect that there have been changes and will disable the add-on.
However, if the user is running Firefox Developer Edition, Firefox Nightly, Unbranded Beta, or Unbranded Release, they can change a preference such that the modified extension will not be disabled. The modification will still be detected, and the user informed in about:addons (Ctrl-Shif-A, Cmd-Shif-A on OSX). It is also possible for the user to download the source code for Firefox and compile their own version which disables add-on signature checking.
Temporary add-ons
The normal release and beta versions of Firefox do not permit the user the option to permanently install and run extensions which have not been signed, or where the extension has been changed after signing. However, they do, along with all other versions, permit an extension to be loaded as a temporary add-on even if unsigned, or changed. This makes it impossible unsigned add-ons which require a browser restart in those versions of Firefox.
Summary
Mozilla singing add-ons is intended to prevent add-ons, which are malicious, or that just have not been reviewed by Mozilla, from being downloaded and installed by naive users. Thus, to install an unsigned, or changed, add-on, the user has to jump through extra, inconvenient steps (not use a branded release or beta Firefox, or use a temporary add-on install). However, signing does not, and was not intended to, prevent the user from intentionally changing an add-on and not being able to run it.
Website detecting that the extension has changed
No, assuming that the modifications to the extension are intentionally being hidden, there is no guaranteed way for the web page to detect that a change has occurred. The modified extension can spoof any information that is provided to the web page by the original extension code. You can make this hard to do, but it can not be guaranteed.
You have not mentioned why you are wanting your website to be able to detect these changes. Thus, without guessing as to the purpose, it is not possible to provide you with reasonable alternatives.
You're asking for DRM, i.e. the ability to verify that a remote piece of software running on general purpose computing hardware is executing the code which it itself claims to be executing.
This is not possible, since the claimant can always lie and run any code snippet used for interactive authentication in some form of emulator.
Depending on what you're actually trying to achieve you should use user-specific authentication, i.e. tie site access to some token or password instead of the addon, or treat all inputs by the addon as unstrusted and verify them against whatever protocol they should follow.
In short: Validate data, not code.
Adobe release new interesting product - Adobe Shadow. And in its core is a chrome extension which listen for connection of a remote devices (its also interesting how this is done, but i think its might utilize own http service to communicate such request), but whats more interesting is that it listen for DOM, JavaScript and CSS changes (using chrome inspector for developers) and communicate this changes to othere devices. Yet in manifest this extension is only declare it was aware of only tabs switch activity - how this is possible?
You are incorrect about the Shadow Chrome Extension listening for DOM, JavaScript and CSS changes in the page. When you click on the Remote Inspection button in the Chrome Extension, we open a window to a weinre server and inject the required weinre javascript into the page on the device.The weinre window looks like Chrome Dev Tools because they both use WebInspector, which is part of WebKit.
Read More About This In The Shadow FAQ
Read more about weinre
The Shadow Chrome Extension doesn't listen to anything at the page level. It gets the URL to send out to devices from the tabs permission.
I've only had a quick look at the ("confidential" marked) code I recommend you take a look at the skylab.js file.
It appears they're primarily using WebSockets to make the calls to a service running on your machine at . I'm guessing this belongs to the Adobe Shadow fat client.
Perhaps because your call an already existing service that's running on the local machine Chrome does not require any additional permissions. I've searched the code and see no mention of optional permissions either.
This is very interesting as I imagine this could be a concern for security, but maybe only on machines which are already infected with malicious code.
I think this should be releated to IIS settings but don't know exactly what it is.
As you can see below, this login message pops up for each images, 8 images 8 times in Opera.
And the major browsers react to this page different.
IE9 works good(this is the reason why I found this problem now. It's internal site and almost every users use IE...)
Chrome(17.0.963.56 m) works good.
Safari(5.1.2) is also good.
Opera 11.61 has a problem like I said...
And FF SHOWS NO IMAGES and don't even ask for login. And Firebug says it's "NetworkError: 404 Not Found!".
I don't know what's going on.
This site requires to login and it's internal, so I can't give you the link. Sorry for the inconvenient.
And this site is running on Windows Server 2003. And the image containing folder is shared for web(I don't know why it's shared. But don't want to change the setting). I don't know this may cause this situation.
If Opera opens a user name/password dialog, the site is probably sending a WWW-Authenticate header in response to those image requests. You can open Opera's developer tools ("Tools > Advanced > Opera Dragonfly" or right-click in page and select "Inspect element") and use the network feature to inspect the full headers.
I don't know how you can disable this header if it is sent, it depends on the server settings and what type of server you're running, and I'm not at all familiar with Windows Server 2003.