Bugzilla

### Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
* **User impact if declined**: Alarming Win10 notification when clicking a malicious link, that prompts a machine reboot and checkdsk. In a minority of cases, this appears to lead to actual disk corruption and therefore bricked machines.
* **Is this code covered by automated tests?**: No
* **Has the fix been verified in Nightly?**: No
* **Needs manual test from QE?**: Yes
* **If yes, steps to reproduce**: Run attached testcase and click the link **on a virtual machine or some other environment where you've minimized risk of data loss**
* **List of other uplifts needed**: n/a
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Low
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: Messing with local file handling code isn't exactly the least-risky thing to do on a branch, but it's the thorough fix. I've tried to mitigate this by writing thorough tests at the same time (though we can't land then until we ship the change...).

A less risky option would be only taking the URIFixup.jsm change, but that risks having to take follow-up fixes for other issues in this general area as/when they arise.
* **String changes made/needed**: nope

### Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
* **User impact if declined**: Alarming Win10 notification when clicking a malicious link, that prompts a machine reboot and checkdsk. In a minority of cases, this appears to lead to actual disk corruption and therefore bricked machines.
* **Is this code covered by automated tests?**: No
* **Has the fix been verified in Nightly?**: No
* **Needs manual test from QE?**: Yes
* **If yes, steps to reproduce**: Run attached testcase **on Windows 10 in a virtual machine or some other environment where you've minimized risk of data loss** and click the link.
* **List of other uplifts needed**: n/a
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Low
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: Messing with local file handling code isn't exactly the least-risky thing to do on a branch, but it's the thorough fix. I've tried to mitigate this by writing thorough tests at the same time (though we can't land then until we ship the change...).

A less risky option would be only taking the URIFixup.jsm change, but that risks having to take follow-up fixes for other issues in this general area as/when they arise.
* **String changes made/needed**: nope