(In reply to Greg Stoll from comment #1) > (adding cc's for :haik and :gcp in case one of you disagrees :-) ) I support doing this. Having the block in Nightly only at this time * is not helping users because it's limited to Nightly * makes Nightly not usable as a test case for DLP-related issues Once bug 1811076 ships and we support the Content Analysis SDK, we should re-attempt LoadLibrary injection protection.
Bug 1869397 Comment 3 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Greg Stoll from comment #1) > (adding cc's for :haik and :gcp in case one of you disagrees :-) ) I support doing this. Having the block in Nightly only at this time * is not helping users because it's limited to Nightly * makes Nightly not usable as a test case for DLP-related issues * let's us ask DLP vendors to test Nightly for exercising file dialog remoting Once bug 1811076 ships and we support the Content Analysis SDK, we should re-attempt LoadLibrary injection protection.
(In reply to Greg Stoll from comment #1) > (adding cc's for :haik and :gcp in case one of you disagrees :-) ) I support doing this. Having the block in Nightly only at this time * is not helping users because it's limited to Nightly * makes Nightly not usable as a test case for DLP-related issues * lets us ask DLP vendors to test Nightly for exercising file dialog remoting Once bug 1811076 ships and we support the Content Analysis SDK, we should re-attempt LoadLibrary injection protection.