Closed Bug 861684 Opened 7 years ago Closed 4 years ago

Make checksum functionality built-in in Firefox

Categories

(Core :: Plug-ins, enhancement)

20 Branch
x86_64
Windows 8
enhancement
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

People

(Reporter: davidbourguignon.net, Unassigned)

Details

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0
Build ID: 20130409194949

Steps to reproduce:

I was a happy user of this great add-on: http://addons.mozilla.org/en/firefox/addon/md5-reborned-hasher/

Until Firefox v20 came out...


Actual results:

The add-on is no longer supported, alas, until we fix this...


Expected results:

The add-on should be supported, and, way better than that, it should be a default functionality in Firefox!

Rationale:
- Everybody is becoming extra careful about corrupted and infected downloads, those days.
- Therefore we need a built-in MD5/SHAXXX/etc. checksum engine in Firefox download interface.
- Extra bonuses: this would both decrease the spread of infected files over the Web, and make Firefox even more popular ("protecting you everyday against malicious files", etc.)

What do you think?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20130408 Firefox/23.0

The add-on is now available for installing.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Thanks!
Please forgive me as I am new to Bugzilla@Mozilla. The above entry form Bogdan states that "Te add-on is now available for installing." Sourceforge has version 0.9.0. I have this installed on Firefox 20.0.1 and am not able to access MD5. I would not bother but this is a GREAT util!
Any advice?
I'm the currently developer of md5rehasher and I can say to you that still isn't fixed.

I trying to fix it, but I am not so good, and I have problems adding elements to this new Firefox download system.

sorry for your inconvenience.

I have opened a thread in support forums to see if they can help me getting back the addon.
No problem! Thank you very much for you effort and assistance. Unfortunately I don't write code because I would love to help you with this. I am a hardware guy - servers, data centers and so on! No hurry... Thanks again!
Hi,

I was desappointed when I saw MD5 Reborned Hasher was not operating with Firefox 20.0.
Then I re-installed the previous version until I found it was possible to maintain version 20.0 and use the browser.download.useToolkitUI "true" in stead of "false".
This way permits the use of your excellent addon.

I hope you will find some help to solve this malfunction.

Sincerely.
Dear all, what is the current status about the MD5 Reborned Hasher fix? I realise that this kind of request have been around for a long time (see Bug 292763) and never reached a decent priority level, apparently. Never heard of any other solution for computing hashes without Firefox on MS Windows ?
Summary: Why no checksum functionality built into the download interface of Firefox? → Make checksum functionality built-in in Firefox
The previous fix mentioned by one MD5 Reborned Hasher user on the download page (http://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/md5-reborned-hasher/) seems no longer functional with Firefox v26 (latest).

And Mozilla is apparently not considering integrating this into Firefox... Frankly, given the usefulness of this add-on, this puzzles me. Any info, anyone? Thanks in advance!
Hello David, Thanks for recommending this enhancement.

Md5 Reborned Hasher isn't compatible with the new download tab in the Firefox library, if you wanna know more about this problem see bug 8 of md5rehasher in sourceforge project.

For now, to get it to work in the latest version of Firefox you need to change the value of "browser.download.useToolkitUI" in about:config to true.

For now I am closing this bug as resolved - Incomplete. Thanks!
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Component: Untriaged → Plug-ins
Product: Firefox → Core
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
Understood Kanchan, but this built-in hashing feature would have represented a huge step forward in ensuring safer file download over the Web... Mozilla could push forward and demonstrate such good practice of verifying file integrity. Why does it not consider this?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.