MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.0 RC1 Released

Thursday April 18th, 2002

mozilla.org today released the first 1.0 Candidate, in preparation for a final 1.0 build. They'll be using RC1 to evaluate where the 1.0 branch stands as far as crash bugs, and other things that drivers@mozilla.org are tracking. RC1's changes since 0.9.9 include the abilty to view the source of a cgi (the most duped bug), reorganized context and main menus, LDAP over SSL, return recipts, new animated mail alerts on Windows, Download Manager, final xul syntax changes, and numerious other bug fixes.

You can download RC1 from mozilla.org's Releases Page or read the Release Notes. We highly encourage you to download the talkback enabled builds, so crashes can be found and logged prior to 1.0. (These pages haven't reached mozilla.org yet, you can grab builds from the FTP site.)

Once people start using RC1 and drivers@mozilla.org get a handle on how the reception of it goes, they will be deciding whether or not to release another candidate or 1.0 itself. We'll keep you updated on this process, and let you know what is decided.


#61 Is the bug you refer to an Internet Explorer bug?

by ralphmellor

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:35 AM

You are replying to this message

> I just read about a serious security bug in mozilla.

Where? Who was the original author of this claimed problem?

> If you get a 404 web page, and then you click the back > button, most of the security settings are disabled.

I just read about a much worse problem than you've just described as a problem in Internet Explorer 6. Is that what you are talking about?: <http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/267561>

> We simply cannot release a product with such an easy > to exploit hole, especially since it has been known > about for 6 months.

In future, you must post enough info about your sources that readers don't have to think "says who?", especially since declaring sources when claiming something has been an expectated element of intelligent discourse for way longer than 6 months...

Hmm. Maybe "must" is a bit strong...

;>

-- ralph