3 ms·
I don't think that would work very well. After all, the list of certificates would have to be a preference, so crapware could just stick its own certificate in
by comex 11y ago
I don't think that would work very well. After all, the list of certificates would have to be a preference, so crapware could just stick its own certificate into the preferences file before installing its addon. Of course, baking the requirement into the binary isn't perfect either, since the crapware can just patch or replace it if it has sufficient access rights, but I'd say it 'feels' drastic in a way changing preferences doesn't (which matters if the crapware is trying to be semi-legitimate), and it requires somewhat more work to come up with a suitable binary and keep it up to date.
- tenfingers 11y agoEasy: just provide a certificate that cannot be changed within FF (must be modified by changing a file in the installation directory). No preference needed. This would allow developers to roll their own, and organizations to allow their custom policy as well (which could mean that the privileges of the user himself aren't sufficient to change the cert). There's really no reason as of why this couldn't be implemented properly. There' also no reason to not include a switch for it, really. This is all just smoke: most users have the privileges to change the FF binary, meaning that in most contextes malware has too (either through social manipulation or through exploits).