4 ms·
Except this doesn't make sense. The set of clueless users who would install arbitrary malicious extensions and the set of clueless users who would download and
by hlandau 10y ago
Except this doesn't make sense.
The set of clueless users who would install arbitrary malicious extensions and the set of clueless users who would download and run arbitrary executables is basically the same. Yet if they do the latter, any extention sandboxing is completely and utterly moot. It's the same issue as with mandatory extension signing; requiring signing for extensions while nothing stops someone from downloading an unsigned .exe (which could memory-patch Firefox if it so wished) is absurd.
- yuhong 10y agoI think the difference is that they want to try to prevent installers from installing unapproved extensions, which even many of the software that looks more legitimate often does. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...