4 ms·

But who has reviewed the code of the version available when you install?

• ndnxhs 8y ago
  I think Mozilla does a basic review. Not perfect but good enough. The extensions situation has gotten bad enough that I'd support Mozilla having an "approved extensions" section where you pay to have yours reviewed and approved.
  • Springtime 8y ago
    The fact that Stylish managed to remain—and be featured, even—on both the Mozilla and Chrome catalogs for close to two years as it tracked user's browsing history says to me that there must be certain level of trust for pre-reviewed addons.
    • rndgermandude 8y ago
      The mozilla add-ons site actually rejected the version with tracking (the post acquisition one) for some years due to the tracking and still featured the old version without tracking. Chrome's webstore version did have the tracking, tho. Now in the era of WebExtensions (which are SOOO much more secure!!!) it seems they finally approved a version published by those bad actors. No idea tho if and what tracking is in there and if mozilla stuck to their guns and made them remove tracking or not.
      • Springtime 8y ago
        > The mozilla add-ons site actually rejected the version with tracking (the post acquisition one) for some years due to the tracking and still featured the old version without tracking. Is there a source you're using for this info? As I visited a couple times during that period (including mid this year) and saved a personal copy of the Versions URL which listed multiple versions post acquisition available [1]. [1] Specifically: 2.1.1 (2017-10-31), 3.0.1 (2017-11-10), and 3.1.1 (2018-05-23).
• opencl 8y ago
  https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google https://github.com/containers-everywhere/contain-google You can review it yourself. There is not a whole lot of code here.