3 ms·

If it was just distribution through the add-on app store, that would be one thing. As of Firefox 48 however, in stable builds of Firefox, unsigned addons (which

If it was just distribution through the add-on app store, that would be one thing. As of Firefox 48 however, in stable builds of Firefox, unsigned addons (which haven't gone through Mozilla's review process) cannot be installed. Period. The about:config setting meant to override signature checks (and allow third-party extensions), `xpinstall.signatures.required`, is plainly ignored in stable versions from this point forward, so it's AMO or bust. The only way to install an unsigned extension is to install the Beta or Developer builds of Firefox, which still honor the above setting. Or, I suppose, to use one of the many forks of the Firefox codebase that restore user choice.

Semaphor 8y ago
You skipped over a part: > Anyone can sign and run their own add-ons, or offer those add-ons for others to use. And this is consistent with what Mozilla says here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...
- zeta0134 8y ago
  The specific pain point we ran into was a security consideration: my company needed to sign and distribute a private internal extension whose code betrayed the layout of an internal API. The signing process for stable Firefox requires uploading the extension to AMO, which our management was not crazy about. Sure, anyone can technically do it, but the dependence on a third party service is still there. Ultimately we decided to do it anyway, figuring that the cost of having our support floor run a non-stable browser outweighed the risk of a code leak at Mozilla. But the whole process left a bad taste. I get where they're coming from, really I do. Malware is a huge problem and the average user has zero clue how to vet extension code. I dunno, I have mixed feelings about the solution. I'm not sure if there's a middle ground to be had.
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    > figuring that the cost of having our support floor run a non-stable browser Firefox Developer Edition is stable but supports unsigned addons. But I can certainly see your point.
kibwen 8y ago
Let's dial back on the unwarranted outrage. Mozilla expects that people who develop their own extensions will be using the Developer edition. It also expects that people who aren't especially computer-savvy will be using the stable edition. The people crying foul about requiring signing for add-ons on the stable edition are living in a bubble where they don't realize that most people will completely fail to understand the importance of vetting browser extensions, while also failing to appreciate the potentially disastrous ramifications of installing a malicious extension. Browser extension malware is a big, big problem in a way that some otherwise tech-savvy people in here apparently don't understand. Why are people so quick to ascribe malice when nobody can come up with even a single potential malicious motive for Mozilla requiring signing of add-ons? There's no profit motive or perverse incentive here. Mozilla doesn't make money from this process. Frankly, they'd make a lot more money if they didn't run AMO at all and didn't bother hiring any stuff to run it and vet extensions.

Semaphor 8y ago

You skipped over a part: > Anyone can sign and run their own add-ons, or offer those add-ons for others to use. And this is consistent with what Mozilla says here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Dis...

zeta0134 8y ago
The specific pain point we ran into was a security consideration: my company needed to sign and distribute a private internal extension whose code betrayed the layout of an internal API. The signing process for stable Firefox requires uploading the extension to AMO, which our management was not crazy about. Sure, anyone can technically do it, but the dependence on a third party service is still there. Ultimately we decided to do it anyway, figuring that the cost of having our support floor run a non-stable browser outweighed the risk of a code leak at Mozilla. But the whole process left a bad taste. I get where they're coming from, really I do. Malware is a huge problem and the average user has zero clue how to vet extension code. I dunno, I have mixed feelings about the solution. I'm not sure if there's a middle ground to be had.
- Semaphor 8y ago
  > figuring that the cost of having our support floor run a non-stable browser Firefox Developer Edition is stable but supports unsigned addons. But I can certainly see your point.

kibwen 8y ago

Let's dial back on the unwarranted outrage. Mozilla expects that people who develop their own extensions will be using the Developer edition. It also expects that people who aren't especially computer-savvy will be using the stable edition. The people crying foul about requiring signing for add-ons on the stable edition are living in a bubble where they don't realize that most people will completely fail to understand the importance of vetting browser extensions, while also failing to appreciate the potentially disastrous ramifications of installing a malicious extension. Browser extension malware is a big, big problem in a way that some otherwise tech-savvy people in here apparently don't understand. Why are people so quick to ascribe malice when nobody can come up with even a single potential malicious motive for Mozilla requiring signing of add-ons? There's no profit motive or perverse incentive here. Mozilla doesn't make money from this process. Frankly, they'd make a lot more money if they didn't run AMO at all and didn't bother hiring any stuff to run it and vet extensions.