4 ms·

We do not take an editorial stance on add-on content with regard to signing, but we do have the ability to block add-ons that are malicious or which violate use

We do not take an editorial stance on add-on content with regard to signing, but we do have the ability to block add-ons that are malicious or which violate user privacy and security. We hope those choices will be few and far between, and that our users will agree with them. Our Add-on Policy is discussed further at https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/02/add-on-policy-and-process-updates/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/02/add-on-policy-and...

Silhouette 7y ago
FWIW, I was genuinely shocked that this could happen, and it has severely damaged my trust in Firefox. I am extremely wary, having been bitten more than once, about software that automatically updates itself or is otherwise subject to remote interference. I don't run Windows 10. I don't use Chrome for anything important. I avoid subscription-based or activation-required software as much as possible. And in Firefox, I specifically chose to be prompted to install updates (which I usually do immediately, but it's my choice and I can do a quick search first in case there ever is a problem being widely reported). I find the argument that it's impossible to make this configurable because malware could then circumvent it very weak. If we're talking about that level of interference, anyone with access to the Firefox executable could in theory replace it, and given the open source nature of the Firefox codebase this wouldn't be particularly difficult technically for anyone willing to go to such lengths in the first place. In any case, even if the argument about hard-coding protection into the executable did stand up to scrutiny, there are alternatives possible instead of retrospectively disabling addons with no possible workaround. Perhaps most obviously, you could show a warning message and require explicit user approval at startup before activating the addon, for example, as is already done with various other useful features that are also potentially open to abuse. As things stand, far from protecting our privacy and security from malicious addons, the current system in fact deactivated all of our privacy- and security-protecting addons, without warning, right in the middle of browsing sessions. One of these seems to be very much worse than the other in terms of the risks created, and I urge you to consider that when deciding how addons are treated in the future.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  Hear hear. Very well written. I too was shocked that this was possible.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  > I find the argument that it's impossible to make this configurable because malware could then circumvent it very weak. If we're talking about that level of interference, anyone with access to the Firefox executable could in theory replace it, and given the open source nature of the Firefox codebase this wouldn't be particularly difficult technically for anyone willing to go to such lengths in the first place. As mentioned in GGP's quote, Firefox was specifically modified by popular software by Fortune 500 companies and laptop companies, which feel safe enough to modify user preferences, but not to replace the Firefox executable. This does specifically fix that real-world attack vector. > In any case, even if the argument about hard-coding protection into the executable did stand up to scrutiny, there are alternatives possible instead of retrospectively disabling addons with no possible workaround. Perhaps most obviously, you could show a warning message and require explicit user approval at startup before activating the addon, for example, as is already done with various other useful features that are also potentially open to abuse. I think that would be categorised as an option "that these greyware apps [could] change and plausibly claim they were acting on behalf of the user’s “choice” not to opt-out of the light grey checkbox on page 43 of their EULA". > As things stand, far from protecting our privacy and security from malicious addons, the current system in fact deactivated all of our privacy- and security-protecting addons, without warning, right in the middle of browsing sessions. That this happened was a risk, and they're taking active measures in the future. The other was a certainty, and this risk was the active measure they were taking against it.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    In reality the issue of Fortune 500 companies attacking users and hacking their computers should be addressed legally too. Are Mozilla currently helping any organisations to sue these companies? Is there more detailed evidence provided on this somewhere? Like which companies and exactly what they did?

Silhouette 7y ago

FWIW, I was genuinely shocked that this could happen, and it has severely damaged my trust in Firefox. I am extremely wary, having been bitten more than once, about software that automatically updates itself or is otherwise subject to remote interference. I don't run Windows 10. I don't use Chrome for anything important. I avoid subscription-based or activation-required software as much as possible. And in Firefox, I specifically chose to be prompted to install updates (which I usually do immediately, but it's my choice and I can do a quick search first in case there ever is a problem being widely reported). I find the argument that it's impossible to make this configurable because malware could then circumvent it very weak. If we're talking about that level of interference, anyone with access to the Firefox executable could in theory replace it, and given the open source nature of the Firefox codebase this wouldn't be particularly difficult technically for anyone willing to go to such lengths in the first place. In any case, even if the argument about hard-coding protection into the executable did stand up to scrutiny, there are alternatives possible instead of retrospectively disabling addons with no possible workaround. Perhaps most obviously, you could show a warning message and require explicit user approval at startup before activating the addon, for example, as is already done with various other useful features that are also potentially open to abuse. As things stand, far from protecting our privacy and security from malicious addons, the current system in fact deactivated all of our privacy- and security-protecting addons, without warning, right in the middle of browsing sessions. One of these seems to be very much worse than the other in terms of the risks created, and I urge you to consider that when deciding how addons are treated in the future.

brokenmachine 7y ago
Hear hear. Very well written. I too was shocked that this was possible.
Vinnl 7y ago
> I find the argument that it's impossible to make this configurable because malware could then circumvent it very weak. If we're talking about that level of interference, anyone with access to the Firefox executable could in theory replace it, and given the open source nature of the Firefox codebase this wouldn't be particularly difficult technically for anyone willing to go to such lengths in the first place. As mentioned in GGP's quote, Firefox was specifically modified by popular software by Fortune 500 companies and laptop companies, which feel safe enough to modify user preferences, but not to replace the Firefox executable. This does specifically fix that real-world attack vector. > In any case, even if the argument about hard-coding protection into the executable did stand up to scrutiny, there are alternatives possible instead of retrospectively disabling addons with no possible workaround. Perhaps most obviously, you could show a warning message and require explicit user approval at startup before activating the addon, for example, as is already done with various other useful features that are also potentially open to abuse. I think that would be categorised as an option "that these greyware apps [could] change and plausibly claim they were acting on behalf of the user’s “choice” not to opt-out of the light grey checkbox on page 43 of their EULA". > As things stand, far from protecting our privacy and security from malicious addons, the current system in fact deactivated all of our privacy- and security-protecting addons, without warning, right in the middle of browsing sessions. That this happened was a risk, and they're taking active measures in the future. The other was a certainty, and this risk was the active measure they were taking against it.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  In reality the issue of Fortune 500 companies attacking users and hacking their computers should be addressed legally too. Are Mozilla currently helping any organisations to sue these companies? Is there more detailed evidence provided on this somewhere? Like which companies and exactly what they did?