21 ms·
But doesn't Firefox require that godawful add-on signing?
by Mirioron 7y ago
But doesn't Firefox require that godawful add-on signing?
- vorticalbox 7y agoSadly yes, but the alternative is a browser that trackers you and that allows ads to also track you.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoBy default that's what FF does too, that's presumably what Google pay Mozilla hundreds of millions for.
- 22c 7y agoWaterfox does not
- josteink 7y agoYes, but so does Chrome. In that regard, Firefox is not a worse option, just equally suboptimal.
- behringer 7y agoSigning is pretty important. Without signing anybody could surreptitiously replace your addon with something else.
- josteink 7y agoOnly if they have local access. In which case, I’ve already lost.
- 0xffff2 7y agoHow so? Either they already have access to my computer, in which case browser addons are the least of my concerns, or they've compromised Mozilla in some way in which case who's to say they can't sign their fake addon too?
- Mirioron 7y agoBut it also means that I can't have an add on that Mozilla doesn't sign, right?
- Mirioron 7y agoIt does? But I'm using add ons that I made on Chrome that I haven't registered or signed anywhere. I thought Firefox disallows that?
- ChrisGranger 7y agoThe Developer Edition of Firefox allows one to turn off the add-on signing requirement.