4 ms·
The trust level for Firefox as a browser, versus a random extension that parses O365, would be very different for me. And at the company I work at. I’m surpris
by yunohn 5y ago
The trust level for Firefox as a browser, versus a random extension that parses O365, would be very different for me. And at the company I work at.
I’m surprised you got this one approved.
- sebzim4500 5y agoI interpreted his comment as saying he did not ask permission. Probably he'll be fine as long as nothing he did was explicitly against any rules, even if it is clearly against the spirit of the rules. More likely still, no one will ever find out.
- yunohn 5y agoHe’ll be fine as long as the extension doesn’t steal data. The moment that happens, his job is on the line.
- cxr 5y agoWhat happened to vetting sources? Beonex is Ben Bucksch, a Mozilla true believer who's been around since before Firefox even existed. The chances that it will suddenly turn into malware is about as likely a distro's coreutils package maintainer going rogue—and far less likely than the revolving door at Mozilla Corp leading to the Firefox product team deciding to do something untoward themselves.
- yunohn 5y agoVetting sources is only basic due diligence. Auditing source code, infrastructure, and data storage is crucial regardless of how “prolific” the author is.
- cxr 5y ago> Vetting sources is only basic due diligence. Right, which is my point.
- yunohn 5y agoYou’re saying this individual is more trustworthy than Mozilla, because of employee churn? There’s a bus factor of 1 vs N in this example. I trust indie devs for lots of software, tools, and apps; but absolutely not an extension that reads my privileged communications.