3 ms·

> Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched

> Mozilla decided they didn't want to provide what I want when they blacklisted most addons and required their wierd signing requirements, so I simply switched to a browser that does. You're free, of course, to be a patron of whatever software you want. However, they only instituted "weird" signing requirements to help dramatically slow down or stop the influx of addons that were maliciously changing browser settings among other hazards. If that doesn't sound like some good utility to you, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Online security has never been a priority for a large subset of internet users.

Zuiii 3y ago
I don't see chrome having that problem and it doesn't enforce similar signing requirements. Mozilla's decision was either ill thought out or was not motivated by "online security". In any case, most people tend choose functionality over security if they have to choose and, in this case, it seems like we did. Cheers.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  Security researchers literally wrote a PoC extension for Chrome, which was in tech news just a few months ago, where the extension was able to steal passwords and form data. So Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions, because I can guarantee you that malicious internet users haven't just overlooked that avenue into your computer, and it just goes unaddressed or under-addressed.
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    Assuming no other chrome-specific vulnerabilities, the same PoC can also be implemented for Firefox because it allows temporary installation of unsigned addons. Besides, I'm not arguing that extensions can't be malicious. Also, I fail to see how the existence of a malicious extension PoC translates "Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions". I'm sure you're right about malicious actors not overlooking extensions, yet here we are with virtually everyone using chrome and no wide-spread security issues to speak of. Proofs and pudding.

Zuiii 3y ago

I don't see chrome having that problem and it doesn't enforce similar signing requirements. Mozilla's decision was either ill thought out or was not motivated by "online security". In any case, most people tend choose functionality over security if they have to choose and, in this case, it seems like we did. Cheers.

starttoaster 3y ago
Security researchers literally wrote a PoC extension for Chrome, which was in tech news just a few months ago, where the extension was able to steal passwords and form data. So Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions, because I can guarantee you that malicious internet users haven't just overlooked that avenue into your computer, and it just goes unaddressed or under-addressed.
- Zuiii 3y ago
  Assuming no other chrome-specific vulnerabilities, the same PoC can also be implemented for Firefox because it allows temporary installation of unsigned addons. Besides, I'm not arguing that extensions can't be malicious. Also, I fail to see how the existence of a malicious extension PoC translates "Chrome definitely has a problem with malicious browser extensions". I'm sure you're right about malicious actors not overlooking extensions, yet here we are with virtually everyone using chrome and no wide-spread security issues to speak of. Proofs and pudding.