It should still possible to fork Firefox and remove this requirement, right ?
In theory, but that will be very difficult.
Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
31–40 of 315 posts
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#32Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#33It's important to note that the Developers Editions (and the Nightlys) will have a setting for disabling the requirement. The assumption being that developers need to test as they develop. And are a more informed user.
They've said that for a while, but the last time I had the Dev edition installed I couldn't install the Dashlane [1] plugin.
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#34It should still possible to fork Firefox and remove this requirement, right ?
ofc, you can since firefox is opensource
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction. The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc. It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.
Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?
[deleted]
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#36Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction. The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc. It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.
> It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm. Wait, did we have an extension-caused apocalypse recently leading to this requirement ? Erm, I guess not. So why do we exactly need it ?
Approximately 5% of users are infected with adware. This is one way to combat it. Google has already taken this approach.
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#38How does this policy interact with greasemonkey, an extension that allows running random JavaScript on sites with access to the extension API. You could write your malware as a greasemonkey extension, convince a user to install a signed greasemonkey release, and then convince them to install your malicious extension.
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#39I wonder how long it will take until adware producers patch out the requirement for signed extensions in the binary when you install stuff from them on your computer.
Re: Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users still can, they can download one of the provided builds that do not have this restriction. The issue is that most users don't understand software on a deep level, and just click "yes" on dialog boxes, etc. It does make sense to keep the defaults where it prevents most users from harm.
Why don't we teach people the don't understand so they can make informed choices instead of preventing it entirely?
Heaven forbid. The unaware, uninformed user is the bread and butter that the Internet businesses survive on. Tech-savvy users are bad bad bad. Protected, gullible users is what keeps the engines running.