291–300 of 955 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it failed open, anyone unlucky enough to update their extensions could end up having a malicious version installed. It also would have taken longer to notice.
So why not just disable extension updates instead of disabling the extensions themselves?
I’ll still keep using Firefox since I recognize the importance of browser diversity and the hazards of a Chrome monoculture (that and vertical tabs), but, yikes. Still, this type of oversight seems all too common even in large companies. I remember several cases from Fortune 500 companies in the past few years alone. What would be a good way to automate checking for them? Has anyone developed a tool designed specific…
The npm self-signed certificate fiasco of early 2014 springs immediately to mind.
Tomorrow (or whenever this gets fixed), ad companies are going to have some great data about what the world would look like if adblock didn't exist. I really home someome does a blog post about it. Yikes, I hope it doesn't play out like a shark smelling chum.
Otherwise I'm not bothered. I won't be switching as long as this gets resolved within the next few days.
This is a goddamned disaster. I'm just thankful that I use an offline password manager, but even still ... I like FF, don't get me wrong, but this is going to absolutely fucking destroy user trust in Mozilla. This kind of incompetence, on a browser scale , is breathtaking.
I dunno. I’m a typical Firefox user, and I’d rather jump off a bridge than switch to a different browser because of a fuckup like this. People make mistakes, but Mozilla still stands for things that certain other browser vendors don’t, last time I checked.
This should not be possible.
Worse, had they not taken the paternalistic, nanny-like stance that you can't even disable the signing checks, I could roll out a script that would make this a non-issue for my users. But no, thanks Mozilla for ruining my Monday.
Might not be the most substantive comment I could possibly make in the circumstances, but I'm pissed. The only appropriate response feels like a string of infuriated profanity directed at their incompetence and decision-making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not just disable extension updates instead of disabling the extensions themselves?
Presumably because how would it differentiate between a legit "already installed" extension with a signature that cannot be verified, and an extension installed by malware that also cannot be verified?
I’ll still keep using Firefox since I recognize the importance of browser diversity and the hazards of a Chrome monoculture (that and vertical tabs), but, yikes. Still, this type of oversight seems all too common even in large companies. I remember several cases from Fortune 500 companies in the past few years alone. What would be a good way to automate checking for them? Has anyone developed a tool designed specific…
> I’ll still keep using Firefox since I recognize the importance of browser diversity Also, Chrome is not immune to "crashes for everyone at the same time" bugs. Like that time when the start of daylight saving time made it crash for a full day (a quick search tells me it probably was https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=287821 ).