Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

github.com

261–270 of 288 posts

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#261
post #25
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to know more about this definition. If doing my taxes were as exciting as my reading list I would get much more out of my paycheck.

If the endorphins you get reading the content from your list is more important for you, so be it. You decide what's important for you, and that's the definition.

And if the list just makes me upset because the headline lied?

If a site evades my ability to disapprove and stay away from it, it should not be rewarded.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leaking your code to mozilla"? What do you think they are going to do with it?

Doesn't matter. When developing an internal company tool, it can become a blocker due to policy or legal reasons.

Luckily,when it's internal you can use the ESR release and set a policy that allows it to be installed anyway.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#263
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea, but they are not tech companies, so they likely lack the ability to do so. They'd best gain the ability, then, or fade into irrelevance and die. And honestly, we're talking about serving a few images from their own webserver. It's not rocket science.

Technically, serving few images is not a problem. The question arises, what images to serve. Someone has to sell advertisement, find clients, persuade them to advertise with the given site, etc. That's something they are getting with ad networks for free.

Yes, but you can implement all the parent's suggestions without giving that up. Route all the ad requests through trusted intermediate provider on the same .xyz.com domain, where you have all the what-to-serve logic and analytics. Advertisers can then be sure that the numbers of views are legit.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for starters. It is not only for starter but for the whole platform ecosystem. It is not even user-hostile. It is just to prevent "Nah forget Firefox add-on market, just install this file" fragmentation. Firefox add-on platform is already much smaller than Google chrome (of course). I wouldn't be happy if the market got even smaller because of the fragmentation. And Firefox already allows us to install whatever we…

What? There is no requirement to offer your add-on on AMO.

No, just a requirement that you submit your addon for signing, submit to a separate agreement[1], and their policies[2] (which has separate sub-politics about data usage), regardless of whether you offer it on AMO or not.

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/AMO...

[2]:https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/AMO...

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#265

This is a cool add-on, but it does have the side-effect of making cookie-consent and GDPR popups/boxes appear for every page loaded. Can anyone recommend an add-on for automatically hiding/dismissing such popups?

The following two solutions hide cookie messages.

Fanboy's Anti-Cookie Filters (for uBlock Origin, etc.):

https://www.fanboy.co.nz/

I don't care about cookies (extension):

https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a...

Here's an interesting discussion about the second solution:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/909

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#266
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can download an arbitrary exe file and run it with a few clicks. It can do anything, install rootkit in my BIOS and of course completely replace Firefox.exe or anything else. What's the reasoning to forbid me to download and run addon? I can already shot myself, very easily. Additional protection does not do any good, only harms users.

People don't seem to understand how dangerous browser add-ons are. Protecting people from eg. malicious add-ons emptying their bank accounts is probably one of the reasons for restricting add-ons. However, restricting add-on installations to a community-moderated app store model is not a secure enough way to do it. It's hard to prove that it helps at all, but it sure is annoying.

What prevents malware from injecting itself into Firefox process, hook few functions and empty bank accounts? Browser addons are dangerous, sure. But everything is dangerous. I'd say that malware is more dangerous than browser addons. Yet I'm living in a world where it's ridiculously easy to run an arbitrary exe file. Why Firefox wants to make it different for addons? I could understand those measures for iOS Firefox version. May be Firefox could mimic macOS behaviour (need right click to run unsigned app). But making walled garden in the world where everyone can just jump over that fence does not make any sense for me.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#267
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you consider distributing an extension bundle to be leaking its code? Unless I'm misunderstanding, isn't this the same file you'll be distributing to your users? At first bluff it seems similar to worrying about leaking your website's frontend (I've got news for you...).

It could be a private extension developed by a company internally, and only distributed to internal users.

If it's for an entire company, then it's easy enough to compile your own copy of firefox that accepts extensions signed with the company signature rather than mozilla.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#268
post #183
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not asking for full administrative privilege. I'm asking for: "If the user goes into a deep part of the obscure developer options and bypasses the warnings about unsigned addons, and then uses a non-obvious but documented process for side-loading, something virus peddlers can't really walk users through, then Firefox should honor that while explicitly displaying the list of unsigned addons the users added." >I'm…

>"If the user goes into a deep part of the obscure developer options and bypasses the warnings about unsigned addons, and then uses a non-obvious but documented process for side-loading, something virus peddlers can't really walk users through, then Firefox should honor that while explicitly displaying the list of unsigned addons the users added." Any such process would have to be difficult for external programs. As…

>Any such process would have to be difficult for external programs.

Why? If the user already has a malicious 'external application' running on their system with sufficient privileges to do any of this, then they're already screwed, and they have bigger problems to worry about than malicious WebExtensions.

More generally, I don't think we should hold applications responsible for the security or behaviour of parts of the software/hardware stack at equal or higher privilege level to them, including other applications. Mostly because, well, they can't do anything truly effective in that regard.

I see you're worried about average users unknowingly installing random malicious crap, and I've seen a lot of that myself. I think the way forward is pretty much what is being done on mobile platforms currently: universally applied application sandboxing, usage of existing fine-grained access control models (and also the development of ones that are saner to use), and better communication to the user about what their applications are doing and what the permissions they are requesting actually mean. Yes, it's still a clusterfuck, but it's an improvement.

A security model involving applications in an arms-war with one another, using increasingly byzantine restictions in an attempt to prevent external manipulation, feels less like something I would want any part of, and more like something out of a dystopian sci-fi novel.

: Although I think Google went too far on the "lock things down completely" side of things when they made it outright impossible to, say, use rsync to backup or sync the entire contents of a phone's sd card to/from the network

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#269
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics and game theory of this suggests that newspapers should be forced to cooperate with each other. Cartelize on-line journalism. Make the 4th estate official. Create a pseudo-governmental entity like the US post office, Fannie Mae, or the Fed. If you have an Internet connection, you have the option, through your ISP, to pay $X towards journalism on the web. Your ISP will then cryptographically vouch for an…

That sounds like you could just paraphrase it as "Spotify for newspapers".

Or "Pravda"

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do this without leaking your code to mozilla?

Aren't extension written in Javascript? Then the source is always visible to users.

They are referring to an internal company tool
Post reply on HN