Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by poisonborz 747 days ago
Not true, you can simply use an xpi file, without signature even when a flag is set.
1 comments

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef... seems to say that the normal release of Firefox can't install unsigned XPIs
I think we're at the point where we need to ask, how the fsck supposedly "open browser" prohibits their own users from installing extensions they want to install? I mean, I get signing - if you want signing, you can use it. I even get the config option for enterprise setups, maybe - so if an org wants to standardize on Firefox and prohibit workers from installing unsigned extensions - fine. But when it comes to my own install, that's just bullshit.
It's a trade off between security for normies and power for technical users. I disagreed at the time (as an addon author) yet have come around to agreeing with the choice.
Normies don't know what the "addon" is and likely would have IT to install them anyway.
It's not IT. It's the "potentially unwanted software" installers they download. There's no way to distinguish a user installing an unsigned addon vs some malware doing so.
If you're already running an unverified third-party installer, your system is gone. There's nothing Firefox addon signing can do to save you at that moment. You are already at the "running arbitrary code" stage.
If you modify the AppConstants file (inside omni.ja) you can install unsigned extensions anyway:

https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631...

That link appears to describe a process for patching the Firefox package. That does not strike me as a reasonable solution.
I didn't say it was reasonable, just that it's an option.
Sorry, dev and nightly, but that doesnt impact browser experience otherwise.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#FAQ

Using pre-release versions absolutely is different