Mozilla reveals Firefox add-on lockdown

[Matsuda]

Mozilla yesterday detailed plans to require Firefox add-ons to be digitally signed, a move meant to bear down on rogue and malicious extensions, and one that resembled Google's decision years ago to secure Chrome's add-on ecosystem.

Some Firefox users called out Mozilla for disregarding its own long-and-often-expressed ethos of the need for an open Internet. "We're responsible for our add-ons ecosystem and we can't sit idle as our users suffer due to bad add-ons," said Jorge Villalobos, the add-ons developer relations lead at Mozilla, in a blog post Wednesday.

Firefox, which celebrated its 10th-year anniversary last November, has long been known for its laissez-faire approach to add-ons, one of the features that propelled it to a 25% share of all browsers in 2009 and helped revitalize the browser market. As of January 2015, Firefox owned a 12% user share of all browsers, according to analytics company Net Applications.

Add-ons have gotten out of hand, said Mozilla's Villalobos and the rules must be tightened. "Extensions that change the homepage and search settings without user consent have become very common, just like extensions that inject advertisements into Web pages or even inject malicious scripts into social media sites," he said, citing reasons for the digital-signing requirement.

An earlier attempt to stymie bad add-ons with a list of developer guidelines didn't work, in large part because Firefox add-ons can be hosted anywhere -- much like Android apps -- not only on AMO (Mozilla Add-On), the browser's official mart. One option Mozilla considered but discarded was to mimic Chrome by requiring all Firefox add-ons to be downloaded from AMO. "We believe that forcing all installs through our distribution channel is an unnecessary constraint," Villalobos said.

Instead, Mozilla will require all add-ons to be digitally signed. Those approved for hosting on AMO will be automatically signed by Mozilla, but others intended for distribution outside AMO must still be submitted for review, and thus, signing. Mozilla will run automated checks for malicious content or operation on all extensions submitted to AMO, with manual review as a backup.

A third option for add-ons that will never be publicly distributed -- ones crafted by a business, for example, for use only by its employees -- will exist. "We'll have more details available on this in the near future," Villalobos promised.

Once the new policy takes effect, unsigned add-ons will not be installable on Firefox's Release and Beta builds, the most stable, most popular of Mozilla's four channels. Unsigned extensions will be able to be installed on the other two channels, Aurora and Nightly.

Mozilla plans to use a two-cycle transition period -- each cycle is six weeks, the interval between Firefox version numbers -- to ease users into the new policy. During the transition, unsigned add-ons will only trigger an on-screen warning.

Villalobos said that Mozilla aims to debut the warning-only transition with Firefox 39, now slated for release on June 30. If it makes that schedule -- Mozilla often pushes back changes to future release cycles -- that means only signed add-ons would be allowed as of Firefox 41, which has a Sept. 22 launch date.

Mozilla's current Release build is Firefox 35; the next, Firefox 36, is scheduled to launch Feb. 24.

The Firefox add-on changes are reminiscent of those Google has pursued for Chrome since mid-2012, when the search company gradually began applying controls over extensions. Like Villalobos yesterday, Google cited rogue add-ons --particularly those that changed the browser's home page and sneaky criminals, who silently installed malicious extensions onto unwary users' copies of Chrome -- for its lockdown.

In May 2014, Google crippled almost all add-ons that had been installed from sources other than the Chrome Web Store, the browser's official distribution market. While Mozilla won't go that far, Villalobos' announcement was met with skepticism by many who appended comments to his post.

"This is contrary to all of Mozilla's values," asserted Daniel Miranda in a Thursday comment. "All the talk of openness and then turning the browser into a walled garden is unacceptable. It is not compatible with anything Mozilla has stood for. It is a political solution masking over a technical failure of Firefox to properly sandbox its add-ons."

"So Mozilla principle #5, 'Individuals must have the ability to shape the Internet and their own experiences on it,' is now a misnomer," said AnonCoward. "They only have this ability IF approved by Mozilla."

AnonCoward's reference was to the fifth of 10 principles that Mozilla touts as its "manifesto."

"This is a very bad idea," Mike said yesterday. "Making the browser yet more Chrome-like will not help regain users, and will not help your goodwill. Someone should hire some people with a better sense of the Firefox community at Mozilla. Really, this is getting dire."

Mozilla also solicited comments and questions about the new policy in a new discussion thread on one of its add-on forums.



Source

[edwardecl]

As long as there is the option to allow third party unsigned add-ons I have no problem with this.

Not everyone uses add-ons that are not on the Firefox add-on site anyway, so it makes sense to add some security to that, for people who want unsigned add-ons just have a checkbox in the options to allow it like you do on android phones for apps and put a warning on the start page to tell you what security settings are on and off.

If they block everything without an option then I can see forks of Firefox being popular.

[steven36]

I hope Cyberfox dont add this new DRM . I use 2 add-ons not on there site both hosted on github before long I bet Firefox will be like chrome and only be able to get ad-ons from there site . <_<

[ShEsHy]

"a 25% share of all browsers in 2009... As of January 2015, Firefox owned a 12% user share"

Here's a hint; when you're competing, making yourself look like your competitor will only cost you your userbase, especially if you're both offering free products,

I still don't get what Mozilla is thinking going the Chrome way. People who like Chrome's look won't switch to Firefox just because it looks like Chrome now, it only pisses off the people who like Firefox.

And as for people who haven't decided which browser to use, having two distinct browsers seems more competitive than browser A and browser B, which until recently looked completely different but is now pretty much a carbon copy of browser A.

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

P.S. "Mozilla also solicited comments and questions about the new policy in a new discussion thread on one of its add-on forums." Seriously? Even their discussion is on Google now.

[dcs18]

I still don't get what Mozilla is thinking going the Chrome way. People who like Chrome's look won't switch to Firefox just because it looks like Chrome now, it only pisses off the people who like Firefox.

And as for people who haven't decided which browser to use, having two distinct browsers seems more competitive than browser A and browser B, which until recently looked completely different but is now pretty much a carbon copy of browser A.

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

Glad I was able to be rid of the Chrome interface right at the beginning point - when Firefox went Australis with the V29. :showoff:

[ShEsHy]

I still don't get what Mozilla is thinking going the Chrome way. People who like Chrome's look won't switch to Firefox just because it looks like Chrome now, it only pisses off the people who like Firefox.

And as for people who haven't decided which browser to use, having two distinct browsers seems more competitive than browser A and browser B, which until recently looked completely different but is now pretty much a carbon copy of browser A.

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

Glad I was able to be rid of the Chrome interface right at the beginning point - when Firefox went Australis with the V29. :showoff:

I don't get what you're trying to say, that you think Australis is somehow a departure from the Chome-like appearance of Firefox (with which I disagree), or that you used Classic Theme Restorer to make it look like pre-Chrome Firefox (what I did).

[dcs18]

I still don't get what Mozilla is thinking going the Chrome way. People who like Chrome's look won't switch to Firefox just because it looks like Chrome now, it only pisses off the people who like Firefox.

And as for people who haven't decided which browser to use, having two distinct browsers seems more competitive than browser A and browser B, which until recently looked completely different but is now pretty much a carbon copy of browser A.

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

Glad I was able to be rid of the Chrome interface right at the beginning point - when Firefox went Australis with the V29. :showoff:

I don't get what you're trying to say, that you think Australis is somehow a departure from the Chome-like appearance of Firefox (with which I disagree), or that you used Classic Theme Restorer to make it look like pre-Chrome Firefox (what I did).

What I am simply saying is that when Mozilla redesigned Firefox after Chrome - I succeeded in ridding my Firefox of that Chrome look.

Furthermore, (more importantly) I even got rid of the Google element - with extensive hacks (not limited to the Classic Theme Restorer.)

Now, I not only have my Firefox back - in fact, what I have is a gorgeous beast which is cross-compatible and deployed in such a state that end-Users cannot change anything in the options (this . . . . . . . . insures against potential damage.)

[steven36]

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

The closet thing your going to find your going to find to old Firefox is Palemoon ..The reason I no longer use Palemoon is many add-ons no longer work in it .

And this new thing with add-ons will not only effect add-ons hosted other places this will effect all old add-ons not signed by Firefox .

2014 was the worse year ever for browsers . With HTML5 came canvas fingerprinting and now browsers are trying to be like Skype here comes WebRTC with a back door that can log your real IP .Who needs Firefox Hello if you want to chat install a chat program it will be much more private if you encrypt it Have they put any thing in Firefox any one needed every since they try to copy chrome ? 2015 starting out bad too.

[edwardecl]

Hmm I just read they want to go down the route of a "Firefox" branded browser will not support unsigned add-ons at all, there will be no toggle switch.

RIP Firefox.

[CODYQX4]

I still don't get what Mozilla is thinking going the Chrome way. People who like Chrome's look won't switch to Firefox just because it looks like Chrome now, it only pisses off the people who like Firefox.

And as for people who haven't decided which browser to use, having two distinct browsers seems more competitive than browser A and browser B, which until recently looked completely different but is now pretty much a carbon copy of browser A.

TL;DR Chromefox sucks, I want Firefox back.

Glad I was able to be rid of the Chrome interface right at the beginning point - when Firefox went Australis with the V29. :showoff:

To each their own. I made my Firefox look as Chrome-like as I could, likely with the very same addon you used to revert the changes.

[ShEsHy]

Hmm I just read they want to go down the route of a "Firefox" branded browser will not support unsigned add-ons at all, there will be no toggle switch. RIP Firefox.

Correct, the Release and Beta versions will only support signed addons, but unbranded versions will not have that lock. Now all I need is to find out what those are and where to download them.

To each their own. I made my Firefox look as Chrome-like as I could, likely with the very same addon you used to revert the changes.

Classic Theme Restorer. i have a question though, why would you want to? I mean, if you like the Chrome UI, why not just use Chrome?

[dcs18]

To each their own. I made my Firefox look as Chrome-like as I could, likely with the very same addon you used to revert the changes.

Classic Theme Restorer. i have a question though, why would you want to? I mean, if you like the Chrome UI, why not just use Chrome?

Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or, continue using Firefox - in its natural Chrome-like state (if one really likes it - personally, like most folks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't.)

[CODYQX4]

Hmm I just read they want to go down the route of a "Firefox" branded browser will not support unsigned add-ons at all, there will be no toggle switch. RIP Firefox.

Correct, the Release and Beta versions will only support signed addons, but unbranded versions will not have that lock. Now all I need is to find out what those are and where to download them.

To each their own. I made my Firefox look as Chrome-like as I could, likely with the very same addon you used to revert the changes.

Classic Theme Restorer. i have a question though, why would you want to? I mean, if you like the Chrome UI, why not just use Chrome?

I do use Chrome, hardly ever Firefox, so when I do use it, I prefer it to be as similar as possible.

[ShEsHy]

I do use Chrome, hardly ever Firefox, so when I do use it, I prefer it to be as similar as possible.

That explains it.

[steven36]

I quit using chrome based browsers even for a backup at lest tell they add an option were can disable WebRTC backdoor . :P

[dcs18]

Mozilla yesterday detailed plans to require Firefox add-ons to be digitally signed, a move meant to bear down on rogue and malicious extensions, and one that resembled Google's decision years ago to secure Chrome's add-on ecosystem.

What I love about Firefox is that no evil new feature is permanent - someone or the other will come up with a solution for it, sooner than later.

Look what happened to the Australis feature - most hated it while some liked it. The solution that emerged was CTR - now, both the Australis Haters and non-Haters are happy . . . . . . . . . . . . that is the advantage that Firefox enjoys.

[VvOoDd]

My best guess as to the real reason behind all this is that most new Firefox installations are on android mobile devices and this change is to placate Google.

[steven36]

Firefox stopped working with Google much when they started havering there own data and removed Google search as the default search engine . A few months ago . But by then it was to late they done became Chromefox already .

it all started with the rapid release they copy from Google and they been copying them every since and its went down hill every since Firefox 10 before this they had builds like 6 builds to every stable . With Ads that harvest data. it looking like chrome. Firefox hello and all that by the time you get done tweaking it to remove all the needless crap . Its just much easier to use a fork off Firefox than fool with it. They lost there own personalty years ago and by imposing DRM into there browser there not going to get it back .

They suppose to stand for freedom of the Web . But there taking freedoms away . That's a oxymoron !

[DKT27]

They need to keep an option to enable it or not though. May suit in about:config rather than in main options.