Oh, come on. Don't you follow the news?Aris wrote:Ah OK, didn't get the joke as I'm from Europe
Does "alternative facts" ring a bell?
(I'm a fellow European, by the way.)
Oh, come on. Don't you follow the news?Aris wrote:Ah OK, didn't get the joke as I'm from Europe
It's a mystery how come you can say things get "easier" when we see WebExtension is barred off of native app power and firefox internal for political/ideology reasons.tomatoshadow2 wrote:I was so happy to see Ublock Origin finally become a WE! Again, IMO from what I've gathered over this whole journey to 57, it's all about making extensions easier for the developers to make. Would you guys agree?
Sure would. It's certainly makes my life easier with Firefox as now I don't have to make any proper extensions or themes for it.tomatoshadow2 wrote:Again, IMO from what I've gathered over this whole journey to 57, it's all about making extensions easier for the developers to make. Would you guys agree?
Just checked. The stable version is still not compatible although the dev version is and I've gone with the dev version.tomatoshadow2 wrote:I was so happy to see Ublock Origin finally become a WE! ...
I wouldn't.tomatoshadow2 wrote:... Again, IMO from what I've gathered over this whole journey to 57, it's all about making extensions easier for the developers to make. Would you guys agree?
I take your general points, but although some extensions can and do break with some Release versions, I think it would be incorrect to overstate that side.Mark12547 wrote: Now Firefox can have growth spurts without breaking extensions, and extension authors won't have to tweak their code with every Firefox change. (There might be changes down the road that require a rewrite, but it should be far less often than now.)
The point I'm making is, like with the spin put on Australis, that Mozilla may well now be putting out a 'We are trying to spare legacy extension devs the tiresome chore of having to constantly fix, yadda, yadda' line, as we approach WE implementation. But, the fact is, it wasn't like that. The vast majority were not breaking and so required no maintenance.Dear add-on author,
Good news! Our automated tests did not detect any compatibility issues with your add-ons and Firefox 52.*. We've updated your add-ons' compatibility to work with Firefox 52.* so that our beta and release users can begin using your add-ons.
We encourage you to view the results of the compatibility test, as some compatibility issues may have been detected but without enough certainty to declare the add-on incompatible:
That security through permissions routine might have sounded plausible a good few years back, but not since people have seen the true extent of permissions that need to be given to Google Chrome extensions or Android apps, i.e. do you feel more secure if the snake tells you in advance it can bite you?Mark12547 wrote:It's about security: extensions will be able to work only within the permissions granted them, and they won't be able to manipulate the UI to such an extent that Firefox suddenly becomes unusable.
Just like Chrome?It's about security: extensions will be able to work only within the permissions granted them...
Once installed, the Interface Online extension, uploaded at least twice in the past 17 days, surreptitiously monitors all connections made with the Chrome browser. When users visit specific pages programmed into the code, the extension activates a JavaScript routine that logs the user name and password entered into the form. The extension then uploads them to a server controlled by the attackers. source
I think if you read the article you will find this extension was a tool for a direct attack. 23 users could have been enough to create a huge payoff. History has proven plenty of fairly intelligent people fall for stupid social engineering attacks.Brummelchen wrote:23 users?
Interface Online is being used in highly targeted attacks that single out employees who are in charge of their companies' finances. The employees receive a phone call from someone who warns that they will lose access to their online bank account unless they install a security module. When the employees click through a link provided by the caller, they are redirected to the extension hosted by Google. The caller then walks them through a test access to the account by logging in. With that, the attackers have the credentials required to log in.