MozillaZine

Can I somehow get old addons signed? (AMO refuses two)

Talk about add-ons and extension development.
avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted May 31st, 2017, 7:18 am

Hi!

I successfully got some legacy addons signed, I had to change the extension id for all of them.
But two of the older ones AMO refuses with this message: "Starting with Firefox 53, new extensions on this site can only be WebExtensions."

Which would be self-explanatory, except that I got that error for the other addons too before I changed their id.
After changing the id they passed.

So for some reason AMO discriminates these addons:

The extension xpi files are here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Byfdf ... lBlUjJXSFk
Last edited by avada on June 2nd, 2017, 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

isaacschemm
 
Posts: 231
Joined: January 20th, 2015, 12:29 pm

Post Posted May 31st, 2017, 8:04 am

Have you tried setting the maximum version in install.rdf to Firefox 52 (or earlier)? I've never tried that but it might work.

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted May 31st, 2017, 11:00 am

libertyernie wrote:Have you tried setting the maximum version in install.rdf to Firefox 52 (or earlier)? I've never tried that but it might work.

Unfortunately, it doesn't help.

lithopsian
 
Posts: 3663
Joined: September 15th, 2010, 9:03 am

Post Posted May 31st, 2017, 12:07 pm

Addons already on AMO will continue to be signed (for now). Ones it has never seen before should not. Something in your tweaking of the ID may have convinced AMO it has seen the addon before. Did you use unique, brand new IDs?

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted May 31st, 2017, 1:06 pm

lithopsian wrote:Addons already on AMO will continue to be signed (for now). Ones it has never seen before should not. Something in your tweaking of the ID may have convinced AMO it has seen the addon before. Did you use unique, brand new IDs?

I probably did. Didn't put much thought to it. Just added a few characters to the e-mails, or changed one character of the unique IDs.

Anyway it actually seems to be quite the opposite to me. Until the id's weren't, it wouldn't let me upload them. It claimed conflicting IDs. So if I would have happened on another ID it probably would have conflicted too.

Is it only possible to sign addons through AMO's new addon submission feature?

lithopsian
 
Posts: 3663
Joined: September 15th, 2010, 9:03 am

Post Posted June 1st, 2017, 1:30 pm

There is an API for signing without going through the AMO website:
http://addons-server.readthedocs.io/en/ ... gning.html

I think it all ends up going through the same process though.

Were you trying to get addons signed that had previously been uploaded, but not by you? It won't let you do that, giving the conflicting ID error you mention. Changing the ID will get past that error even if everything else is identical. I'd have expected that it would then be rejected as a new non-WebExtensions addon.

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted June 2nd, 2017, 1:32 am

lithopsian wrote:There is an API for signing without going through the AMO website:
http://addons-server.readthedocs.io/en/ ... gning.html

Thanks for the tip.

lithopsian wrote:I think it all ends up going through the same process though.

Oh well, I'll try it anyway if I find that I can't run some addon I want. Though with any luck the new beta channel based Developer Edition will retain the option to disable signature checks and xunxun1982 will update pcxfirefox (which does) at least till v56.

lithopsian wrote:Were you trying to get addons signed that had previously been uploaded, but not by you? It won't let you do that, giving the conflicting ID error you mention. Changing the ID will get past that error even if everything else is identical. I'd have expected that it would then be rejected as a new non-WebExtensions addon.

I expected something similar. But that would have been to logical from Mozilla it seems. :)
I could sign these: Text Link (nightly build), Element Properties, Custom buttons (unofficial update), Complete Youtube Saver (I accidentally submitted the available version, but since it succeeded I could upgrade it without issue :) )
You can see for yourself what happens if you like.

morat
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

Post Posted June 2nd, 2017, 8:45 am

Are these extensions for private use? If so, why not use the config file hack?

http://www.largrizzly.net/firefox.html
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/08/14/overri ... quirement/
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292444

A fun bug to read...

Dave Townsend wrote:Being able to execute arbitrary chrome privileged code on demand seems pretty bad. Is this used for anything useful in the real world?

Mike Kaply wrote:Yes, this is the primary method that enterprises use to customize Firefox.

Until we have an enterprise solution, we can't turn this off without breaking the world.

Mike Kaply wrote:Our unbranded builds are not something that anyone would want to use (they say Nightly everywhere and they don't update properly).

And we still have not solved for unsigned extensions in the enterprise (which we said we would).

There are still companies out there that have internal use extensions that absolutely under no circumstances can be submitted to AMO.

We need to solve for that. (Chrome did it via Group Policy.)

This whole thing points to a larger problem that we continue to ignore that is causing us to lose marketshare in education, governments, NPOs, enterprise and more. We really should just do something.

Customizing Firefox – Advanced Autoconfig Files
http://mike.kaply.com/2012/03/22/custom ... fig-files/

Deploying Firefox in an enterprise environment
http://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Fire ... deployment

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted June 3rd, 2017, 4:47 am

morat wrote:Are these extensions for private use? If so, why not use the config file hack?

http://www.largrizzly.net/firefox.html
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/08/14/overri ... quirement/
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292444


Thanks. Sounds like a good idea, and it doesn't seem like they'll be able to remove this anytime soon...

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted July 13th, 2017, 1:18 am

morat wrote:Are these extensions for private use? If so, why not use the config file hack?

Hi morat!

So, I've been using this, but on FF55 beta I noticed that I can't install addons. (The ones that are already installed work fine). Is there a hack to allow installing unsigned addons too?

morat
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

Post Posted July 13th, 2017, 7:39 am

I got an install error as well.

This add-on could not be installed because it has not been verified.

Firefox Portable 55
Windows 7 SP1 32-bit

Here is a workaround.

* C:\FirefoxPortableTest\App\Firefox\defaults\pref\autoconfig.js

Code: Select all
// autoconfig.js file needs to start with a comment

pref("general.config.filename", "mozilla.cfg");
pref("general.config.obscure_value", 0);

* C:\FirefoxPortableTest\App\Firefox\mozilla.cfg

Code: Select all
// mozilla.cfg file needs to start with a comment line

try {
  Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/addons/XPIProvider.jsm", {}).
    eval("SIGNED_TYPES.clear()");
} catch (e) {}

try {
  Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/addons/XPIInstall.jsm", {}).
    eval("SIGNED_TYPES.clear()");
} catch (e) {}

Search for SIGNED_TYPES
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... GNED_TYPES
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sea ... GNED_TYPES

XPIProvider.jsm
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... ovider.jsm
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sou ... ovider.jsm

XPIInstall.jsm (new in Fx 55)
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... nstall.jsm
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sou ... nstall.jsm

version.txt (check version)
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... ersion.txt
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sou ... ersion.txt

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted July 13th, 2017, 10:46 am

morat wrote:I got an install error as well.

This add-on could not be installed because it has not been verified.

Firefox Portable 55
Windows 7 SP1 32-bit

Here is a workaround.

[...]


Thanks!

It works!

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted August 30th, 2017, 8:16 am

@morat

Just came to mind that rarely I might need to run a plugin besides flash. Do you think the blocking of all other plugins can also be overridden?

morat
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 6:29 pm

Post Posted August 30th, 2017, 9:45 am

Try setting the plugin.load_flash_only preference to false.

If the preference doesn't work, then I guess you would have to hack the nsPluginHost.cpp file and rebuild the application.

How To Re-Enable NPAPI Plugin Support
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/03/forc ... pi-support

Search for load_flash_only
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-esr52/se ... flash_only
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... flash_only

Search for flashOnly
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-esr52/search?q=flashOnly
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... =flashOnly

version.txt (check version)
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-esr52/so ... ersion.txt
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-release/ ... ersion.txt

Bug 1269807
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269807

Chris Peterson wrote:The code to support other plugins will be removed, including removing hacks to work around known bugs in those plugins.

The browser may crash if you enable other plugins.
Last edited by morat on August 30th, 2017, 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

avada
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: February 10th, 2008, 6:30 am
Location: Hungary

Post Posted August 30th, 2017, 11:24 am

Thanks.
Oh, well. That's quite a hassle, and beyond what I'm capable of.

Return to Extension Development


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests