Signing of Firefox Extensions - History.

[Frank Lion]

Here's what Firefox extension/theme authors were saying about the, then, proposed signing of Firefox extensions -

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14179589
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p13986545
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14027285

It's a very long thread, but basically we were saying that signing was an unnecessary severely over-complicated and not very effective method of dealing with the few rogue extensions and that signing would negatively impact both users and normal extension authors alike.

I wonder if that over-complicated side ever came back to haunt Mozilla?

[therube]

Yes, plenty of old threads exist, both extensions & themes, stating that Mozilla's stated goals with "signing" would not accomplish their stated goals.
Even some within Mozilla concurred with that.
But Mozilla, at that point, well being on their downward slide, dismissed all such talk, you know, fake news kind of thing, & proceeded along their merry own way.

[Frank Lion]

Latest Mozilla Add-ons Blog entry (showed up in my Addons Dev Panel as 'News') - https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05 ... n-firefox/

[Tomatoshadow2]

Thanks for posting this Frank.

[therube]

And it gets even better, as an extension can Modify Own .XPI with Possible Malware - totally outside the realm of "Mozilla".

(Source thread, FireFox 52.9.0 ESR Disables Flash Video Downloader Extension.)

[Tomatoshadow2]

Oh wow, what are they going to do about that?

[4td8s]

Latest Mozilla Add-ons Blog entry (showed up in my Addons Dev Panel as 'News') - https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05 ... n-firefox/

that blog was updated May 14 to add more Firefox versions, especially the ones between FF 47 and FF 56.

Also, an "apology" blog was posted May 9
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/05/0 ... -go-wrong/