Firefox Disabling Unsigned Extensions

[hello_hello]

I can't work out if I'm just very stupid, or if it's a sign how bad the alternative browsers are, but I continue to use Firefox despite the fact every single update seems to find a new and exciting way to inconvenience me and piss me off.

Today I upgraded Firefox to version 43.01 and when it restarted I dicovered several of my extensions were disabled. Not because they're incompatible, but because they're unsigned (not approved by the Mozilla extension police). Extensions I've been happily using for years. Fortunately, I calmed down enough to ask Google before uninstalling Firefox for good, and it turns out you can disable the disabling of unsigned extensions.

Type "about:config" in the address bar (without the quotes).
Type "xpinstall.signatures.required" into the search (without the quotes).
Toggle the setting to False.

Now to update Pale Moon. Hopefully they haven't started treating their users like children.

[mike20021969]

it turns out you can disable the disabling of unsigned extensions.

Type "about:config" in the address bar (without the quotes).
Type "xpinstall.signatures.required" into the search (without the quotes).
Toggle the setting to False.

Thanks.

One of the most dumbass things Firefox has done. At least they left an option to disable this new backwards default action.

[OldGeek]

The ability to bypass the prevention of unsigned extension installations is only temporary:

From the Mozilla wiki (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing):

Firefox 40-42: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 43: Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config).
Firefox 44: Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.

[mike20021969]

I imagine many, many users will stop upgrading.

Like the OP, I have many extensions which aren't signed (and some which are no longer developed) which I've been using for years.

Unless there's some back peddling, 42.0/43.0 will be the last upgrades for me.

[El Heggunte]

The Firecräp devilopers have become totalitarian bä$tard$, period.

[Constant Gardener]

My favorite add-on is on the no-fly list - which is downright annoying. So the upgrades will stop until there is a workaround. Virtual machines are such useful things...

[KarMa]

43.0 is the end of the road for me too until it changes.

[usually_quiet]

The reason given for this change in policy is that it prevents extensions that users did not intentionally install from taking over the browser, for example, bundled adware or malware that installs itself in order to make money through affiliate links, or that redirects website requests to alternate pages, or that spies on users

I find this rather amusing since hello_hello once ripped me a new orifice for preferring Chrome, citing Google's more lax approach to policing extensions/add-ons as one of its major flaws.

[Kerry56]

There are alternatives still. I haven't looked at SeaMonkey in ages, but I'm currently using Pale Moon and perfectly happy with it so far.

[El Heggunte]

Speaking of alternatives:

http://kmeleonbrowser.org/

— optimized for Windows.

[hello_hello]

The ability to bypass the prevention of unsigned extension installations is only temporary:

From the Mozilla wiki (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing):

Firefox 40-42: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 43: Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config).
Firefox 44: Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.

That'll be the end of Firefox for me.
Fortunately Pale Moon didn't complain or block extensions after I upgraded yesterday, so hopefully it's a feature Pale Moon won't implement. I don't use Firefox all that much anyway so uninstalling it won't bother me. I've been keeping it (and the extensions I use) updated as the same time I update Pale Moon, but it looks like it'll be Pale Moon only for me fairly soon. Unless I can work out how to sign extensions myself. I wonder if that's possible.

[johns0]

Firefox is going to replace its engine totally in the upcoming future so all existing addons will not work.So if they don't allow addons with the new firefox then it's the end of the road for me with it.

[hello_hello]

The reason given for this change in policy is that it prevents extensions that users did not intentionally install from taking over the browser, for example, bundled adware or malware that installs itself in order to make money through affiliate links, or that redirects website requests to alternate pages, or that spies on users

Well I haven't had any extensions install without permission and taking over the browser, so I'm not 100% sure if Firefox asks all the time, but as far as I know when a new extension is installed Firefox always asks the user for permission to install it.
I think there is a "common" extensions folder somewhere (as opposed to the user's profile folder) where extensions can be installed. Common extensions such as Flash or the WMP plugin. I can't remember where it is and I don't know how it works these days, but maybe it's possible to sneak an extension onto a PC that way. I'll have to research how that works again.

I find this rather amusing since hello_hello once ripped me a new orifice for preferring Chrome, citing Google's more lax approach to policing extensions/add-ons as one of its major flaws.

The way I remember it the main "disagreement" involved the screen real-estate each browser requires for toolbars and menus and your ability to imagine Chrome required less screen area than Firefox when it didn't, but I don't recall discussing Google's policing of extensions. I remember discussing the fact the Chrome toolbar button is in the wrong place, and you can get Chrome to install to the program files folder like other programs instead of putting it's files god-knows-where, as long as you use the right installer and there hasn't been any rain during the day, but Google's extension policing.... I remember there were some issues at the time and the ability to play in a sandbox was mentioned, but ripping you a new one..... I think you're taking liberties there.

[Cornucopia]

Just like ActiveX and NPAPI addons are being phased out, so too are unsigned extensions. You may not like it, but it's a sign that the browsers are TRYING to be overall more secure. They're just taking a more "big-brotherly", corporate way of doing it than you'd like.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point down the road that even the more unaffiliated opensource browsers will feel the need to apply these changes as well for the sake of security & future compatibility. So, you may have an alternative now, but don't count on that lasting for long.

But, how much would it hurt for those extension makers to just "Sign" their extensions? And use PPAPI or similar modern addon apis?

I've got no beef with FF, or Chrome, or IE, etc. I use all for various tasks, some are better than others at some things and not other things. I think that most addons & extensions just bog down the browser experience anyway, so I keep mine trimmed to just 2 or 3 vital ones (such as an adblocker/popup blocker, if it's necessary beyond what is natively provided, and downloading facilitators & flash when needed). So, I'm curious as to why this would be such a "dealbreaker" to so many of you?...

Scott

[Cornucopia]

If you really want to sandbox, I'd use a VM with a readonly source image. And/or Faronics DeepFreeze. I love that app!

Scott

[El Heggunte]

It would be nice if the Gecko-based browsers started including in their source-code the useful features provided by the extensions, so that the extensions themselves would not be needed anymore.

However we all already know that those devilopers work against the user and for the ad-serving people...
so they have all the interest in removing useful features and dumbing-down the user-interface more and more.

[hello_hello]

Just like ActiveX and NPAPI addons are being phased out, so too are unsigned extensions. You may not like it, but it's a sign that the browsers are TRYING to be overall more secure. They're just taking a more "big-brotherly", corporate way of doing it than you'd like.

To me it's more like Mozilla taking a leaf out of Microsoft's book and increasing the annoyance level in the name of security.
If I'm savvy enough to disable unsigned extension disabling, I'm probably capably of deciding which extensions I want to install all by myself, like a grown up. If my computer implodes as a result, it's my fault.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point down the road that even the more unaffiliated opensource browsers will feel the need to apply these changes as well for the sake of security & future compatibility. So, you may have an alternative now, but don't count on that lasting for long.

Maybe they'll introduce animation in the search bar too, and w could have Google Bob offering to help users every time they search. Maybe Firefox Bob to ask if it's okay when we try to use unsigned extensions. And of course eventually we'll need Firefox UAC. How insecure must surfing be given browsers routinely load web pages without asking permission first or requiring the user to click through several prompts?

But, how much would it hurt for those extension makers to just "Sign" their extensions? And use PPAPI or similar modern addon apis?

Mostly I imagine they will, in due course. I think a couple of extension I use are abandoned though.

I've got no beef with FF, or Chrome, or IE, etc. I use all for various tasks, some are better than others at some things and not other things. I think that most addons & extensions just bog down the browser experience anyway, so I keep mine trimmed to just 2 or 3 vital ones (such as an adblocker/popup blocker, if it's necessary beyond what is natively provided, and downloading facilitators & flash when needed). So, I'm curious as to why this would be such a "dealbreaker" to so many of you?...

I have about 40 extensions installed. They certainly don't bog down the browser experience for me. In fact the majority of them enhance browsing in some way. If I have to use an "out of the box" browser these days I get frustrated very quickly.
Almost every time I've upgraded Firefox, one or more extensions have stopped working for one reason or another. As a result, I tend not to upgrade the browser all that regularly. I've been using Firefox since about version 2. I'm sick of extension issues. Here's a thought.... if Mozilla want me to upgrade the browser regularly they need to stop breaking extensions with every upgrade and allow the use of unsigned extensions. Are unsigned extensions really as much of a security issue as running an out of date browser?

[Cornucopia]

I think you are thinking like a computer & net-savvy user who expects the browser makers' only responsibility is to users like your (our) selves. But, especially now with mobile's great expansion, the browser makers can no longer afford to assume that the consumer on the other end knows what they're doing. So they "dumb it down". Which may get rid of certain LCD (lowest common denominator) insecurities and bugs, but it hampers the power-users' experience.

Maybe they can fork a version that is more power-user-friendly, or maybe they can make an app that self-modifies to the expertise of the user, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

**************

I think there are plenty of security issues with both avenues...

Scott

[Yanta]

OMG! This is so retarded.

I'm, glad I stopped upgrading when they "Windows-10'd" the browser.

I've stayed on 37.0.2 because as of 38.0 the interface changed to look like Windows 10 and I want to stay on Windows 7.

Palemoon is looking better every day.

I feel your frustration

[hello_hello]

OMG! This is so retarded.

I'm, glad I stopped upgrading when they "Windows-10'd" the browser.

I've stayed on 37.0.2 because as of 38.0 the interface changed to look like Windows 10 and I want to stay on Windows 7.

Do you mean the Firefox Australis theme?

Yes it's horrible. Just a Chrome look-a-like. It's fixable though. Classic Theme Restorer and Classic Toolbar buttons are the two extensions you need, and a bit of time to fiddle with their settings.

Keeping in mind PaleMoon doesn't look the same as it would straight out of the box (I've fiddled with the layout) and I'm running XP, I managed to make Firefox look like Pale Moon, which looked like Firefox before they butchered it. The navigation bar still isn't exactly the same, but it's pretty close, and the tabs are square again.

[mike20021969]

Fortunately Pale Moon didn't complain or block extensions after I upgraded yesterday

I'm running XP

Which version of Pale Moon are you using?

[hello_hello]

The Atom version. I can't tell any difference between it and the standard one.

If you're using the older XP version I'm pretty sure after the final upgrade the updating function was disabled so it won't update itself again until you first install the Atom version manually. I think I just un-installed the old version and installed the Atom version and as long as you don't remove your user profile folder when uninstalling, it should just continue to work as it did...... except of course for the potential to break extensions that comes with every update.

[mike20021969]

The Atom version

I tried that ages ago when support of Pale Moon for XP ended. Too many problems with the extensions I was using with it so got rid.
I might try latest version of Atom to see if things have improved(!), but have stuck with 24.7.2 since.

Firefox is main browser for me. Sea Monkey 2.39 & Pale Moon 24.7.2 when I need them occasionally.

[JoeS99]

Firefox updated itself recently and I freaked out when the Freemake Video Downloader "Download" button disappeared from the YouTube page. I Googled the problem and was able to enable the extension. My antivirus (Avira) also got totalitarian recently and blocked the Freemake installer from running. The error I got from Win XP was that is was not a valid 32 bit application.

I wonder what other problems are lurking, waiting to be found.

[hello_hello]

The Atom version

I tried that ages ago when support of Pale Moon for XP ended. Too many problems with the extensions I was using with it so got rid.
I might try latest version of Atom to see if things have improved(!), but have stuck with 24.7.2 since.

Firefox is main browser for me. Sea Monkey 2.39 & Pale Moon 24.7.2 when I need them occasionally.

Thinking about it, because I upgraded to Atom and installed Firefox again at the same time, I did lose a fair bit of time messing with extensions and getting everything to work again, plus tweaking the browser layouts and various settings etc. I think I lost the best part of a day.

Sometimes I had to use an older version of an extension in Pale Moon, there was an extension or two I had to replace with an alternative that'd work with Firefox, and some had to be modified to make them compatible and then checked to make sure they really were compatible etc.....

I thought I was going to have a little cry when Easy DragToGo+ stopped working. I've been using it forever. Fortunately version 1.1.7 beta19 here works with both browsers, although it's not been uploaded to the Mozilla site for some reason and of course it's not signed......

So yeah, because I basically started from scratch with both browsers at the same time there was a fair bit of time wasting involved now I think about it, and Firefox also had to be made to look normal again instead of a Chrome wanna-be.

[hello_hello]

Firefox updated itself recently and I freaked out when the Freemake Video Downloader "Download" button disappeared from the YouTube page. I Googled the problem and was able to enable the extension. My antivirus (Avira) also got totalitarian recently and blocked the Freemake installer from running. The error I got from Win XP was that is was not a valid 32 bit application.

I wonder what other problems are lurking, waiting to be found.

Have you tried Video Download Helper? You have to pay for the conversion function but for simply downloading it's fine.

And I like this one for YouTube. Nice and simple.

[JoeS99]

Have you tried Video Download Helper? You have to pay for the conversion function but for simply downloading it's fine.

And I like this one for YouTube. Nice and simple.

I have Video Download Helper, but I find that the Freemake Downloader is easier to use.
I didn't know about the other one.
Freemake is working fine now after I did what it takes to enable it.

[JoeS99]

Is there something that prevents Google Maps from working properly?
I can't Zoom using the + or - and it doesn't show the blue streets when you move the little guy for street view.
WTF?

EDIT: Never mind, I was trying out NoScript, and it must be doing it. I disabled NoScript and the maps work now.
I do think I used Google Maps a couple days ago though and I've had NoScript installed for a while.

[El Heggunte]

Why keep wasting time with Firefox

Firefox is just a Netscape 6 on steroids

Just switch to Seamonkey, K-Meleon and Pale Moon, problem solved

[JoeS99]

Why keep wasting time with Firefox

Firefox is just a Netscape 6 on steroids

Just switch to Seamonkey, K-Meleon and Pale Moon, problem solved

I'll have to look into those. I used to have Chrome, but it somehow never could update and started crashing all the time.
Never figured how to export bookmarks correctly with Chrome.
I was lucky to be able to get my bookmarks transferred when I installed Firefox.