Mozilla Add-ons Community Blog
Categories: developers releases

Add-on Signing Update

119 responses

In Firefox 43, we made it a default requirement for add-ons to be signed. This requirement can be disabled by toggling a preference that was originally scheduled to be removed in Firefox 44 for release and beta versions (this preference will continue to be available in the Nightly, Developer, and ESR Editions of Firefox for the foreseeable future).

We are delaying the removal of this preference to Firefox 46 for a couple of reasons: We’re adding a feature in Firefox 45 that allows temporarily loading unsigned restartless add-ons in release, which will allow developers of those add-ons to use Firefox for testing, and we’d like this option to be available when we remove the preference. We also want to ensure that developers have adequate time to finish the transition to signed add-ons.

The updated timeline is available on the signing wiki, and you can look up release dates for Firefox versions on the releases wiki. Signing will be mandatory in the beta and release versions of Firefox from 46 onwards, at which point unbranded builds based on beta and release will be provided for testing.

119 comments on “Add-on Signing Update”

  1. Dan wrote on

    “Signing will be mandatory with no override, in Firefox 46 beta and release versions.”

    So, starting in Firefox 46 beta, Firefox add-on developers, and thereby Firefox users, will require Mozilla’s APPROVAL/PERMISSION to use ALL add-ons?! How will developers try-out their add-ons while they’re developing them? Having no override is overtly, extremely totalitarian. Don’t be another Big Brother, like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and so many others. EVERYONE does not need to be protected from EVERYTHING! Please, discontinue your proposed oppression here and elsewhere.

    Or, should I just start seeking a less oppressive browser now?

    1. Dan wrote on

      “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Quite Big Brother of you. Not that I expect answers: Why does Mozilla moderate prior to comments posting? To what criteria are moderators supposed to adhere? How many moderators does Mozilla use? At what financial cost?

    2. kytriya wrote on

      I 100% agree with you! Those fools are telling me that MY Kaspersky Password Manager is evil and should NOT be allowed. And yet, they want ME to allow Yahoo and all these other sites to have their search entgines? Why?

      FF: Why is Firefox treating ME like I am a piece of marshmallow who has no brain and no rights to know what is good for me! I am not so stupid to think that a software anti-virus security company is an evil company incapable of doing their job. I do get Signing, BUT why should I have to redo all that work to get Kaspersky allowed just because Firefox is updating their poor excuse for a browser every other week! I refuse to have to redo my extensions every single time because they are NOT YOUR preferred crapware. BTW, Chrome updates quietly and does NOT require me to have NONE Of MY stuff every single time they update.

  2. Michael wrote on

    I too am extremely disappointed by this. Freedom was what made firefox so great. Looks like I will be looking for another browser after this gets pushed to ESR.
    …damn
    You see, what really annoys me, is that I am genuanely serious. This is not another I-am-sure-if-I-threaten-to-leave-they-will-change comment, I am aware that mozilla (understandably) doesn’ t care about my opinion (but what about the opinion of all those advanced users out there? Y’ know, the people who actually use your browser?). If signing extensions becomes mandatory (and no, the ‘temporary loading of unsigned extensions is not an acceptable alternative) then what reason do we have to stay? It just be yet another browser. Nothing special. Meanwhile Chrom* loads a lot faster on most systems and offers a bunch of features firefox does not.

  3. Nathan wrote on

    Isn’t it lovely we still have ‘freedom-of-choice’ ..
    .. to stay or move on !

  4. Elena Velo-Rego wrote on

    I am also extremely annoyed by the removal of choice from firefox. Inform me of risks by all means, warn me about risks by all means, tell me I’m being a reckless idiot if you like but ultimately leave it up to ME to decide how much risk I wish to take. Are Mozilla going to tell me next to stop riding my horse because after all I have already smashed my ankle up once and clearly they know what;s good for me better than I do. The really, really stupid thing is that the add-on signing feature disables all the security features that Kaspersky internet security supplies – such as the malicious website blocker so hey, guess what, thanks to Mozilla I am now totally vulnerable to attack whereas I wasn’t before when my security add-ons actually worked. It is with great regret that I am now going to turn my back on using Firefox as a browser after so many years, all because they have suddenly got a superiority complex and think they can dictate to users. Well here’s news for you Mozilla – no you can’t!

  5. Mark wrote on

    “Signing will be mandatory with no override, in Firefox 46 beta and release versions.”

    Thanks for the heads up! I won’t be updating the browser from now on, and when it finally stops working, I’ll just use something different. You all are messing up by alienating the people who have made Firefox the popular browser that it is – I just hope that you’ll realize that before Firefox becomes the next Netscape.

  6. Antony Pouillot wrote on

    This is NO mocking message, i am just really interested why you guys from Mozilla believe that Chromium is worth to be emulated. Why simplicity and minimalism is more of value than built inside customization and features, why a native UI is of more value than flexibility and user choice?

    Perhaps i am arrogant or stupid to not being able to properly understand why the Chromium system is so much more desirable than how Firefox was working in the past.

    So, can anyone of you Mozilla developers answer me this question? It would be nice to be able to say again that i have refound confidence in Firefox, that i can be happy with the decisions of Mozilla and that i am able to understand that all what happens is in the users most best interest.

    But everything i have seen so far and keep on seeing without Mozilla trying to explain WHY this new behavior is the only righteous one is instead removing more and more of the vision that Mozilla serves in the users best interest.

    So, could you PLEASE explain to us in proper language WHY Firefox must be like Chrome? If you are unable to give us a honest answer, i am afraid that you will lose this special user and a lot of more.

    This is no threat. We users just want to be able to reward you again with that faith we had in you in earlier years. And last but not least, also explain to me, why i should not switch to Chrome when all what you guys are doing with Firefox is pushing Firefox more and more into a Chrome copy?

  7. Elizabeth wrote on

    I am glad to see Firefox is continuing to take security seriously.
    However, I think there will always be a need to allow unverified add-ons – not as a permanent measure, but as a bridge while an add-on is being verified or other exceptional situations.
    I am very disappointed in the work-around that is offered. Why an unsupported choice? Why is it all or nothing? I do not want to allow every unverified add-on on the net, only one specific add-on that is required by my employer. I would like to see Firefox offer a supported option, that requires me to identify any unverified add-on I want to allow as an exception, and that requires me to choose how often I want to be reminded to renew that exception, and that automatically expires if I do not renew it.
    Sadly, until such an option becomes available, I will not be using Firefox for work.

  8. joani wrote on

    yestuday my voice systems all work today no not thrilled why are they now disabled would you p[lease revise thise not happy nowi

  9. Jerry wrote on

    You have rendered well over half of my extensions useless with the signing requirement. The option to override the signing requirement appears to work only for all extensions at once, not selectively. I have read that you are concerned about the size of your user-base. Apple has taken root-level control away from users, and now this. You have alienated this user. Perhaps the solution is GNU/Linux and Chromium.

  10. Adam wrote on

    I’ve been using Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.6 on Windows 2000. I’ve been using Firefox with Pentadactyl since about 2009. Firefox has been with me for nearly two decades of computer use, from Windows to Linux, from one computer to another, on multiple computers at the same time, syncing between them all…

    And with every new Firefox release, Mozilla pushes me further toward the cliff.

    When a project changes so much that it ceases to be recognizable, its name should be changed. To keep the Firefox name now is actually dishonest.

    When a project decides to chase the shiny, “new” users, to chase the marketshare captured by other browsers, it ceases to be unique and ceases to be relevant. If people want Chrome, they will use Chrome. If you make Firefox into Chrome, Chrome users will still use Chrome, but people who have been using Firefox for almost 20 years will switch to a fork. Iceweasel, Pale Moon, Cyberfox, or numerous other browser projects, some of which are based on Gecko, some not: these projects respect me, the user, the human being that needs consistency and reliability, power and freedom–not the new UI fad of the month for devices I’m not even running the software on.

    Of course, the handwriting has been on the wall for a long time. The fast release cadence was a mixed bag, but bad for extension developers, and in that way bad for users. Then there was the Eich debacle, in which Mozilla didn’t stand up for him, a core part of Mozilla and Firefox for many years. Together, those signaled a changing of the guard at Mozilla–in both personnel and mindset.

    So if Mozilla wants to break up with me, I should break up with it. Why stay with someone who doesn’t want me? Why make myself miserable trying to make my partner faithful when it has decided to be unfaithful?

    The sad part is, it didn’t have to end this way. Why does this always have to happen? Good things get commandeered by bad people who shoot the goose’s feet, and then move on to the next project/company/corporation to repeat the cycle of chasing the shiny at the expense of progress.

    But thankfully, free software means that in one way or another, the phoenix can live on.

    Firefox is dead. Long live the phoenix, whatever it turns out to be, because whatever it turns out to be will be true to the original: user-focused, freedom-defending, corporate-shunning, and not addicted to billion-dollar deals.

  11. Tian wrote on

    Useless, contra-productive changes! I have yet to see a change that I like. I will reload an older version, end of story, and if it continues like this I will abandon Firefox. I’m not the only one that thinks like that.

  12. Joel wrote on

    As of today, several long-trusted Firefox add-ons no longer work because of this signing policy. That is an insult to this user.

    I understand the logic behind it, and fully accept the notion of signed add-ons. But the only reasonable, adult course of action is for Firefox to warn users when an add-on is unsigned, and then let us judge on our own — on a case-by-case, not all-or-none — basis whether we still wish to use that add-on. Anything else is a paternalistic, over-controlling insult to my ability to browse the web as I choose.

  13. John wrote on

    I join the chorus of those irritated as well. My problem is that Adobe has not signed on and will probably not for my 5 year old version of Acrobat which worked fine with the previous versions of Firefox (allowing web page copying, retaining links etc). Why not let the individual choose which addons/extensions he will allow on his machine? Reconsider the policy.

  14. hautiere wrote on

    when you pay between 30 to 80€ a year for a internet security system on your PC , and if it is not signed , you dont hesitate one minute to change firefox for another one less dictatorial !
    a lot of people will do that , and i am one of them .
    too bad for mozilla

  15. Cochona wrote on

    Add-on signing and now you want to kill also userchrome.css and usercontent.css?

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046166#c23

    Seriously, leave Firefox alone, fork it and rename it and give us back the old Firefox before Australis and then be happy with your new Chrome like Firefox 2 or whatever you want to call it.

    Seriously, stop this!

  16. IByte wrote on

    Well, I guess I have to get or make a custom build somewhere that lets me install what I want on Firefox, or perhaps just switch to Chrome. After spending all that time and energy on getting my master’s degree in computer science, I’d expect I know what I’m doing, and don’t have to be force-fed this by Mozilla developers going “Users are dumb, this is for your own good” like I’m some foie gras goose. “Made with a mission to put you first”, the blurb says; well, that’s not what I’d call this. Extremely disappointed with Mozilla (and yes, with over 75 add-ons installed, there are those that I’m going to miss, it really is both a principal as well as a practical problem). For God’s sake, people, add an override, and label it with all the dire “at your own risk” warnings you desire. What solution do you recommend (I really need one)? Use the Developer edition? Please respond.

  17. Leslie wrote on

    The signing requirement for apps means that my browsing safety features with Trend Micro Antivirus and Web Security are totally unusable. Firefox has made me LESS safe. I’ve been using Firefox for more years than I can count because I have always liked it better than any other browser, but I’m done. I’m not a simpleton who needs to be babysat on my computer and I totally RESENT being treated like one!!!

  18. Misojogi wrote on

    I too am extremely disappointed by this. Firefox is drecreasing!!! Freedom was what made firefox so great.

    1. Misojogi wrote on

      Firefox falls very often, Is it broken soft now :-(((

  19. Zaiken64 wrote on

    Final nail in the coffin for me. If I can’t use the extension I want there is no point in firefox. Nearly every browser out there is more stable these days. With palemoon and other forks this is going to kill off the mozilla brand entirely. It used to be I recommended firefox to everyone, now I recommend they stay away from it because it causes more problems than it is worth.

    You really need to take a step back and fix what is broken, not take more away from the users trying to fix it themselves.

  20. Tom wrote on

    As lots of comments already told it, Mozilla took an overly self-confident approach with this rigorous Add-on signing policy. Leaving the users without an option to white-list some desired add-ons, Firefox will surely loose large number of users (see comments).

    IMPORTANT: Many users plan to simply disable FF updates, hoping to preserve their current FF version. The bad news is that disabling FF updates in the Preferences window will NOT PRESERVE the installed version, since Firefox simply ignores this setting. There is a forced update!

    Background: I have totally disabled updates in version 41 or 42, just to prevent updating to v43. Accordingly, I was extremely angry when I started the browser today and faced that my installation of Firefox got updated to v43 DESPITE I EXPLICITLY FORBID it to do so.
    One can say, “This is not a feature, it’s a bug”.

    As a software engineer with over 20 years of experience, I’ve never encountered such an unacceptable software behavior. It’s responsibility of Mozilla what people are in position to make important decisions about Firefox, but I think it should be reconsidered. Making changes to the product that are either aggressive or offending large percentage of user base will surely have their consequences.

    I hope to get back the long-beloved free and customizable Firefox back, but in meantime will also look for alternative browsers.

  21. Willie McGee wrote on

    Now, let me get this straight…….my Kaspersky Security, which has been working flawlessly with Firefox for MONTHS, is now BLOCKED?! Pray tell HOW does a trusted security program suddenly become a security threat?! This action, in my opinion, borders on “ludicrous”. I was told a while back how GREAT Firefox is so I began using it and eventually made it my default browser. Now you’ve come up with the “brilliant” idea of using only signed add-ons. Consequently, I’m now unable to conduct business as usual with others online. THANKS A LOT, MOZILLA! Time to go to another browser……………..

  22. JT wrote on

    What a waste of time, been with Firefox since 2002 and was happy, but all you’ve done is turned into exactly what you came out and replaced, a borg…. a constantly “improving” market manipulator…. way too many brains that are in this for their own selves….. hoes.

  23. Rene wrote on

    Frankly, Mozilla became amazing !

    But unfortunately not in a good way !!!

    This last feature is the ice freezing cherry on the cake !

    Using Firefox almost since the beginning, eleven years… I’d love it !
    Safe, fast, friendly user, and so…

    But more it went, more it went downward and it seems soon down cellar 🙂 …

    Especially since 3.0 (long time ago), 12.0, 19.0.2, 21.0, 24.0,
    than 34.0…

    It started with the about:config no more so usefull :
    we had to add new add-on instead changing a line.

    Next some add-on didn’t work anymore…
    we had to search something equivalent

    In disorder : the bloody ugly orange button, the download bar,
    the add-on bar, the white upper page bar that became black,
    then no bar anymore…

    I had to bookmark Google news to get the news,
    not to be obliged to go internet to search for that page… how silly !

    I even can’t remember all the changes we had to fix !
    For instance, classic theme restaurer, among many other.

    Understand me well :
    I’m not a nostalgic old bastard, I encourage and foster for progress…

    But progress must increase things to be easier, more controllable, not the opposite,
    and not only for a minority of IT advanced users.

    Since years, I’m still using a few add-ons (kept the xpi files)
    which are impossible to find anymore on the net,
    indroduce them by the back-door, and activate them !
    Because I always could decide wether or not to activate them, with a Firefox’s newer version,
    I kept Firefox against the Chrome storm

    I even send one xpi abroad (Mouse gestures redox) to someone in Gemany,
    after I read on a IT forum, that someone was desperate not finding it anymore…
    How well I understood him, I still remember !

    Copying Chrome was bad…

    Why do you think so many people shifted from Firefox to Chrome ?

    Not only because of the agressive Chrome’s advertisement…

    I might be wrong, but I think it’s mainly because you started to forget the friendly user’s interface…
    The fact that it is appreciable to be able to choose what we want to do “our browser”

    Well, I’m not a youngster anymore, and among my friends, relatives, family and kids,
    I’m one of the last Firefox’s survivors…
    Yes, there are still millions of survivors…

    But in th IT world, things can change dramatically fast…
    Remember IBM leadership, Microsoft stranglehold, than Apple,
    Internet Explorer supremacy, than… came Firefox 🙂

    My kids, among their friends, are the only exceptions they know to use Firefox…
    I always explained them the privacy protections, that it is not a good thing
    to go the middle way, the main stream can be stupid, on so on…
    but it might change…

    Once I won’t anymore be able to use former Firefox’s versions,
    to be able to keep the usefull add-ons I appreciate, I may abandon Firefox !!!

    It would be an unpleasant thing, but if I have no choice anymore,
    than bye, bye Firefox 🙁

    Dont’ get me wrong : yes, it is still an excellent browser,
    I just wish it won’t extinct because you killed it !!!

  24. Ike Fer wrote on

    I have been using a screen reader add-on for many years because of my challenging eyesight. The use of the internet becomes impossible for me without it. For all I know, the developer is passed on. Why would you block me from using this tried and true add-on which I absolutely depend on. Let me keep the ability to override signing or lat least grandfather old extensions.

  25. david appleby wrote on

    all domains and sites will not acceot my firefox….they say its an insecure adrress…….Firefox say…..for example….derbyshire county council and facebook are not safe and they have not allowed connection……have updated to latest version….but still same,,,,,thanks in advance for any help

  26. Shaun wrote on

    I also second Dan’s comments that being forced to only use add-ons that are signed is unacceptable. Since Firefox is opened source I hope others reading this will please comment on the feasibility of editing the source to remove this required-sign-on, or if there is any plans to fork Firefox.

  27. Peter Holmes wrote on

    Like many other comments, I have happily used Firefox for some years, but this latest change which is disabling all of the enhanced security features of Kaspersky (which usually shows up as the best in tests of such software) is going to push me away from what has become my favourite browser. As others have said, you are becoming too dictatorial, and are completely failing to see the consequences of what you are doing from a normal user’s perspective. So sadly, unless I hear from you that you are revoking this change, OR you are actually going to become pro-active and engage directly with the likes of Kaspersky to ensure compatability, I will be moving to another browser.

  28. Wota wrote on

    “Signing will be mandatory…” – this is very disappointing! I really loved Firefox … but such an arrogance will push me to leave you …

  29. Charles E. Hook wrote on

    The add-ons that you want to dicontinue on my computer, are all a part of my my security system, to prevent damage from my computer,malware, etc. I am paying money for this system, and do not want to have changes made to it. If this is a problem for you, I suggest you talk to KAPERSKY and get some information from them. I will continue with these add-ons, until i hear from you again.
    Thank You
    Charled e Hook

  30. Ian wrote on

    I can see why signing add-ons is a Good Thing.

    However banning unsigned add-ons and removing the option to allow them would be a very very Bad Thing.

    Leaving aside the issues raised above, unless I am missing something, on FF 44.0.1 I cannot currently see what add-ons *are* signed.

    Without toggling the allow unsigned extensions option to ban them, I can’t see any way to know which authors to (politely) chase or find alternatives.

    As with several others here, I have been using FF as my main browser since 2002, before it was called Firefox. It may be that I have an extension which I rely on that is orphaned and will not be signed. The second that is disabled with no way to allow it is the second that I look for the inevitable forked version.

  31. arnold wrote on

    Unhappy???? I’m furious and will likely delete Firefox altogether. I only use 1 Password about 20 or 30 times in an average session. Usually I delay updating Firefox as long as possible because I hate all the wasted time trying to get my add ons to function again. This does it! If Chrome and Safari can handle all I need it’s good-bye FF.

  32. Sharon Thie wrote on

    I bought this computer in Nov. 2015, along with a Kaspersky Anti Virus disc. Installed it, everything was fine for about a month, until Firefox pop ups and tells me that they have disabled it, because of ‘signing; issues, for my ‘protection’! There is obviously no human over seeing this situation, as they seemingly took away my protection! But! my virus protection is still scanning Firefox web sites, so I am at ease, for now.

  33. Kevin Heber wrote on

    The situation might be best described as Orwellian. My browser security add-ons have been disabled, cannot be installed or updated. Firefox is dead in the water.

    Guess it’s time to skin the fox and make a fur hat.

  34. KatMatt wrote on

    I’ve been a Firefox user since it was released and it’s my favorite browser so far.

    Ever since Chrome became more popular than Firefox, Firefox kept changing their browser to compete with Chrome and they made a huge step forward and some of the changes and features they added were great and i really liked them.

    But at some point, Firefox started to exaggerate on their frequent updates, a lot of them were unnecessary, sometimes i roll back to previous updates and wait until they release a new update that fixes an issue, i did that a lot and now I’m stuck on 42.0 because most of the addons i have got disabled after the update.

    I tried many times to use other browsers, never liked any except Chrome, i don’t like it as much as Firefox because most of the addons i use don’t work great on Chrome.

    What i like about Chrome mostly is their “Syncing”. It’s so much better than Firefox’s, it’s real fast unlike Firefox which also sometimes doesn’t sync anything and has some issues, they never got it right.
    And it seems a bit lighter and a faster browser than Firefox.

    If Firefox keeps going that way, this will be the last time I’ll use it, which i really hope not 🙁

  35. John wrote on

    Just joining the chorus of folks who are extremely disappointed with this decision by Mozilla to take the authoritarian stance of forcing signed add-ons. Very Microsfot-ish of you. I have been a loyal Firefox user for as long as I can remember (it feels like forever) and now I will have to look for a new, user-friendly experience that doesn’t force me to use signed add-ons. The add-on Mozilla is currently blocking on my system is Kaspersky so you’ve effectively made my browser and system LESS SAFE.

    This type of overriding behavior is why I have ALWAYS hated IE. I thought Firefox was supposed to be “different”…clearly that’s no longer true 🙁

  36. Marie wrote on

    My Yahoo/Frontier email addresses (on PC) won’t autofill since new 44; however my Yahoo/Frontier addresses autofill fine on Chromebook w/o Firefox–suggestions?

  37. Jackie Brown wrote on

    Kaspersky has now been disabled by Firefox! As such I consider you have put my computer at risk and will therefore be moving to a new browser…..

  38. Sergio Mescalero wrote on

    I want the possibility to choose, even to make mistakes: this is called freedom … thanks

  39. Daniel wrote on

    Please don’t treat me like an idiot. There’s nothing wrong with a hidden option to override the block of unsigned add-ons. Just give users a warning and let them choose to ignore it. Choice is a good thing, walled gardens only give a false sense of security.

  40. Randall wrote on

    like the above poster, my expensive Kapersky protection software has been disabled. Is there a way around this or do I have to switch to another browser to do things online safely? This current situation defeats the very purpose of having antivirus and other protection.

  41. A. Hoc wrote on

    Have used this browser since it s name was Firebird. Now, if all extensions must be signed by FF46 (without a toggle preference to allow me to bypass that requirement) I will be forced to disable all updates. And if that can no longer be done, then I will uninstall FF and start using Chrome directly, instead of the Chrome-like Firefox you seem so desperate to create. Why the authoritarian paternalism of removing the toggle preference ?

  42. kytriya wrote on

    PLEASE LET US ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FOR ONLY THE EXTENSIONS WE WANT TO. I DO NOT WANT TO ALLOW ALL OR ALLOW NONE. THAT IS EVIL AND NOT SAFE! EVEN YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT. KASPERSKY PASSWORD MANAGER IS NOT A EVIL CRACKERS CRAPWARE. I WANT IT ENABLED WITHOUT ENABLING EVERY SINGLE CRAPCODE THAT PUTS ON A UNSUSPECTING SITE!

    I DO NOT CARE IF YOU HATE CAPS. I NEED MY NEEDS MET AND YOU FAILED MISERABLY. I SUPPORT SIGNING BUT ONLY TO A POINT. PLEASE ALLOW US TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS WHERE WE NEED TO. Y OU ARE NOT MY PARENTS AND Y OU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO TELL M E WHAT TO DO YOU EVIL PEOPLE TRYING TO PLAY GOD WITH US. WE ARE NOT TODDLERS LIKE YOU ARE!

  43. Natalia wrote on

    Can you please return old features which Mozilla had version 37. It was nice, running fast, everything was working. For God’s sake Mozilla is public so our opinion must be counted as well. Right now it is awful. Is crushing this 43 permanently. It is very slow or not responding. And those updates are annoying. It is only getting worse and worse.

  44. Karen wrote on

    Add-ons MUST be signed?!? This is an update, an improvement?!? The bottom line MUST be money and marketing, eh, Firefox decision makers? It certainly isn’t due to an avalanche of requests from your longtime faithful users. The flexibility and reliability of Firefox has declined. Mobile version had a very rough start. I am not a developer. I do have the knowledge & experience to decide which add-on is safe… such as Adobe. Firefox used to respect me, the user, to make my own considered decision. Warn me that an add-on is not signed and potentially unsafe, implying I am an idiot for even considering using an unsigned add-on. Please do so.

    Do NOT micromanage my browser usage in the name of security while exercising a power and control trip to attract more users! Do NOT chase the almighty dollar/support while giving lip service to plausible but thin security reasons. I realize as indoctrinated members of our society, the current makeup of Mozilla management apparently sees their first priority as more money and more users. Each human generation changes the vision to fit their perceived priorities. Such is life. I WILL NO longer be a Mozilla user so that cancels out one new user you may add in your almost- Chrome.

    As a decade long Firefox, I have turned on several hundred people to using Firefox. I have encouraged them to support Mozilla. I have never rec’d any significant negative feedback from anyone. Most have been delighted to find a user-oriented browser v the out-of-the-box offerings of Google & Microsoft, among others. Until this release. I have commiserated with several people about this misnamed “update”.

    This release requiring signing is the final straw in a slow but seemingly inexorable tilt by Firefox management to the dummy approach of “point and click”. I have been tolerant, remaining silent, as I made accommodations that previous changes/”updates” made necessary. No MORE!

    I will leave Firefox to the Chrome users who want to feel special by using a “different” browser. They should be very happy with Firefox as it is trending to become a Chrome lookalike. I will no longer recommend Firefox to ANYONE.

    What do folks recommend, Cyberfox, Pale Moon, or ? And a Linux OS, I think.

  45. DM wrote on

    Hello Google Chrome?

  46. Simon wrote on

    Now look, this is just the attitude that forced me to stop using I.E years ago.

    Where do you get off telling us what we can or cannot install – sorry you need to revisit this decision.

    There are plenty of add-ons in use, perfectly viable that have had no development for sometime, still safe and still very useful. These will never be signed ……… You really need to bear in mind that not everyone uses Windows and frankly I mistakenly thought that you would know better.

    So, I’m happy to sign a disclaimer, yes I know what I’m doing and will take responsibility for actions.

    Unchain me please – this really is not your bailiwick.

  47. Barius Drubeck wrote on

    Please make it an option to (as several other posts have requested) to allow unsigned add-ons on a per-add-on basis!

    Requiring signing for plugins is great — as a default. I also fear the all-or-nothing approach.

    But I do have a genuine need for specific unsigned plugins. In particular one that I have to compile myself from md5sum-checked and pgp-signed sources provided by our federal government. I will be forced to version-lock mozilla before v46 or not submit my tax returns later this year…

    Or maybe I will just have to find/maintain a mozilla fork without this proposed compulsory signing abomination. How can you call mozilla free software if you take away the freedom to use it as I see fit? Judging by the comment activity here, this will be the most unpopular decision ever made and will finally kill an otherwise excellent browser.

  48. www wrote on

    Just STOP trying to protect us from ourselves!

  49. Withheld wrote on

    I’ve read every comment for this blog entry. This comment makes for a total of 113 comments.

    Not one positive comment about the change.

    Not one Mozilla employee replied.

    That should tell you all you need to know.

  50. Steven wrote on

    Hey thanks for telling us about the new nanny setting. I just set Firefox to stop updating and will obviously need to start looking for an alternative.

More comments: 1 2 3