Firefox kills extensions

Whelp Mozilla just let a certificate expire and killed nearly all Firefox extensions.

> You could have prevented this Pic related. I think this highlights some more risks about Mozilla Firefox. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

>>16991 What browser do you recommend then?

I'm trying to figure out why I seem to be immune to this. It's past midnight (both UTC and local time), and I'm on FF 66.0.3 on Xubuntu 19.04, and I haven't had any problems with either currently-installed extensions or downloading new ones. I am however thinking hard about which browser I'll use going forward. I'm leaning towards Falkon with some sort of filtering proxy on localhost. Even if I dodged this bullet I may not dodge the next.

I can't get any of the workarounds to work.

What finally worked for me. // Re-enable *all* extensions async function set_addons_as_signed() { Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/addons/XPIDatabase.jsm"); Components.utils.import("resource://gre/modules/AddonManager.jsm"); let addons = await XPIDatabase.getAddonList(a => true); for (let addon of addons) { // The add-on might have vanished, we'll catch that on the next startup if (!addon._sourceBundle.exists()) continue; if( addon.signedState != AddonManager.SIGNEDSTATE_UNKNOWN ) continue; addon.signedState = AddonManager.SIGNEDSTATE_NOT_REQUIRED; AddonManagerPrivate.callAddonListeners("onPropertyChanged", addon.wrapper, ["signedState"]); await XPIDatabase.updateAddonDisabledState(addon); } XPIDatabase.saveChanges(); } set_addons_as_signed();

Icecat has been unaffected. Unfortunately, the only up-to-date version is that in Guix. Otherwise you're stuck building it from Mozilla's source with the crap-removing script.

>>16997 >>16991 That post was meant as an answer.

bread@social.i2p.rocks, probably a Canada user, linked me here. >>16991 Is like the only one I agree in this soykaf thread. Also did admin sama ever restore his backups? Actually why am I here? Nobody knows how to compile their own cURL TUI, so I don't give a damn. Later GUIfuckers

>>16997 >there are people here who aren't yet using guix

>>16990 Mozilla are a bunch of fuarrrkwits, they've run a great, opensource, reasonably secure browser into the ground. I knew that Quantum was the beginning of the end.

>>16997 Fedora and Fdroid are up to date

>>17005 FF was never really secure. It was just more secure than IE which was a killer feature when IE had a defacto monopoly on webbrowers. The most secure open source browser is probably chromium. Too bad its becomes more connected to Google's botnet with every update.

>>16994 Following up on my own post. I'm really liking Falkon. I was worried I'd have to do some squid/privoxy/etc thing, as I couldn't find a way to customize the adblock list. It turns out that Falkon addons have their settings buttons available after clicking their respective toolbar icons. Falkon's adblocker has all the usual customizability - custom filters, adding subscriptions to lists in the normal ublock/adblock format, etc. I'll miss the Keepass integration I had with Firefox, but I'll survive. Its worth the tradeoff to have a modern non-chomium/non-mozilla browser.

>This affects Tor as well How many people do you think got fuarrrked?

>>17010 Only the people who uses Tor on windows with no actual opsec or security.

>>16992 If you read the guide, clearly Firefox. Firefox is the only browser that let's you turn off these things that may degrade your privacy. Good luck doing that with Chrome. Ungoogled-Chromium is a thing but requires constant work to recompile the entire browser every time there is an update, then you have trust someone to create a binary on a regular basis which might not happen for several months.

>>17011 >Only the people who uses Tor on windows with no actual opsec or security. Tor is supposed to BE a huge part of that opsec.

>>17011 Linux is affected by the issue. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973 I don't know about Tor Browser on Linux though. >>17012 >Ungoogled-Chromium is a thing but requires constant work to recompile the entire browser every time there is an update, then you have trust someone to create a binary on a regular basis which might not happen for several months. Isn't this literally the point of Linux distributions? Or are you talking from a Windows perspective? >>17005 >Mozilla are a bunch of fuarrrkwits, they've run a great, opensource, reasonably secure browser into the ground. I knew that Quantum was the beginning of the end. It sure would be nice if they focused on privacy and security instead of trying to out-chrome chrome. >>>/sec/7676

>>17013 >>17014 if you are serious about opsec, you should use Whonix or Tails and not rely on a few plug-ins. Generally it's good to always have a mindset as "all your tools are compromised"

>>17016 >Generally it's good to always have a mindset as "all your tools are compromised" Stop LARPing as some console cowboy on the run from the Turing Police. Living as if every tool one relies on is compromised just leads to a paranoid isolationist lifestyle. In the real world, we need to develop our threat models based on probabilities.

>>17017 I am quite paranoid, and I don't think I isolate myself that much. Using Qubes with a bit of basic knowledge of how tracking works will do wonders

This is such a damn shame. I 100% refuse to use Chrome spinoffs no matter what anyone says. I didn't mind the webextensions switch. I like the new rendering engine. But the idiots running Mozilla can't get it through their thick skulls that we use Firefox because it's freer and should give us control over this kind of stuff. We need a GNU Firefox fork that's actually up-to-date. I would switch in a heartbeat.

And I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of COINTELPRO scheme targeted at Firefox to ruin their browser.

>>16994 Mozilla is automatically pushing an update through what they call Studies (basically a backdoor). Be sure you don't have it enabled. See: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/04/update-regarding-add-ons-in-firefox/

>>17014 I don't get what your point is, but Linux distributions very often have teams of paid developers that release working binaries in a regular cadence. Ungoogled-chromium does not have any full time devs in contrast to the Firefox team who is made up of many full time developers. Additionally, I don't think anyone who is exploding this issue bigger than it needs to, are doing anything useful in life, especially if their reaction it to scream for people to use browsers that spy on everything you and for a profit at that. The people acting this way are retards that are unable to recognize trolling and just regurgitate whatever nonsense another idiot or corporate entity feeds them. This issue will be over and fixed within days, but the hordes of idiots will have successfully furthered their quest for being mindless shells of humans easily swayed by public opinion.

Can't turn this off in chrome/chromium :P

>>17034 >...that spy on everything you and for a profit at that. What really concerns me is the way Mozilla is fixing the issue. They are asking people to enable a functionality (it is enabled by default in standard releases) which enables them to push extensions remotely into your machine. They used this exactly same functionality in the past to push an extensions that was an advertisement for Mr. Robot, for their own profit. When Mozilla behaves exactly the same can you still blame people for pushing other browsers? I think the real problem is not the certificate expiring, but how we don't really have a good browser anymore that can respect your privacy, have a good security team behind it, and is not treating users as products.

>>17034 >I don't get what your point is, The point is >requires constant work to recompile the entire browser every time there is an update, is exactly what a Linux distribution is. A community of people building binary packages and making them all usable together as a coherent system. >Linux distributions very often have teams of paid developers that release working binaries in a regular cadence. The vast majority are volunteers. Corporate Linux distros don't typically make money. e.g. Ubuntu is financed by a mad billionaire who made all his money doing something else. The ones that do make money like Red Hat and SUSE are exclusively B2B models.

>>17032 That's what's really confusing me about my seeming immunity to this issue. Studies, telemetry, and other phone-home behaviour are always the first things I turn off whenever setting up a new Firefox profile. Not only should I have been hit by the original certificate issue, but I should not have been able to recover via that remote-update functionality. Doubly so since my Firefox package comes from Canonical and not directly from Mozilla. I'm finding I actually rather like Falkon. It does have some performance issues with video content though. I'm on an i7-7500U with 16GB RAM and a fast SSD, and I still get stuttering and tearing video in Falkon. Whereas with Firefox and VLC, videos play perfectly smoothly. But if I stay with Firefox, I feel like I'm just meekly accepting the sorts of boneheaded decisions Mozilla has made recently. Bit of a quandary. Performance and functionality vs principles and immunity to similar future problems. I need to think about this for awhile.

>>17045 >get stuttering and tearing video in Falkon. Consider using something like youtube-dl to download videos and watch them offline outside the browser.

>>17046 Sure, it's an option. But it's a pretty clunky workaround.

Honestly I'm considering switching to a Chromium based browser. Can someone tell me a good list of all spying sites which I can block at host level?

>>17012 In AUR the binary for chromium is always updated when I notice there has been an update from my experience

>>17045 I think IceCat is the best option.

Hows icecat's security?

>>16990 hehe, hadn't used my laptop for two days... got quite confused this afternoon when i woke up

>>17056 It's just Firefox ESR but: >It has no Mozilla telemetry >All proprietary Mozilla assets have been replaced by CC-BY-SA ones >No binary blobs, no DRM >A bunch of extensions to enforce a libre internet (everyone turns them off) >Some privacy about:config settings flipped by default >The default page has a bunch of checkmarks you can click to enable things like First Party Isolation and Resist FIngerprinting

>>17084 On the subject of icecat, is there a separate add on repository for it? Or are we supposed to install and update add ons manually if we use it?

>>17085 You can automatically update extensions (if you toggle a switch) and can install them from the Mozilla addon repository if you want. GNU also maintains its own but there's not much there.

yeah I turned off noscript and then when tried to turn it back on it was gone. works now though

This really boggles me, how the fuarrrk did they manage to fuarrrk this up? While I am not completely informed about the history of this company sans its recent political outbursts, it seems oddly incompetent for such a company to make these simple mistakes.

Whats wrong about Palemoon? >Fork of firefox >went a few years ago enough off from firefox to count as its own browser >mostly libre iirc >highly customizable

>>17094 Isn't the guy who in charge of it a furry?

>>17095 is that relevant?

>>17095 would be a bit strange if the one fork of firefox that doesn't include an animal as mascot is maintained by a furry. anyway it doesn't feel like fighting the browser when i customize it and that's great. it's also less bloated than firefox

>>17096 Was just banter. >>17099 What exactly do you mean by customize. I feel like one of the biggest drawbacks of firefox is how they remove more and more stuff from the settings menu and put those features behind about:config. If you mean that kind of customization I could try Palemoon.

>>17102 you can for example customize your userChrome directly in your user styles, there are options to place and hide stuff to your needs. You can choose whatever you want as newtab and you can modify and hide the scrollbar etc. basically the stuff you were used to do in firefox before firefox went bad

Does anyone knows how to install add ons on Icecat? they give me the same errors as firefox like "not available for download" or "xpi is corrupted and cannot install" i fixed ff but no luck with icecat