Web lists-archives.com

Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override

On 2/8/2017, 1:19:08 PM, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Caver1 graced us with on 2/7/2017 
> 4:32 PM:
>> On 02/07/2017 06:14 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>> FYI.  Walt, in m.s.f you recently talked about filing a bug about the
>>> fact that Fx can be configured not to verify add-ons.  I did file a bug
>>> on it, which was eventually marked a dupe of a hidden bug.  That one's
>>> been unhidden now,
>>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292444>.  I won't try to
>>> summarize -- I think to get a grip on the problem and what they might
>>> do about it, you gotta read it through and chase the links to other
>>> bugs, especially paying attention to Kaply's comments.
>> Why is that a bug?
> I could see a couple of problems with it.
> One, if known and Mozilla allowed it, they could be held culpable if a 
> non-verified add-on compromised the browser and user's system.

That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

The user has to jump through considerable hoops to do this. There is no
way that Mozilla could be held accountable for what that user decided to
do on their own.

> Two, from a problem determination (PD) POV, if a non-verifiable add-on 
> caused the browser to malfunction, then any bug created on the 
> malfunction would be more difficult to isolate.

And once it is determined to be an unverified Addon, the bug is closed

> However, considering that Mozilla already has the Disable Add-on feature for users to use for 
> their own PD use, I see this as a minor problem.

No idea what you mean here.
general mailing list