New Firefox 'feature' - remote disabling of extensions

[moonbat]

The Mozilla clown show keeps on giving -

We have no idea how Mozilla intends to use the quarantined domains list. Some people are speculating, with no evidence, about "banking". But there are innumerable banks in the world. What is Mozilla supposed to do, make and maintain a list of every banking web site in the world? While it makes sense for users to have the ability to manually exclude their own banking sites from extension access if they prefer, what sense does it make for Mozilla to arbitrarily select certain web site domains for general exclusion? Another question: is it impossible for the user to purposely exclude extensions that are "monitored by Mozilla" and given special treatment by Firefox?

My own extension StopTheMadness stops web sites from disabling your browser's built-in paste and autofill features, a kind of madness commonly implemented by sites that have a misguided, ignorant notion about what makes a login form "secure". Thus, it would be a disservice rather than a service to users for Mozilla to remotely disable user extensions on some arbitrarily selected banking sites.

As a little indie software developer, I'm disappointed and irritated that Mozilla, a little developer compared to its competitors—corporate giant browser vendors Apple, Google, and Microsoft—would choose to create a two-tier system in which only the biggest extension developers get exclusive access and exemptions. I know that users love uBlock Origin, but I hate the idea of a world where uBlock Origin is the only extension allowed. That's the type of consumer and power centralization that Firefox and Mozilla are supposed to be fighting against. I don't like an extension monopoly any more than I like a browser monopoly.

'Fighting against'. It's cute to see how the fanboys still talk as though Mozilla has a shred of ethics left, let alone being the lone little crusader for user privacy and choice.

[Pentium4User]

Isn't that the way Mozilla is going for the last years?

[moonbat]

What's a sight to watch is the fanboys' mental gymnastics to justify everything they do.

[Moonchild]

For the record, Mozilla has had the option to do a lot of stuff remotely, like changing your preferences from their end.

[Night Wing]

There is a way to get around it (at the time of this posting).

Firefox users may undo the change in the following way:

Load about:config in the Firefox address bar.
Click Accept the Risk and Continue, if the prompt appears.
Search for:

Code: Select all

extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled

Set it to:

Code: Select all

False

Restart Firefox

[jangdonggun1234]

This one is pretty harmless, it's just a way to whitelist important domains from extension access, currently it's not even working and it's easy to disable

[Nuck-TH]

Even replies in this thread show that "slow boiling of frog" approach still works just fine.
Sigh...

[Moonchild]

There is a way to get around it (at the time of this posting).

For now, yes. And as long as it's not overridden by something Mozilla maintains remotely and as long as the pref exists and is honoured.

This one is pretty harmless, it's just a way to whitelist important domains from extension access

I beg to differ. It's not harmless at all. maybe it's not extensively used at the moment but that doesn't mean it's harmless.
Is the user even in control over which domains this applies to? Considering it's "remote" I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.
So, effectively, whomever maintains such a remote list can determine that the user isn't allowed to use extensions on specific websites.
I can see plenty of not-so-harmless use cases for that.

[Bilbo47]

This is the sharp / thin edge of a wedge. The basic capability can be leveraged so as to remotely and dynamically disallow visiting sites, or using extensions, or any combination. Might as well just log in over GUI telnet from a dumb terminal to a central server which does the browsing 'for' you. Perfect for low-compute devices like thinkpads or tablets which "have no need" to decide for themselves where and how to browse the web. Just 'one more thing' that ought to make thinking people drop FF completely, and make a stink at or not-visit sites that require it.

[moonbat]

There may be ways to get around it for as long as Mozilla allows it (remember when it was possible to similarly disable extension signature verification?) but that's not the point here. Why should the users of a supposedly user friendly and privacy respecting browser (as Mozilla never stops reminding us) have to fiddle under the hood with about:config to revert such anti-features in the first place?

I keep seeing this attitude with other FF users too, talking of 'hardening' the browser with Arkenfox or other user.js hacks while blithely ignoring the fact that they need to do all this on a fresh installation to make it walk the talk on respecting privacy.

[Moonchild]

Maybe some well-known blogger should write an article tallying up all Firefox's anti-control features and how it clashes with the... well one could almost call it "mantra"... Mozilla is repeating about Firefox putting the user first and being private.

[moonbat]

Already been done, it doesn't get more exhaustive than this. Unsurprisingly, sharing this link is banned on the privacy and firefox subreddits.

[Moonchild]

sharing this link is banned on the privacy and firefox subreddits.

What are they, a cult? Wait, don't answer that...

Honestly, it's sad (and telling!) that blatant user-impacting issues like this are outright censored.

Then again, I just checked that link and I'm sorry but that really doesn't digest well. I understand that the person writing it is really upset about Mozilla (and rightfully so) but it's basically an un-ending rant (and where exactly does it address the issue in this thread? I couldn't find it) and does seem to just want to bash and call it "the devil"... I can see that upsetting some people's sensitivities

[moonbat]

The guy who made it updates it now and then to reflect Mozilla's latest shenanigans; I expect he'll get round to it.

[therube]

(Already mentioned in the regular "forum", but as this is also in OT, mozillazine: addons-restricted-domains Huh?)

[Octopuss]

Already been done, it doesn't get more exhaustive than this. Unsurprisingly, sharing this link is banned on the privacy and firefox subreddits.

dafuk?

Those reddits aren't official in any way though, right? Right?...

[moonbat]

The r/firefox one is official.

[Moonchild]

Unlike r/palemoon which despite my efforts, Reddit staff was happy to condone being squatted in.

[moonbat]

It has faded into deserved irrelevance; there's barely a post every fortnight.

[Moonchild]

It has faded into deserved irrelevance; there's barely a post every fortnight.

Good to know.