Disabling add-ons from reputable products

Firefox disables add-ons from reputable products like Wondershare, Real Player, and Avasti. My Avasti internet security software was disabled in Firefox and I was totally surfing the internet without my antivirus software. It works fine in Internet Explorer. Also my video converter software from Wondershare and Real Player…that I PAYED FOR…work fine in Internet Explorer but not Firefox. So I go to the “more information” link to find out why mozilla has disabled the add-ons and it says because the add-on extension isn’t “signed by the developer.” THEN it says that I, the user, should write the developer to request they sign their add-ons. WHAT??? Listen Mozilla, when you get an add-on that isn’t signed or verified, please allow ME to CHOOSE whether or not I want to install the add-on on MY OWN COMPUTER. Don’t just disable it for me. AND…if you disable an add-on YOU should be the one to send a notice to the developer why you didn’t install their add-on. Gees
mozilla.

1 Like

Mozilla has been after developers to get their addons signed for months. Moz was going to start forcing signed addons, in version 42, but many developers had not signed their addons yet. So they extended it to Firefox 43. If you paid for these, and those companies were so unprofessional as to not follow protocol, I would ditch them and go for the products of others.

Signed addons is seen as a great security measure, and has been done by Google and Apple.

Mozilla did auto-sign all addons that were on the marketplace. The reason moz is asking users to reach out to the developers, is because the devs need more pressure in order to do what’s right, they didn’t listen to Moz so they thought they would listen to their paying user base. If they still don’t listen to you and get it signed, I would seriously consider some other companies products.

For developers, it’s very easy to sign an addon, if they submit it as unlisted, it gets signed immediately and automatically.

Understandable, but…while you all “fight it out” Mozilla should allow us the choice to allow or not allow. No, I don’t want to use another developer, as these are great products that I love to use. So Mozilla needs to allow us to choose whether or not to allow or not allow an unsigned add-on. Don’t choose for us please. Now I have to use IE to use these programs. So until you all get it worked out, let the consumer choose what risks we want to take. My computer security is my own affair, and if I choose to allow an unsigned add-on, then that’s my problem, not Mozillas. Fix this please. Thanks

1 Like

If you give users a choice to install and use unsigned add-ons you render the whole signing purpose completely useless, as companies, developers or malware authors will just tell their users to disable the signature check. You cannot expect (even computer expert) users to know or understand what an add-on is doing, both in the open and behind their backs.
The recent news is just the latest example why you should not blindly trust “security” companies.

The whole signing purpose IS completely useless, and I CAN expect users to understand what add-ons are doing because they already do understand. Goodness.The world isn’t stupid, and again, it’s not up to Mozilla what I choose to allow on my computer. Consumers are smart, Andreas, not stupid as your reply implies they are. Thanks

1 Like

Andreas reply on users not knowing what addons are doing, is based on the fact that he’s the lead of addon reviewers, and he’s always catching missed stuff. Reviewers’ job is to review and they still miss stuff. So he’s not dissing users at all so please don’t feel bad. :slight_smile: