How would I sign a firefox addon that a developer no longer has up on the addon page but I saved it ?

By max22
in Web Browser Discussion & Support

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

max22

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You'd have to submit it to Mozilla, but they'll only allow that if the original license allowed for you to do so.

So how do I find the original license holder ? So I can ask if it is ok ?

Someone already did it with the addon but it doesn't work right. The old one works great after manually installing it.

Grand Master

Anibal P

Posted
Posted

The alternative is compile firefox yourself and disable that sodding extension signing rubbish.

 

That's a horrible idea, up there with not using any AV or firewall on a computer 

The proper solution is to find a maintained extension that does the same thing, there is always an alternative 

Grand Master

n_K

Posted
Posted

 

That's a horrible idea, up there with not using any AV or firewall on a computer 

The proper solution is to find a maintained extension that does the same thing, there is always an alternative 

It's not even remotely related to not using a firewall or AV.

If I want to load an extension or make my own and use it, I damn well will, I couldn't give a ###### what mozilla try to do to stop me, you can't even compare someone writing an extension for a web browser and the browser having ###### unwanted 'you cant use this' protection against someone not using anti-virus software or a firewall to stop viruses/trojans/dodgy network traffic. Not even similar.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

...

If I want to load an extension or make my own and use it, I damn well will, I couldn't give a ###### what mozilla try to do to stop me, you can't even compare someone writing an extension for a web browser and the browser having ###### unwanted 'you cant use this' protection against someone not using anti-virus software or a firewall to stop viruses/trojans/dodgy network traffic. Not even similar.

You know you don't have to pay to have your addons signed right? Simply uploading them to addons.mozilla.org results in them getting signed.

I have no idea why anybody would be upset about addon signing.

Grand Master

n_K

Posted
Posted

You know you don't have to pay to have your addons signed right? Simply uploading them to addons.mozilla.org results in them getting signed.

I have no idea why anybody would be upset about addon signing.

It's not about cost, why the heck should I have to upload what I've written to mozilla for something that is not going to be released just for them to 'inspect it'? That's like saying games companies should give away their games to motherboard manufacturers so they can 'inspect how it runs' on their motherboards and certify it.

Enthusiast

aldago

Posted
Posted

unpack the extension, update the manifest file, zip as xpi, submit for signing, get a link to the extension and use it for yourself. Worst case scenario: extension is rejected due to coding issues and you have to update the code.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

It's not about cost, why the heck should I have to upload what I've written to mozilla for something that is not going to be released just for them to 'inspect it'? That's like saying games companies should give away their games to motherboard manufacturers so they can 'inspect how it runs' on their motherboards and certify it.

Then sign it yourself, Mozilla have said multiple time they aren't going to be the only people who can sign addons.

And game devs do give free copies of their games to hardware companies to see how it runs, it's great marketing for both of them.

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Then sign it yourself, Mozilla have said multiple time they aren't going to be the only people who can sign addons.

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of signed addons if you can just sign it yourself.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

No? The whole point of code signing is so that you know the file is unchanged from the author.

Anybody can take an addon and sign it, but they can't make it appear to be from the original author.

Grand Master

n_K

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then sign it yourself, Mozilla have said multiple time they aren't going to be the only people who can sign addons.

And game devs do give free copies of their games to hardware companies to see how it runs, it's great marketing for both of them.

Go and read the mozilla post on the issue, you cannot sign them yourself, they MUST be uploaded to mozilla and have them approve and sign them
Edit: Here you go; https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/

"Extension files that aren’t hosted on AMO will have to be submitted to AMO for signing. Developers will need to create accounts and a listing for their extension, which will not be public."

Enthusiast

aldago

Posted
Posted

Why not use the Firefox Developer Edition in this case?

because developer with e10 is crap (slow and constant crashes with flash). It's better to sign for your personal use the extension and be done with it.

Enthusiast

aldago

Posted
Posted

Well, as far as I know only Nightly and the Developer Edition (Aurora too?) has an override for the signing enforcement.

yes. I still think it's easier to submit the extension by yourself and get a signed version for your personal use (as long as you don't have to modify code to go through the automatic signing process) if you want to keep using a "stable" firefox version

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • eM Client 10.4.5600.0

      By Copernic · Posted

      eM Client 10.4.5600.0 by Razvan Serea eM Client is a full featured e-mail client with a modern and easy to use interface. eM Client also offers calendar, tasks, contacts and chat. eM Client supports all major services including Gmail, Exchange, iCloud, and Outlook.com. You can easily import your data from most of the other e-mail clients. This includes Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, The Bat and more. eM Client fully supports touch devices like touch-enabled laptops, tablets and hybrid devices. Use your email client easily in a modern way. eM Client PRO vs. Free version While the Free license allows you to set up the maximum of two accounts in the application, it is possible to add an unlimited number of accounts with the PRO license. The PRO license also enables you to use eM Client for commercial purposes. Commercial use is any activity that helps you make profit, the Free license therefore cannot be used in company settings or on personal computers for business correspondence. PRO users also gain access to the dedicated support system and to the licensing manager. eM Client has been fully optimized to run smoothly on Windows Vista, 7, 8, 10 and 11. eM Client 10.4.5600.0 changelog: Improved memory management Improved MS Teams support A lot of other fixes Download: eM Client 10.4.5600 | 128.0 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) View: eM Client Website | eM Client Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • EU says AWS and Microsoft Azure should be treated as DMA gatekeepers

      By Nas · Posted

      Re: Capitalism. It's just 1 of dozens of economic models currently-adopted worldwide; most national models separate money from politics thereby limiting the influence wealth carries over the economy (due to limited tentacles wealth politics has over the broader economy). The "American model" of unfettered financial influence should NOT be the variant of pure capitalism adopted worldwide. More regulations formulated within this variant is effectively useless due to the misalignment between regulatory objectives and fundamental influence wealth politics carry over the market. Re: enough money. Without constraining the breadth/depth/scope/scale that any measure of money/wealth can have within a market, there will always inherently be those who have "enough money" and those who do not. Those without "enough money" will always lose -- regardless if a bedroom DJ, indie developer, or million-dollar corporation going against a billion-dollar mega-corporation. The evil is the absence of guardrails against the influence of wealth; not the mere existence of wealth. Re: dragged through the courts. The liberalist nature of litigation does not exclude anyone, anywhere, for any reason for getting dragged through the courts. Rather than formalize remediation pathways for various perceived ills, everything is left up to flawed interpretations... and this is where a litigation-averse community fails to thrive (thus a losing proposition when dragged to courts). Everyone should have more protections and clear remediation strategies! Going to an alternate remediation arbitration is OK so long as the case review and remediation processes are clear and transparent. For corporations, hit them where it hurts: automatic financial penalties. (PS: This is where corporate risk management strategies would do well to behave more ethically.) Overall, failure to truly shake-up the incentive core and regulatory extremities of the economic market will necessarily mean that all other actions are simply applying lipstick on a pig. Change begins from the inside. Is the root cause of the problem that a majority of consumers within a market goes for Option Brand-name versus Option Indie? Or that brand-name is spending foreign money to control domestic markets? Or that money is the objective measure for success across all walks of life? Or that deep pockets dictate the moral and ethical rights/wrongs of entire societies? Regardless of the answer (and there's nothing inherently wrong with being a socialist or communist or whatever label your surroundings deem 'cool' or 'uncool') there's a common thread: If a market truly wants to nurture domestic innovation, then performative finger-wagging will do nothing to that end.
    • Researchers claim Microsoft's quantum breakthrough is flawed by basic Python errors

      By +pmrd · Posted

      Lol, I won't even bother explaining the joke to you.
    • Microsoft updates Visual Studio Code with chat cost tracking and multi-agent chats

      By Fleet Command · Posted

      Does anyone remember the time when VSCode was a lightweight solution, just shy of 40 MB? No?
    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By +Edouard · Posted

  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      404
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!