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

    • Xbox Insiders get Xbox 360 achievements and Gamertag character upgrades

      By +Eternal Tempest · Posted

      This looks like a nice enhancement.
    • A coalition of publishers sued OpenAI and Microsoft over scraping content without consent

      By sagum · Posted

      Just the price of doing business. The scamble to pull as much from the web as possible is happening, and it's happening before a case like this changes how or what is legal do to with AI in terms of data harvesting. But even then as we've seen with the likes of Google who ignore cookie requests and just accept the fact they'll get fined, it's built into their business price model now. AI is here, its not going away. Their reward if any from the court case would be best suited to trying to incorprate AI or licence their end points as authentic human verified content. The problem is, as we've seen these same news papers are using AI themselves.
    • IBM reveals sub-1nm chip technology, production expected in another 5 years

      By Yogurth · Posted

      Which finger's fingernail are we talking about? I can see how not having this info can lead to massive differences in interpretation.
    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of

      By Hamid Ganji · Posted

      This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
    • IBM reveals sub-1nm chip technology, production expected in another 5 years

      By xrobwx71 · Posted

      https://i.imgur.com/dNY9tNv.png

  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!