Firefox 115: some add-ons may be blocked from running on certain sites 😮

[anon49550872]

@pebcak

What if Mozilla decide to disable uBlock (or some such) on some specific websites.

We are in the dark!

This is the only extension I use…

[keybreak]

@ricklinux

What i meant about speculation is we don’t really know why they are making these changes.

Who cares why if that is a mechanism that can (therefore certainly will) be abused by it’s nature?
It’s about control.

[ricklinux]

Yes i will agree to that because i do use ublock origin and if they are disabling it just so google can send ads and track a user and what ever else they do would upset me. I have no love for google and this for sure so I’m not totally onboard with what the change is. I’m just not sure exactly how it will affect me. Personally id like to see all this ad crap gone!

[ricklinux]

repeat after me … nobody controls me!

[Locutus]

@pebcak

It seesm like not even all the by-Mozilla-monitored addons are allowed either.

LOL that figures

[Locutus]

@ajaychat3

I think this setting in about:config is meant to disable risky add-ons listed on the website mentioned below.

extensions.blocklist.detailsURL	https://blocked.cdn.mozilla.net/

GEE looks like they included EVERY addon there.

[Locutus]

@ricklinux

Edit: It’s their software. They have a right to do with it what they feel is needed. It’s no different than EndeavourOS making changes to it’s ISO. Some may not like it and or the explanation. Distro’s do this all the time.

Once on my system that copy belongs to me and I will do with my copy as I please.

[Schlaefer]

So this seems to be in place without the remote part since FF 113 and already blocks some domains with insecure page policies. See e.g.: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/144x26o/new_hidden_addons_restricted_domains_system/jnjwv19/

There’s also a FF notification popup if you visit those domains.

This could be a useful feature if done or at least communicated properly. Alas nobody explains the motivation, and it is another UI disaster tacked on the already bad “new” Extension menu.

[vazicebon]

Most of my extensions are recommended by Mozilla (uBlock, Privacy Badger, ClearURLs, CanvasBlocker, Tree Style Tab) so I guess they’re “monitored”, will see if they keep the option for using it in the future.

[petsam]

@ricklinux

we don’t really know why they are making these changes.

So said the frog when he was in warm water inside the pot.
The cook was slightly raising temperature very slowly.
The frog kept wondering: we don’t really know why they are making these changes, until the temperature went to 100 ^oC.
Then the frog was too dizzy to try jumping out of the pot.
And the cook served us the boiled frog in a plate.
==> End of story

Does it sound similar?

[pebcak]

@petsam

And the cook served us the boiled frog in a plate.

The plate, however, this time is Fox grilled on Fire.

[dalto]

@pebcak

From this it is not even clear what those some extensions monitored by Mozilla are at this point.

Some is certainly not all.

There is more info in the code:

    // Privileged extensions and any extensions with a recommendation state are
    // exempt from the quarantined domains.
    // NOTE: privileged extensions are also exempted from quarantined domains
    // by the WebExtensionPolicy internal logic and so ignoreQuarantine set to
    // false for a privileged extension does not make any difference in
    // practice (but we still set the ignoreQuarantine flag here accordingly
    // to the expected behavior for consistency).
    this.ignoreQuarantine =
      addonData.isPrivileged ||
      !!addonData.recommendationState?.states?.length ||
      lazy.QuarantinedDomains.isUserAllowedAddonId(this.id);

Basically it is addons that are “recommended” or “privileged”. Recommended is clear but I am not sure which addons are considered privileged.

[keybreak]

@dalto

I am not sure which addons are considered privileged.

Firefox privileged extensions are extensions that are granted extra privileges by Firefox to perform certain tasks that are not available to regular extensions. These privileges are granted through the use of specific permissions in the extension’s manifest file.

Privileged extensions are allowed to perform tasks such as reading tab-specific metadata, injecting scripts programmatically, and accessing cookies for specific hosts.

Overall, privileged extensions are a way for developers to create extensions that have more power and flexibility than regular extensions, but they are subject to stricter approval processes and are only granted to extensions that meet certain criteria.

[ricklinux]

@petsam

Does it sound similar?

No! It doesn’t.

[keybreak]

[Schlaefer]

The vitriol comments fueled by tinfoil sentiments without having any clue what is going on are dragging down any meaningful conversation already. Can we at least keep it general without targeting a particular user for the meming?

[ricklinux]

Why…be so worked about about this. I’m sticking with the

[keybreak]

@Schlaefer

Can we at least keep it general without targeting a particular user for the meming?

Absolutely not!

In case it’s not obvious - there’s no vitriol at all, we here all love ricklinux, but have to laugh because he self-memed his love for certain things and it became a forum brand, seriously ask him sometimes about any of those subjects

@Schlaefer

tinfoil sentiments without having any clue what is going on

I think we have collectively established more than a clue using 1st principles, and even done source code investigation…If we’re keeping it serious, what is not clear and tinfoil in what’s going on with that addition?

[anon49550872]

@keybreak

we here all love ricklinux

True, include me in that statement too

[Schlaefer]

@keybreak

Absolutely not!

In case it’s not obvious - there’s no vitriol at all, we here all love ricklinux, but have to laugh because he self-memed his love for certain things and it became a forum brand, seriously ask him sometimes about any of those subjects

Vitriol on the technical subject, not against ricklinux. But I don’t get that link either, if that is a known injoke I’m not aware of then mea culpa.

@keybreak

I think we have collectively established more than a clue using 1st principles, and even done source code investigation…If we’re keeping it serious, what is not clear and tinfoil in what’s going on with that addition?

The source code investigation only describes how it is implemented. Nobody has explained why someone would deem it necessary and what the consequences are. Nobody made any argument for or against having any inside knowledge about what an extension with unlimited access can achieve in Firefox on domains Mozilla considers problematic.

Not only that, everybody using FF was happily browsing with an already established local blocklist in place for months.