Most active commenters
  • conanbatt(4)

←back to thread

All extensions disabled due to expiration of intermediate signing cert

(bugzilla.mozilla.org)
1318 points xvector | 12 comments | 04 May 19 01:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source | bottom
Show context
rmbryan ◴[04 May 19 10:27 UTC] No.19825581[source]▶
Update: We have rolled out a partial fix for this issue. We generated a new intermediate certificate with the same name/key but an updated validity window and pushed it out to users via Normandy (this should be most users). Users who have Normandy on should see their add-ons start working over the next few hours. We are continuing to work on packaging up the new certificate for users who have Normandy disabled.
replies(20): >>19825596 #>>19825603 #>>19825612 #>>19825623 #>>19825631 #>>19825665 #>>19825705 #>>19825721 #>>19825744 #>>19825813 #>>19825905 #>>19825998 #>>19826421 #>>19826769 #>>19826772 #>>19826878 #>>19827050 #>>19829585 #>>19831941 #>>19840386 #
1. xvector ◴[04 May 19 10:32 UTC] No.19825603[source]▶
Thanks. This must be terribly stressful to you.
replies(1): >>19825634 #
2. tripzilch ◴[04 May 19 10:41 UTC] No.19825634[source]▶
Meanwhile, having to browse the web without an adblocker has been nothing but relaxing for everybody else.
replies(3): >>19825898 #>>19829308 #>>19834224 #
3. conanbatt ◴[04 May 19 11:57 UTC] No.19825898[source]▶
There is a before and after with adblockers. Its a real pity they are the worst privacy-vioolating tools ever.
replies(1): >>19826195 #
4. feanaro ◴[04 May 19 13:10 UTC] No.19826195{3}[source]▶
> Its a real pity they are the worst privacy-vioolating tools ever.

What do you mean?

replies(1): >>19830778 #
5. xvector ◴[04 May 19 20:52 UTC] No.19829308[source]▶
Sorry, the stress someone on the Firefox team must be experiencing would easily be magnitudes beyond what we are.
replies(1): >>19832423 #
6. conanbatt ◴[05 May 19 02:43 UTC] No.19830778{4}[source]▶
They read your entire page content, they have access to all your information.
replies(1): >>19833211 #
7. mccosmos ◴[05 May 19 12:20 UTC] No.19832423{3}[source]▶
No offense but they're not getting inhumane shock treament either if you're going to pull "our stress is holier than thou" and say it's magnitudes higher, I'll be waiting scientific backing on this or else it's just rude... plus they can always just not make me periodically re-install all my addons with no option to just bypass verification... except this time it doesn't work even with the fixes. (Actually, one time I just didn't see it was set to update automatically downgrading one of them. I'm no expert on these issues, really. They just could have asked first in my opinion.) Thanks, Mozillama.

Edit: I had to click "Restart with addons disabled (safe mode)" for those wondering.

8. feanaro ◴[05 May 19 15:17 UTC] No.19833211{5}[source]▶
But there are free software ad blockers like uBlock Origin.
replies(1): >>19833319 #
9. conanbatt ◴[05 May 19 15:39 UTC] No.19833319{6}[source]▶
if uBlock got compromised as an extension even for 1 day, the amount and value of data uBlock can collect will make anyone very very rich.

It's on the level of saving passwords as texts in terms of privacy.

replies(1): >>19834222 #
10. kzrdude ◴[05 May 19 18:35 UTC] No.19834222{7}[source]▶
How is it different from any other browser extension? They are all like that, aren't they?
replies(1): >>19839893 #
11. kzrdude ◴[05 May 19 18:36 UTC] No.19834224[source]▶
Firefox includes content blocking, so it's not that bad.
12. conanbatt ◴[06 May 19 14:47 UTC] No.19839893{8}[source]▶
It depends on the permissions: uBlock has permissions to read the entire page on any domain. Some extensions only limit themselves to specific domains, or don't touch that at all.

uBlock still reads your bank website, etc.