Apparently I missed `app.normandy.enabled`, because I think I would've remembered a name with connotations of a bloody massive surprise attack.
Incidentally, `app.normandy.enabled` defaults to `true` in the `firefox-esr` Debian Stable package. Which seems wrong for an ESR.
For personal use (not development), I run 3 browsers (for features/configurations and an extra bit of compartmentalization): Tor Browser for most things, Firefox ESR with privacy tweaks for the small number of things that require login, and Chromium without much privacy tweaks for the rare occasion that a crucial site refuses to work with my TB or FF setup.
Today's crucial cert administration oops, plus learning of yet another very questionable remote capability/vector, plus the questionable preferences-changing being enabled even for ESR... is making me even less comfortable with the Web browser standards "big moat" barrier to entry situation.
I know Mozilla has some very forthright people, but I'd really like to see a conspicuous and pervasive focus on privacy&security, throughout the organization, which, at this point, would shake up a lot of things. Then, with the high ground established unambiguously, I'd like to see actively reversing some of the past surveillance&brochure tendencies in some standards. And also see some more creative approaches to what a browser can be, despite a hostile and exploitive environment. Or maybe Brave turns out to be a better vehicle for that, but I still want to believe in Mozilla.
Edit: There are some questions about whether Normandy is really enabled in Debian Firefox ESR even if the about:config setting defaults to true. I've filed a bug report, and I'm sure once a Debian maintainer has a chance to look at it we'll find out the answer.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=928433
Edit2: It should go without saying, but please do not spam this bug report with "me too" and its ilk.
?
>:-(
Grrr.
I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly maybe? I've decided though, I'm starting an animated security blog to show people the ludicrousness of all this kind of stuff in plain language. I'll be Statler, and I just need someone to be Waldorf. Because this stuff really is getting Statler and Waldorf level ridiculous.
You're not. You just have standards.
We need people with standards in this industry, because that's the only source we have of market signals that prevent the market from going full user-hostile.
Why even have an official channel, providing visibility and official oversight, if when it comes down to it, you're just gonna push remote code updates through the same side channel a potential hacker would use?
People are saying it's for convenience. OK, but then they have to understand that doing things in that fashion is a really bad look. And now your users are set up to believe that, at least some of the updates coming from the side channel are "trust"-able.
That's needless drama. They will be rolling out the fix in a point release. Whatever way you use to update your browser will install that and get the fix. So the worst case is just going back to the old days where you'd have the issue until your distro issued a new package or you manually updated the browser version on Windows or OSX. What exactly would you expect that's not exactly what's happening?
The three goals of computer security are integrity, confidentiality and availability.
All three of those expand the usefulness of the system to the end user.
Clearly more eyes are good, but... In between “Wild West WebExtensions” and “Mozilla backdoors my Firefox and it gets used for nefarious purposes” and “delays in browser updates increase exploitation windows”, I know which threat models I’m buying.
Then, even if developers keys and computers are compromised, I would notice something is wrong.
* No, of course that I don't always do that. I even don't often do that. But I did do that in the past, and I'd like to have the option to do that.
A configuration where Mozilla cannot push remote updates is neither more secure nor less secure. Mozilla is often under fire for not allowing a privacy conscious, minimal trust use case.