On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 11:06:35AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Mozilla provides an API to sign extensions outside from their
> > infrastructure. It's our infrastructural decision (correctly in my
> > opinion) that prohibits this type of implementation.
> Why is it OK for Fedora infrastructure to sign the bootloader, the
> kernel, and kernel modules, but not application extensions?
I don't think that's the question. The problem is that there isn't a
way for us to sign them -- the above is just an API for Mozilla to sign
them over the network, right?
OK but shim is signed by Microsoft, which is clearly outside our
infrastructure. The assertion that Fedora infrastructure prohibits
external signing of things to be included in Fedora would seem to be
incorrect, unless I'm misunderstanding some nuance.
Are there Firefox extensions only hosted by Fedora that aren't
available in AMO? Why can't these be made available through AMO
instead? Off hand it doesn't really make sense to me that a whole
separate extension signing infrastructure needs to be created.
If there's some reason certain add-ons can't be in AMO, but need to be
in Fedora, (and same for Chrome and any other browser) then yeah,
we're going to need code signing infrastructure implemented for each
of these browsers. I don't see a way around that. Disabling code
signed in the browser is a bad idea, I don't like that at all,
certainly not be default, that'd be a huge loss of trust in my mind if
the default browser weren't doing everything it can to avoid executing