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?
Fedora Project Leader