-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker@hanno One of the concerns is executable installers (fluctuating near non/malware border) which add extensions to browsers and\1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ch3root
@RichFelker@hanno change any settings as well. If there is no option to change they will be forced to alter or replace the browser itself.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ch3root
@RichFelker@hanno Which will clearly paint them as malware (hopefully:-) This measure will sort borderline cases into well-defined buckets.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ch3root
@RichFelker@hanno Mozilla has to keep unlocked variant unbranded. Otherwise installers will just replace installed browser with unlocked.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@ch3root@hanno In particular enterprise MITM setups cannot disable browser's anti-MITM without exposing themselves as malware, to lawsuits.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____@ch3root@hanno If they installed a modified ver of the branded browser in violation of the TM policy, the browser vendor would.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@BRIAN_____@ch3root@hanno Also all anti-malware tools would be justified in calling them malware for doing this. It's about perception.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@RichFelker @ch3root @hanno The goal of the signed extensions is to force malware to do that, I guess.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.