<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Firefox Extensions Open-Source Supply chain issues - a simple solution? in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/firefox-extensions-open-source-supply-chain-issues-a-simple/m-p/126650#M50088</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Maybe others have noticed too?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is a flurry of copy cat extensions appearing.&amp;nbsp; Malicious or not, I've no idea.&amp;nbsp; But it does nothing for the end user and worse damages the reputation of the original author.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I suggested a&lt;A title="We need to fix the extension ecosystem before it gets any more corrupted." href="https://github.com/yorkxin/copy-as-markdown" target="_self"&gt; simple solution in a discussion on GitHub&lt;/A&gt; when reporting such a copycat to the true author.&amp;nbsp; There were some interesting thoughts.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If a project is of a permissive license there is nothing the original author can do, despite it possibly damaging their reputation or having them try to fix bugs in code they did not even write.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Mozilla will be dealing with the repercussions of their marketplace being flooded with possibly damaging extensions.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The original author gets nothing for their efforts, but do it for the love of code, why should they need to deal with people stealing their ideas and efforts.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;When looking for one type of extension I recently found almost two dozen that were 'the same', possibly. Deliberate? Just for self learning?&amp;nbsp; Malicious? Some were even asking for a fee to 'unlock features' despite them being clearly stolen code.&amp;nbsp; I started to notice a pattern.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The project name changes, a bit.. The description or text is either a 1:1 copy or absent.&amp;nbsp; It has few installs often the same graphics.&amp;nbsp; The actual app is identical, or at most new skin.&amp;nbsp; It's often then broken.&amp;nbsp; The most important omission is any link to the original author, or if there is a link (and if you follow enough) you get to some anonymous persons blog or LinkedIn who has nothing to do with the project at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The solution, a small change to permissive licences and the use of PGP code signatures on releases.&amp;nbsp; If the install in Firefox has no signature and no links to the codebase then limit the APIs it can use.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 12:27:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>the-moog</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-05-27T12:27:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firefox Extensions Open-Source Supply chain issues - a simple solution?</title>
      <link>https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/firefox-extensions-open-source-supply-chain-issues-a-simple/m-p/126650#M50088</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Maybe others have noticed too?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is a flurry of copy cat extensions appearing.&amp;nbsp; Malicious or not, I've no idea.&amp;nbsp; But it does nothing for the end user and worse damages the reputation of the original author.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I suggested a&lt;A title="We need to fix the extension ecosystem before it gets any more corrupted." href="https://github.com/yorkxin/copy-as-markdown" target="_self"&gt; simple solution in a discussion on GitHub&lt;/A&gt; when reporting such a copycat to the true author.&amp;nbsp; There were some interesting thoughts.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If a project is of a permissive license there is nothing the original author can do, despite it possibly damaging their reputation or having them try to fix bugs in code they did not even write.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Mozilla will be dealing with the repercussions of their marketplace being flooded with possibly damaging extensions.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The original author gets nothing for their efforts, but do it for the love of code, why should they need to deal with people stealing their ideas and efforts.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;When looking for one type of extension I recently found almost two dozen that were 'the same', possibly. Deliberate? Just for self learning?&amp;nbsp; Malicious? Some were even asking for a fee to 'unlock features' despite them being clearly stolen code.&amp;nbsp; I started to notice a pattern.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The project name changes, a bit.. The description or text is either a 1:1 copy or absent.&amp;nbsp; It has few installs often the same graphics.&amp;nbsp; The actual app is identical, or at most new skin.&amp;nbsp; It's often then broken.&amp;nbsp; The most important omission is any link to the original author, or if there is a link (and if you follow enough) you get to some anonymous persons blog or LinkedIn who has nothing to do with the project at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The solution, a small change to permissive licences and the use of PGP code signatures on releases.&amp;nbsp; If the install in Firefox has no signature and no links to the codebase then limit the APIs it can use.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 12:27:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/firefox-extensions-open-source-supply-chain-issues-a-simple/m-p/126650#M50088</guid>
      <dc:creator>the-moog</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-27T12:27:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

