Mozilla maintains a listing of recommended extensions for the Firefox web browser that it highlights on the official Mozilla AMO add-ons web site and in addition in Firefox in numerous methods.
The system used to choose these modified lately from that includes extensions on Mozilla AMO to a stricter system. The new system accepts extensions provided that they meet necessities; a few of these are self-explanatory, e.g. that extensions want to be protected, however some should not.
One of the principle variations to common extensions supplied on Mozilla AMO is that really helpful extensions are reviewed manually every time a new model is uploaded to Mozilla’s website (and initially as nicely). Other extensions are reviewed after the actual fact solely, if in any respect.
One of the really helpful extensions, AdBlocker Ultimate, appears to be a copycat extension. Twitter consumer Rémi B. revealed the next message on Twitter at present:
Why is @firefox recommending an extension which appears to be a copy-pasting from one other extension and probably in copyright infringement? @AdBlockUltimate claims to be open-source and GPLv3 so I put in and checked the sources utilizing the debugger.
The code of the extension could be very comparable to AdGuard, a very talked-about content material blocking answer. Rémi discovered mentions of AdGuard all through the code of AdBlock Ultimate that counsel that code was copied from AdGuard. The AdBlock Ultimate extension has extra customers than Adguard presently; Adguard has about 322ok customers, AdBlocker Ultimate 418Ok.
Raymond Hill, creator of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, reported the AdBlock Ultimate extension in 2017 however nothing got here out of it. In the report, he acknowledged that the “extension is actually a copy of Adguard extension for the core code, and basically a copy of ABP for the consumer interface facet”, and that he thought that Firefox customers donating to extension builders would absolutely need to donate to the unique builders.
One of the principle objections is that the extension is really helpful by Mozilla (AdGuard is just not). It looks like a unusual alternative contemplating that the really helpful extension appears to use AdGuard code.
Mozilla worker Gian-Carlo Pascutto responded to the thread stating that the group is wanting into it. The response time was very fast this time. One potential consequence of the “wanting into it” might be that Mozilla removes the advice.
The scenario resembles one other blunder by Mozilla that occurred in 2018. The group recommended a privacy extension back then in a weblog publish on the official Firefox weblog that had a “phone-home” function built-into the extension.
Now You: What is your tackle all this?