The computer does not have enough hardware resources to cope with the opening of the XUL file.The XUL file which is being opened is infected with an undesirable malware.Incomplete installation of an application that supports the XUL format.Accidental deletion of the description of the XUL from the Windows registry.Incorrect links to the XUL file in registry entries.Corruption of a XUL file which is being opened.There may be other problems that also block our ability to operate the Firefox XML User Interface Language Format file. The inability to open and operate the XUL file does not necessarily mean that you do not have an appropriate software installed on your computer. When lack of financial opportunity in the extension ecosystem drives developers to sell out or partner with schemers, it also starves extension stores of revenue they might spend to keep developers honest.Possible problems with the XUL format files "Īnd thus we return to Sebastian's observation about the difficulty of monetizing extensions – an issue adjacent to the funding drought for open source developers. "I don't know that anybody has a ton of extra budget to throw around in terms of actually staffing. "My concern for all browsers is resourcing," he said. Vincent expressed skepticism that policy requirements like code sale disclosures would do much good, noting that people regularly fail to comply with government mandated disclosures. So it isn't something that can, at the moment, at least technically, just be turned off." "But it is still technically possible to execute remote code, and that is kind of an inherent limitation of the web. "I'm somewhat bullish in that the extension ecosystem in Manifest v3 – due to the inherent platform changes that limit remotely hosted code, as well as policy changes that prohibit it – I feel that it is better than average in that respect than the broader software ecosystem," he said. He said he became aware of it mainly when developers – mostly well-intentioned – reported being subject to some enforcement action they hadn't anticipated.īut in general, Vincent said, he believes supply chain attacks have become more common. "And work hard to make it as unobvious as possible."Īsked whether this particular sort of attack is increasing, Vincent said he had limited visibility into the issue when he was at Google as he did not work on the abuse team. "The tools available to the stores to take action against and detect these patterns of abuse are relatively limited, because you have to recognize that the thing is even happening in the first place," he explained. Except, rather than as a dependency being compromised, it is an explicit exchange. It is to some extent a variation on supply chain attacks. In an interview with The Register, Vincent said, "This is a complicated issue because there are limited tools available for stores to be able to take action against malicious actors, particularly in the case of third party libraries being integrated. That's because if the extension is flagged as malware and removed from the Chrome Web Store, it's the developer whose account will be suspended – not the data slurper. When done as a partnership deal, Vincent explains, the speculator shifts the risk onto the developer. Vincent said the people sending these messages typically want the extension to be altered to change the user's default search provider using the Settings Overrides API or to expose a search box in the extension interface, or to have the extension add a search box to websites. Sebastian blamed Google and Mozilla for failing to support legitimate revenue-generating options for extension developers. These speculators may want to purchase an existing extension and its installed base of users, or partner with the extension developer to add third-party functionality.ĭeveloper Armin Sebastian wrote about receiving such messages back in 2019, and cited offers he'd received to integrate e-commerce affiliate commission code or search monetization. Extension developers often get approached by entities and individuals whose trustworthiness is much less certain. The "I don't care about cookies" deal involved code sold to a known commercial company. Chrome's HTTPS padlock heads to Google Graveyard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |