Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: aa.avast on August 11, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
-
I downloaded Firefox 40 today and now in Firefox Add-Ons > Extensions I get the following message Avast Online Security could not be verified for use in Firefox
Same result in Windows XP and Windows 7 machines.
-
In Avast free it says 39.0.3 is the latest. This is a bug since the latest version is 40.0.0
I guess it will be resolved in a few days.... But it still is a bug.
-
In Avast free it says 39.0.3 is the latest. This is a bug since the latest version is 40.0.0
I guess it will be resolved in a few days.... But it still is a bug.
It didn't in mine as the software updater reported a new firefox version/update available.
-
I downloaded Firefox 40 today and now in Firefox Add-Ons > Extensions I get the following message Avast Online Security could not be verified for use in Firefox
Same result in Windows XP and Windows 7 machines.
This is firefox, for some time now add-ons have been signed, but not all add-ons are signed, so those will be flagged for caution. If you know the add-on then there should be no real problem. I have lots of add-ons that aren't signed, but I have been using them for some considerable time.
I don't know how various add-ons are signed, so we will just have to wait to see if it gets signed and by whom.
-
Thanks David / ramam :)
-
EDIT: See my reply #13 below for updated information...
I believe FF started "signing" extensions in late May.
Their announced plan [if they go through with it] is that UNsigned extensions will cease to work effective with the release of FF 41 ( 7 weeks from today). Today's release starts WARNING users if they're using UNsigned extensions.
So unless the avast OS plug-in gets "signed" by Mozilla, it will be "voided" in FF's next [scheduled] release.
-
I believe FF started "signing" extensions in late May.
Their announced plan [if they go through with it] is that UNsigned extensions will cease to work effective with the release of FF 41 ( 7 weeks from today). Today's release starts WARNING users if they're using UNsigned extensions.
So unless the avast OS plug-in gets "signed" by Mozilla, it will be "voided" in FF's next [scheduled] release.
The problem with FF 41.0 if it follows through on that there are many old/discontinued add-ons that will be hit. I currently have 6 unsigned add-ons, the user should be able to take responsibility for their own choices.
-
If that is all true it is terrible news. I've just checked and I have three unsigned Extensions which include AdBlock Plus, WOT and Classic Theme Restorer. The latter, in particular, I would be gutted to lose.
-
What version of Classic Theme Restorer ?
I have Classic Theme Restorer 1.3.7 and that isn't flagged - previously firefox 39.x annotated signed at the end of the add-ons - now they don't do that and only flag those which aren't signed. WOT and AdBlockPlus are the same not flagged.
I suggest that you try updating firefox if you haven't got FF 40.0 and the add-ons.
-
I haven't updated Firefox yet because the first I'd heard that FF40 had been released was when I read it here. I checked my Addons and saw that mysteriously their signed/unsigned status is now very prominent. I'm in two minds whether to update this this time and if FF41 is as described then I'll be sticking with the last version working with my Addons and hang on to it as long as possible.
I've had prompts and updated FF twice recently, the previous time only last weekend to FF39.0.3. It really annoys me when they do that. Now we get this looming threat that some thing aren't going to work or, from the sound of it aren't going to be allowed to be used unless signed, with FF41.
It goes against the whole spirit of FF being able to control and customise it how you want.
Edit
I've checked on the Mozilla web site and I think a mistake has been made here. The threat to disallow unsigned addons will be from FF42 onwards. That's due for release in November. Until then unsigned addons will only be disabled by default. Users will still have the option to enable the Addons that are unsigned.
Updated FF39.0.3 to FF40 literally a minute ago and as far as I tell no problems with AVAST or anything else ie. no warning messages and all addons enabled and functioning right from the restart.
-
Only extensions are checked for signing, and those that aren't signed are flagged but not disabled at this time.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=add-ons-signing-firefox (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=add-ons-signing-firefox)
-
At this time, yes, but the threat to them comes with FF42 in November.
It is getting a bit weird now. Prior to the upadate to FF40 all the signed or unsigned Addon > Extensions were clearly shown but having updated that information is now absent.
Also, as the OP stated I too am getting the warning message: "AVAST Online Security could not be verified for use with FF. Proceed with caution". The inference is presumably that AVAST, because it is unsigned, is therefore a potential security threat just highlights how bloody stupid and useless the signing process is at IFF. :)
-
Hi guys, easy solution, use FF ESR. ;)
-
The information I posted earlier has indeed been revised...
Updated information about FF's plans for banning unsigned extensions:
Firefox 40: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 41 (ETA Sept. 22) : Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config). I take this to mean they will be disabled by default, but that this "feature" can be overridden.
Firefox 42 (ETA Nov. 3): Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.
See TIMELINE at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing
-
<snip>
Firefox 40: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 41 (ETA Sept. 22) : Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config). I take this to mean they will be disabled by default, but that this "feature" can be overridden.
Firefox 42 (ETA Nov. 3): Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.
<snip>
Looks like they have already done some preparation in the about:config settings, see image, which shows xpinstall.signatures.required is currently default set to false.
That is what is likely to change to true in FF 42.0 when it does, I really hope they aren't so blind/ridged and the user can set that back to false.
-
I hope so too.
-
What I have noticed is that add ons that are frequently updated are not signed. The ones that are rarely or never updated are signed.
-
Hi guys, easy solution, use FF ESR. ;)
+1
-
After reading this post i've check my add-ons and reads that avast is warned..that is so stupid..
If will be impossible for me to keep add ons like classic theme restorer and web mail ad blocker..said so..i will downgrade back again to 39 IF FF 41 will disable these add-ons, period.
I'm tired of FF that more and more is turning like a copy of Chrome..i've still blocked my java into mozilla FF which is insane cause every darn update, doesn't matter which it is,it is says that firefox doesn't recommend to use.
What is FF ESR?
-
Firefox ESR
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all/ (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all/)
What Mozilla did was sign all up-to-date extensions that resided on AMO enmass. If the extension was an old one that didn't pass muster for updating (the max version was outdated), it wasn't signed. Also, if the signed extensions were later updated it lost the signing. It seems that now extensions that reside on AMO are signed at the time of vetting and acceptance, either new extensions or updated extensions.
Those extensions that aren't on AMO require that the extension publisher request that Mozilla signs it, for each and every update. I'm fairly sure that some won't bother, which means that come Firefox 42 it can't be installed.
-
I agree on everything you said BUT FF needs seriously to stop turning into a chrome clone, it's insane that i still got java disabled on FF while all is upgraded..
Same with avast: all was fine on 39 version..now i discover this..
Serioulsy why every software rushing to create update that causes merely trouble and issues to us?
Fed up.
-
In a default install of new releases of Java, it is disabled in all browsers. Oracle was under pressure to do that because of the ongoing security issues with Java. Java can be enabled in the browsers by the Java Configuration utility that any Java installation has. Of course, if the installed Java version is not current or has a known vulnerability, Firefox will disable it per it's blocklist.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/ (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/)
-
Just updated to FF40. Not even one add on is signed any more ! Currently using the following add ons :
Classic theme restorer ( was not signed before )
Cyscon security shield ( was not signed )
Flag fox ( was signed )
Perfect Redirector ( was signed )
SSleuth ( was signed )
Traffic Light ( was signed )
ublock origin ( was not signed )
Yahoo mail hide Ad panel ( was signed )
You Tube flash player ( was signed )
-
Firefox 40 does not show -signed after the extension name in the Extensions Tab. However, if you hover the cursor over the extension name -signed should show up in a tooltip. However, very recently update extensions will lose the -signed added to their name but the extension won't be flagged as 'could not be verified' because it is signed. An example is NoScript, which was just updated.
In most of my Firefox profiles, I have only one extension that is flagged as 'could not be verified'. Extension List Dumper which I modified per instructions found on http://forums.mozillazine.org and bumped the MaxVersion is, of course, not signed. It will be disabled in Firefox 42 unless Mozilla relents. I have RefreshPolicy Continued in a couple of profiles, which is also not signed.
-
@ Gopher John
Thanks for the tip.
-
@ Gopher John
Thanks for the tip.
You are welcome.
-
<snip>
Firefox 40: Firefox warns about signatures but doesn't enforce them.
Firefox 41 (ETA Sept. 22) : Firefox will have a preference that allows signature enforcement to be disabled (xpinstall.signatures.required in about:config). I take this to mean they will be disabled by default, but that this "feature" can be overridden.
Firefox 42 (ETA Nov. 3): Release and Beta versions of Firefox will not allow unsigned extensions to be installed, with no override.
<snip>
Looks like they have already done some preparation in the about:config settings, see image, which shows xpinstall.signatures.required is currently default set to false.
That is what is likely to change to true in FF 42.0 when it does, I really hope they aren't so blind/ridged and the user can set that back to false.
Thanks DavidR for that last post with the attachment that as you say we hope will remain an option available to users to reset to "false" in version 42.
That said, what concerns me when looking at the plans that FF has regarding this quote:
As of Firefox 41 you will not get a warning and unsigned add-ons will be blocked. There will be a (hidden) preference that you can set to override for the time being.
As of Firefox 42, unsigned add-ons cannot be used in the standard release (and beta) builds of Firefox. Full stop.
More specifically what concerns me is that it would suggest that the RED part above would be the "the about:config setting" referenced as "a (hidden) preference" that can "override" the requirement "for the time being". And that I'm afraid that there are possibly plans on removing this setting the way FF42 is described above.
-
By the time FF 42.0 comes around, I have a suspicion that there are many people using old, no longer undeveloped add-ons who may well come up with ways round this rather than accept that they can no longer use these old, useful add-ons.
-
Hi,
just to confirm, we are working on signing the addon via Mozilla, it should be live before the FF 41 is released.
Martin
-
Thanks Martin, good to know.
-
Mozilla is beginning to make a series of changes to Firefox that'll make certain aspects of the browser operate a lot more like Chrome. The changes are broadly designed to make Firefox more secure and stable, but they also have the downside of making it less customizable and potentially more of a resource hog.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/21/9186809/firefox-becoming-more-like-chrome-extension-changes
-
Mozilla is beginning to make a series of changes to Firefox that'll make certain aspects of the browser operate a lot more like Chrome. The changes are broadly designed to make Firefox more secure and stable, but they also have the downside of making it less customizable and potentially more of a resource hog.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/21/9186809/firefox-becoming-more-like-chrome-extension-changes
If I wanted firefox to look and act more like chrome, I guess I would install chrome (and that for me isn't going to happen). I just can't see their reasoning in making browsers unrecognisable from chrome, what's the point of becoming clones, might as well give up.
As far as resources goes, firefox is already a bit of a resource hog.
-
"As far as resources goes, firefox is already a bit of a resource hog."
That makes it even more "just like Chrome" :)
-
"As far as resources goes, firefox is already a bit of a resource hog."
That makes it even more "just like Chrome" :)
Its the irony bit you missed, in the text that I quoted was my point, its already a resource hog.
Mozilla is beginning to make a series of changes to Firefox that'll make certain aspects of the browser operate a lot more like Chrome. The changes are broadly designed to make Firefox more secure and stable, but they also have the downside of making it less customizable and potentially more of a resource hog.
-
I had to renew avast free and now find web shield not working. Using Firefox on a Android
-
I had to renew avast free and now find web shield not working. Using Firefox on a Android
or your Android device you should be using Avast Free MobileSecurity:
https://www.avast.com/en-us/free-mobile-security (https://www.avast.com/en-us/free-mobile-security)
-
Firefox 43.0 is now DISABLING Avast without any ado.
So since August apparently NOTHING has been done on the problem of signature verification.
Furthermore, Firefox advises to contact the manufacturer.
I tried online at the Avast website.
But I need to fill in my order number.
I have no order number.
I do not need an order number.
I am not ordering.
OFF goes Avast with me.
Sorry.
-
Update to the latest version (11.1.2241): https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=178580.0
-
I had to renew avast free and now find web shield not working. Using Firefox on a Android
or your Android device you should be using Avast Free MobileSecurity:
https://www.avast.com/en-us/free-mobile-security (https://www.avast.com/en-us/free-mobile-security)
@bob3160: Most new smartphones such as Samsung Galaxy S5/S6. Samsung Galaxy Tab S, and etc the manufacturer Samsung distributes an update. After the update, Intel Security/McAfee gets automatically installed. Will Intel Security also help in protecting users as same as Avast Mobile Security?
-
@ Staticguy,
This is in the wrong forum and should be posted here:
https://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=37.0 (https://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=37.0)
-
Still not working... Jan 7, 2016
-
It has, see your other post as I have answered that one https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=175439.msg1282311#msg1282311 (https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=175439.msg1282311#msg1282311).
Please don't post the same question in multiple topics, it just duplicates efforts for those trying to help.
-
Mozilla is beginning to make a series of changes to Firefox that'll make certain aspects of the browser operate a lot more like Chrome. The changes are broadly designed to make Firefox more secure and stable, but they also have the downside of making it less customizable and potentially more of a resource hog.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/21/9186809/firefox-becoming-more-like-chrome-extension-changes
If I wanted firefox to look and act more like chrome, I guess I would install chrome (and that for me isn't going to happen). I just can't see their reasoning in making browsers unrecognisable from chrome, what's the point of becoming clones, might as well give up.
As far as resources goes, firefox is already a bit of a resource hog.
Try Pale Moon, I'm very pleased with this very robust and very highly configurable browser with literally the best of support.
Pale Moon is absolutely the ONLY browser on the market with all of the following: Bookmark management, Download management, Password managing, Form managing, Spell checking, Search Engine Toolbar, Per-Site Security Configuration, Privacy Mode, Auto-Updater, Tabbed browsing, Pop-up blocking, Incremental Search, Ad-filtering, Page zooming, Full text search of history, Content Model Dialogues that with all of this also passes all 3 Acid Scores (The Acid tests are online test suites to determine aspects of standards compliance, to expose web page rendering flaws, and to rate the performance of browsers. Upon each test's release, they are designed so that no existing browser can pass without further development. In order for a browser to pass any Acid test, the latest public release of the browser (not an alpha, beta, release candidate, or other version under development or testing procedures) must meet the requirements).
No other browser can claim ALL of the above, which is why I personally rank it far and above #1.
-
It is not the first time that a post from you has nothing do to with the OP's post.
It is not the first time that a post from you doesn't contribute anything at all to solving a problem.
No other browser can claim ALL of the above, which is why I personally rank it far and above #1.
Get a clue. Opera had all that even before PaleMoon existed. Again you are providing false information.