0

When I install an add-on to Firefox, choosing it from the ones I find by using the Tools / Add-ons menu, sometimes after a few days Avast pops up a warning that the add-on is "unreputable" and strongly recommends and offers to remove it.

Of course malicious add-ons could potentially steal my passwords, intercept anything I type in that browser and do horrible things in general, so when I see such warnings I don't think twice and I just remove the add-on, but it's becoming too frequent and annoying, and it surprises me a lot that apparently Avast knows so much better than Mozilla about unreputable Firefox add-ons.

If Avast discovers malice in an add-on and lets the world know and even offers to remove it, why at the same time Mozilla happily keeps offering the add-on for long time? I had some that Avast recommended me to remove many months ago and are still offered in FF. Mozilla might even offer add-ons that were never checked at all, see this answer, but how is that possible if add-ons are potentially so dangerous? I'm also curious about how common successful attacks via FF add-ons are.

Also because if it's so common that FF add-ons that keep being offered in FF are unreputable, I would have a good deal of worrying to do for the past, because I kept "unreputable" add-ons installed for a while before Avast found them.

  • New add-on is not accepted in the store for lack of reputation. Can't get reputation because nobody can install the add-on. Do you see the problem here? – MechMK1 Jun 18 at 5:05
  • Lack of reputation is not the same as being malicious. It is just that it is not specifically known to be good (and also not known to be bad). Of course the risk is higher with add-ones lacking any reputation compared to add-ones with a good reputation, but it is lower compared to add-ones with an explicitly bad reputation. Nothing in your question actually suggests that Avast considers the specific add-one to be actually malicious, but it seems to be only you who thinks that no reputation is the same as malicious and then you draw further conclusions from this interpretation. – Steffen Ullrich Jun 18 at 5:31
  • 1
    @SantiBailors: I'm not a native english speaker but from my research it looks like the meaning of unreputable is not really clear and the word is also not much used. See also this discussion here where it also talks about similar but slightly different words like disreputable and nonreputable, where the first is more in the direction of bad reputation while the second more like no reputation. – Steffen Ullrich Jun 18 at 7:35
  • 1
    @SantiBailors If Avast actually uses the word "unreputable" then for the reasons Steffen mentions, it's a poor choice of words. If you do contact them, it may be worth mentioning it (assuming they do mean "it's too new to have built any reputation", then "Reputation: none" or "Reputation: unknown" would be better. Their recommendation to remove it is probably more to be "better safe than sorry" than specifically because Mozilla no longer check things by hand. – TripeHound Jun 18 at 11:06
  • 1
    @SantiBailors Not having used Avast, I don't know whether they are trying to say "Disreputable" (=known to have a bad reputation) or "No reputation" (=not enough is known about it to say one way or the other). If they mean the first, then the recommendation to remove it is clearly justified. If they mean the second, then it's a "safe than sorry" ... it's too new, and/or not enough people have used it for them to have received enough good/bad reports to be sure. In the absence of positive reputation, the safe thing is to remove it (but they don't know whether it's necessary to remove it). – TripeHound Jun 18 at 14:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.