Help us uncover Firefox 3rd party installer
discourse.mozilla.org
In 2023, a significant portion of Firefox downloads came from unknown sources. We believe many of them came from 3rd party websites that let you download Firefox. While some websites are okay, others can put you at risk of downloading an old version or a build with the wrong locale, leading to security risks, a bad user experience, or even malicious installations. Help the Firefox team to uncover this mystery by taking part in the Firefox 3rd-party installer campaign! There will be swag, and y...

From the post:

In 2023, a significant portion of Firefox downloads came from unknown sources. We believe many of them came from 3rd party websites that let you download Firefox. While some websites are okay, others can put you at risk of downloading an old version or a build with the wrong locale, leading to security risks, a bad user experience, or even malicious installations.

Help the Firefox team to uncover this mystery by taking part in the Firefox 3rd-party installer campaign 3!

There will be swag, and you’ll be featured in our blog if you manage to report 10 valid reports. So don’t forget to invite your friends too!

Have any questions about this campaign? Join us on Matrix or watch the recording of our community call with Romain Testard, Principal Product Manager at Mozilla.

Please also help spread the word about this campaign by sharing this on your social media.

Keep on rocking the helpful web,

Kiki & Konstantina

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    262·
    5 months ago

    I wonder of they think of all the Linux installs from the various repos. These are nearly all unmodified and will send data to Mozilla, containing an “unknown” install origin.

    • distro repos
    • flathub
    • fedora flatpaks
    • snap store

    These may still pull stuff, not per user but per distro.

      • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
        3·
        5 months ago

        Yes but I wonder if they already know these origins.

        Afaik they determine “installations” not via downloads from their servers, but started FF apps. All have some unique ID stuff and send that to Mozilla

  • rdri@lemmy.world
    61·
    5 months ago

    I use the one from portableapps because I can’t stand going into appdata every time I need to change something.

  • Possibly linuxEnglish
    844·
    5 months ago

    “We just need to protect our intellectual property”

    Obviously harmful versions of Firefox that do not release the source code are bad but there are probably soft forks.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      812·
      5 months ago

      This isn’t about forks, it’s about installers that pull directly from Mozilla’s servers. This could be installers that bundle malware/adware with it.

      If you fork it, you’ll be building the source and distributing it yourself. This isn’t about that.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        318·
        5 months ago

        It could be “forks” that are just installers packaged with distinct configuration files or add-ons.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          121·
          5 months ago

          Evidence? And if so, I don’t think Mozilla cares (e.g. snaps are probably repackaged installers).

          If you’re renaming things, you’re going to recompile to put your branding on it. So things like Mull, Mullvad Browser, Librewolf, etc will all use their own binaries.