Update 2023-09-10-Firefox-Part-3.md

_posts/2023-09-10-Firefox-Part-3.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: Investigating “Recommended Extensions” - Part 3 
-date: 2023-09-10 12:00:00 +0800
+date: 2023-09-15 12:00:00 +0800
 categories: [Technology, Browser]
 tags: [firefox, privacy, security]     # TAG names should always be lowercase
 toc: true
@@ -11,9 +11,12 @@ math: true
 My findings about the Recommended Extensions in Firefox is that the program is good in theory, but has serious flaws in execution and policy. The program appears to have lax examination procedures and ineffective policies which provide a false sense of security for Firefox users. 
 
 ## Policy Problems: No requirement to allow examination of code
-   Extensions can use a custom licence or end user agreement which has consumer limiting terms that prevent the examination of source code. It's very hard to find malicious code if the user is prevented from searching for such code.  Furthermore, for Firefox to claim that recommended extensions have the “highest standards of security” is dubious, since exposing or even investigating malicious code can come with risks of financial and legal repercussions.
-  For example, Enhancer for YouTube has a licence that states "nobody has the right to review the Source Code" and that "nobody has the right to reverse-engineer" while promising legal action should the terms be violated. If malicious code was found in an investigation, I wouldn't feel comfortable reporting it for fear of legal issues.
-  This is very concerning considering the various complaints about ads:
+
+Extensions can use a custom licence or end user agreement which has consumer limiting terms that prevent the examination of source code. It's very hard to find malicious code if the user is prevented from searching for such code.  Furthermore, for Firefox to claim that recommended extensions have the “highest standards of security” is dubious, since exposing or even investigating malicious code can come with risks of financial and legal repercussions.
+
+For example, Enhancer for YouTube has a licence that states "nobody has the right to review the Source Code" and that "nobody has the right to reverse-engineer" while promising legal action should the terms be violated. If malicious code was found in an investigation, I wouldn't feel comfortable reporting it for fear of legal issues.
+
+This is very concerning considering the various complaints about ads:
 
 + "This extension ... includ[es] advertisements." - hmm 
 + "Adware in a Recommended extension is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE, especially since you can't adblock elements in a settings page. This is malware-like behavior." - Psythik 
@@ -28,7 +31,8 @@ Recommended extensions should be held to the highest standards. Users should be
 
 ## Extension Examination Failures
 - Search for common terms
-  + 
+- Permission scope analysis
+- 
 ## Communication Failures 
 
 # Afterword