Later, they were considered very insecure relative to other browsers- one year a big convention that buys new computers and installs all updates and updated web browsers, and gives the computers themselves out as a reward to the first person who can hack into them and gain admin level access to the operating system (All legal because the owner of the computers gives permission) actually stopped using Mozilla Firefox because it was considered too easy to hack relative to all the other major browsers. One of the reasons they took off and became the leading web browser at the beginning of the century was because they were considered much more secure relative to Internet Explorer. Reading that Firefox might be more secure than Chrome is an interesting sort of positive reversion to their original reputation. But it’d be nice if, to the greatest extent possible, we could be certain that official extensions from various browsers’ “walled gardens” were safe and secure. Obviously, with side-loaded extensions, people have to take their chances to some degree- that’s part and parcel of side-loading.

An extension or extension update should have to pass both for it to be publish and sent out to the public through the official “stores”.

Ideally, there would be both manual and automated checks. However, if Mozilla were to manually review every update (Which they may already be doing)- that would be a huge security edge. I don’t think that’s something that’s exclusive to either Chrome or Firefox. I ask because there have been examples of a widely used trustworthy extensions that have been secretly bought out, sometimes requiring the original owner to sign a non-disclosure agreement- and then been monetized into what one might consider malware. Do they manually review each update as well? Mozilla says they manually review the code of submissions to their extension store.

Google pirate v3 extended