X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

Support Forum

Bitdefender My Wallet Extension disabled with FF 43.0.1. Can not be enabled.

Posted

This happened when FF upgraded. The extension is gone, can not be enabled and there are no more extensions offered by FF. This means my auto-fill capability, with all of my passwords, no longer functions. Help !

This happened when FF upgraded. The extension is gone, can not be enabled and there are no more extensions offered by FF. This means my auto-fill capability, with all of my passwords, no longer functions. Help !

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape 15.9.20069
  • Google Update
  • Intel web components updater - Installs and updates the Intel web components
  • Intel web components for Intel® Identity Protection Technology
  • Shockwave Flash 20.0 r0
  • 5.1.40728.0

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0

More Information

Question owner

I saw this potential fix:


" What can I do if Firefox disables an installed, unsigned add-on?

If any of your installed add-ons gets disabled because it hasn't been signed, contact the add-on developer or vendor to see if they can offer an updated and signed version of that add-on. You can also ask them to get their add-on signed. Override add-on signing (advanced users): You can override this setting by changing the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to false in the Firefox Configuration Editor (about:config page). Support is not available for any changes made with the Configuration Editor so please do this at your own risk. "

The problem with this is that no Addons will require the FF signature which offers a layer of protection.

I saw this potential fix: " What can I do if Firefox disables an installed, unsigned add-on? If any of your installed add-ons gets disabled because it hasn't been signed, contact the add-on developer or vendor to see if they can offer an updated and signed version of that add-on. You can also ask them to get their add-on signed. Override add-on signing (advanced users): You can override this setting by changing the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to false in the Firefox Configuration Editor (about:config page). Support is not available for any changes made with the Configuration Editor so please do this at your own risk. " The problem with this is that no Addons will require the FF signature which offers a layer of protection.
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17473 solutions 157940 answers
See also: *http://www.ghacks.net/2015/12/16/what-you-do-when-firefox-disables-installed-add-ons/ *https://support.mozilla.org/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox *https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing *https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/

Question owner

That is helpful but some fixes don't work. I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons. I therefore assume that reverting to the previous FF edition won't help either ? Unless, it's only unavailable for the FF edition you are running when you do a search  ?

Normally I prefer to run the latest version for security reasons too. Isn't the latest version typically the safest one to use ?

I guess Ill do the over ride in aboutconfig. Then if I have problems with the next FF version I will defect to another browser. What else is available that is privacy minded - perhaps Pale Moon ?

That is helpful but some fixes don't work. I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons. I therefore assume that reverting to the previous FF edition won't help either ? Unless, it's only unavailable for the FF edition you are running when you do a search ? Normally I prefer to run the latest version for security reasons too. Isn't the latest version typically the safest one to use ? I guess Ill do the over ride in aboutconfig. Then if I have problems with the next FF version I will defect to another browser. What else is available that is privacy minded - perhaps Pale Moon ?
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

Hi karelin, you have several weeks to think about what you might do if Firefox 44 blocks important extensions, and I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion before then.

I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons.

Extensions that come with paid software usually are installed outside of Firefox's folders, and Firefox discovers them because the external software advertises them in the Windows registry for Firefox to find. So you should not need to download it again as long as you still have the same BitDefender installation. After allowing use of unsigned extensions and restarting Firefox, Firefox should find it again.

Any luck?

Hi karelin, you have several weeks to think about what you might do if Firefox 44 blocks important extensions, and I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion before then. <blockquote>I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons.</blockquote> Extensions that come with paid software usually are installed outside of Firefox's folders, and Firefox discovers them because the external software advertises them in the Windows registry for Firefox to find. So you should not need to download it again as long as you still have the same BitDefender installation. After allowing use of unsigned extensions and restarting Firefox, Firefox should find it again. Any luck?

Question owner

jscher2000 said

Hi karelin, you have several weeks to think about what you might do if Firefox 44 blocks important extensions, and I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion before then.
I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons.

Extensions that come with paid software usually are installed outside of Firefox's folders, and Firefox discovers them because the external software advertises them in the Windows registry for Firefox to find. So you should not need to download it again as long as you still have the same BitDefender installation. After allowing use of unsigned extensions and restarting Firefox, Firefox should find it again.

Any luck?

I was just referring to other people who said they needed to download and reinstall an extension that stopped working with 43.

It is working after allowing unsigned extensions. It would be preferable, and more sensible, to have the option of whitelisting specific extensions with no signature rather than allowing all or, as with 44, blocking all unsigned extensions. Hasn't it been demonstrated that malicious extensions can get signed anyway ? Conversely, with all unsigned extensions permitted it makes a user more vulnerable.

''jscher2000 [[#answer-820390|said]]'' <blockquote> Hi karelin, you have several weeks to think about what you might do if Firefox 44 blocks important extensions, and I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion before then. <blockquote>I cant simply re-install the Addon because it is no longer available under FF Addons.</blockquote> Extensions that come with paid software usually are installed outside of Firefox's folders, and Firefox discovers them because the external software advertises them in the Windows registry for Firefox to find. So you should not need to download it again as long as you still have the same BitDefender installation. After allowing use of unsigned extensions and restarting Firefox, Firefox should find it again. Any luck? </blockquote> I was just referring to other people who said they needed to download and reinstall an extension that stopped working with 43. It is working after allowing unsigned extensions. It would be preferable, and more sensible, to have the option of whitelisting specific extensions with no signature rather than allowing all or, as with 44, blocking all unsigned extensions. Hasn't it been demonstrated that malicious extensions can get signed anyway ? Conversely, with all unsigned extensions permitted it makes a user more vulnerable.
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

This is just support, we don't make decisions on the future of Firefox. I assume you have given feedback:

https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox

This is just support, we don't make decisions on the future of Firefox. I assume you have given feedback: https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox

Question owner

That is rather bizarre feedback. At first I thought you meant feedback regarding how helpful support was. That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

That is rather bizarre feedback. At first I thought you meant feedback regarding how helpful support was. That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

Question owner

One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked.

However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ??

I no longer have auto-update enabled.

One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked. However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ?? I no longer have auto-update enabled.

Question owner

jscher2000 said

This is just support, we don't make decisions on the future of Firefox. I assume you have given feedback: https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox

That is rather bizarre feedback. At first I thought you meant feedback regarding how helpful support was. That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

''jscher2000 [[#answer-820444|said]]'' <blockquote> This is just support, we don't make decisions on the future of Firefox. I assume you have given feedback: https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox </blockquote> That is rather bizarre feedback. At first I thought you meant feedback regarding how helpful support was. That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

Question owner

And what is a background service to install updates ?

I realize this is another question but it is related.

And what is a background service to install updates ? I realize this is another question but it is related.
the-edmeister
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5398 solutions 40149 answers

Here is information about that "background service". https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-mozilla-maintenance-service

But you're "beating up" the wrong company over "signing", IMO.

IMO, it is asinine for a security company like Bit-Defender to supply an Add-on that is made specifically for Firefox, and then not keep that add-on up-to-date with Firefox. They are putting their customer's in the position of refusing Firefox security updates, in order for that Bit-Defender add-on to be usable by their customers.

And if Bit-Defender's response to user complaints is that they are waiting on Mozilla Add-on to "sign" their add-on, they should have gotten in line for signing their add-on earlier. Mozilla Add-ons "signed" all the Add-ons that they host 6 months ago. And the "deadline" was postponed from Firefox 40 to Firefox 43; what more can Mozilla do to "help" companies like Bit-Defender have the time they may need to come into compliance with security changes inside of Firefox?

Here is information about that "background service". https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-mozilla-maintenance-service ''But you're "beating up" the wrong company over "signing", IMO.'' IMO, it is asinine for a security company like Bit-Defender to supply an Add-on that is made specifically for Firefox, and then not keep that add-on up-to-date with Firefox. They are putting their customer's in the position of refusing Firefox security updates, in order for that Bit-Defender add-on to be usable by their customers. And if Bit-Defender's response to user complaints is that they are waiting on Mozilla Add-on to "sign" their add-on, they should have gotten in line for signing their add-on earlier. Mozilla Add-ons "signed" all the Add-ons that they host 6 months ago. And the "deadline" was postponed from Firefox 40 to Firefox 43; what more can Mozilla do to "help" companies like Bit-Defender have the time they may need to come into compliance with security changes inside of Firefox?
jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
8695 solutions 71066 answers

karelin said

jscher2000 said
https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox

That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

After you click a "face" there is a box to enter details.

karelin said

One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked.

However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ??

That feature checks the internal settings of each extension to determine whether they are allowed to run with the new version, or are restricted to running with particular versions. It does not check whether an extension is signed, as you can see. It also doesn't check whether the extension actually will work with the new version.

''karelin [[#answer-822907|said]]'' <blockquote> ''jscher2000 [[#answer-820444|said]]'' <blockquote> https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox </blockquote> That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ? </blockquote> After you click a "face" there is a box to enter details. ''karelin [[#answer-822906|said]]'' <blockquote> One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked. <br><br> However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ?? </blockquote> That feature checks the internal settings of each extension to determine whether they are allowed to run with the new version, or are restricted to running with particular versions. It does not check whether an extension is signed, as you can see. It also doesn't check whether the extension actually will work with the new version.

Question owner

jscher2000 said

karelin said
jscher2000 said
https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox

That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ?

After you click a "face" there is a box to enter details.

karelin said

One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked.

However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ??

That feature checks the internal settings of each extension to determine whether they are allowed to run with the new version, or are restricted to running with particular versions. It does not check whether an extension is signed, as you can see. It also doesn't check whether the extension actually will work with the new version.

Ummm, OK but it didn't warn me that the Extension would be disabled as it says.

''jscher2000 [[#answer-822968|said]]'' <blockquote> ''karelin [[#answer-822907|said]]'' <blockquote> ''jscher2000 [[#answer-820444|said]]'' <blockquote> https://input.mozilla.org/feedback/firefox </blockquote> That looks like a simple vote for or against firefox ? </blockquote> After you click a "face" there is a box to enter details. ''karelin [[#answer-822906|said]]'' <blockquote> One more issue regarding this Extension issue: In FF settings I had the - Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons - option checked under the - Automatically install updates option - which was checked. <br><br> However, I received no such warning prior to the auto-update regarding the Wallet Extension being disabled. What's up with that ?? </blockquote> That feature checks the internal settings of each extension to determine whether they are allowed to run with the new version, or are restricted to running with particular versions. It does not check whether an extension is signed, as you can see. It also doesn't check whether the extension actually will work with the new version. </blockquote> Ummm, OK but it didn't warn me that the Extension would be disabled as it says.

Question owner

the-edmeister said

Here is information about that "background service". https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-mozilla-maintenance-service But you're "beating up" the wrong company over "signing", IMO. IMO, it is asinine for a security company like Bit-Defender to supply an Add-on that is made specifically for Firefox, and then not keep that add-on up-to-date with Firefox. They are putting their customer's in the position of refusing Firefox security updates, in order for that Bit-Defender add-on to be usable by their customers. And if Bit-Defender's response to user complaints is that they are waiting on Mozilla Add-on to "sign" their add-on, they should have gotten in line for signing their add-on earlier. Mozilla Add-ons "signed" all the Add-ons that they host 6 months ago. And the "deadline" was postponed from Firefox 40 to Firefox 43; what more can Mozilla do to "help" companies like Bit-Defender have the time they may need to come into compliance with security changes inside of Firefox?

I wholeheartedly agree that Bitdefender is being idiotic regarding this problem ( I have informed them of this ). Their customer support sucks and is practically non existent - yet I'm paying them. FF, which is not getting paid by me, has great customer support via this forum. I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me.

''the-edmeister [[#answer-822954|said]]'' <blockquote> Here is information about that "background service". https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-mozilla-maintenance-service ''But you're "beating up" the wrong company over "signing", IMO.'' IMO, it is asinine for a security company like Bit-Defender to supply an Add-on that is made specifically for Firefox, and then not keep that add-on up-to-date with Firefox. They are putting their customer's in the position of refusing Firefox security updates, in order for that Bit-Defender add-on to be usable by their customers. And if Bit-Defender's response to user complaints is that they are waiting on Mozilla Add-on to "sign" their add-on, they should have gotten in line for signing their add-on earlier. Mozilla Add-ons "signed" all the Add-ons that they host 6 months ago. And the "deadline" was postponed from Firefox 40 to Firefox 43; what more can Mozilla do to "help" companies like Bit-Defender have the time they may need to come into compliance with security changes inside of Firefox? </blockquote> I wholeheartedly agree that Bitdefender is being idiotic regarding this problem ( I have informed them of this ). Their customer support sucks and is practically non existent - yet I'm paying them. FF, which is not getting paid by me, has great customer support via this forum. I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me.
the-edmeister
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5398 solutions 40149 answers

karelin said

I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me.

That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited (and would have been eventually) by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that. In Firefox 42 some prefs that were being exploited by Malware were just plain removed; gone is the old pref that allowed to user to specify an alternative to the new Tab page URL. Although that can now be accomplished by using an add-on, which uses a different pref that would be unique for that add-on. And any similar add-ons that might come about would most likely use their own unique pref for the same thing. That makes it harder for malware providers to know what would work to "be malicious", IMO.

At least Mozilla didn't eliminate add-on installation from anywhere except for the official Add-ons website; similar to Apple's "walled garden" approach for apps made for iPhones and iPads - "you get it from Apple or you don't get it". And Mozilla didn't block add-on installation from 3rd party websites; didn't stop "back-door" or "side-load" installations of add-ons from other programs (like Bit-Defender and other security applications). By requiring signing of all extensions, Mozilla didn't feel the need to prohibit those types of installation of extensions.

Now as far as individuals (like "me") not having the deal with changes like this "signing" now and in the future, I knew that 3 of my extensions would be disabled in Firefox 43. So before Firefox 43 was released I installed the Firefox 38 ESR (Extended Support Release) and got it all set up with my own preferred extensions and settings. The ESR version receives the same security updates as the Release version receives, but not the new features that came with 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43; and will continue like that until Firefox 47 when support will end for Fx38 ESR. That will get me thru to June 2016. and beyond that I intend be a "former" Firefox user. Overall, just shy of using Firefox for 14 years - I started with Phoenix 0.3 in Aug 2002. At least that is my current plan.

''karelin [[#answer-823204|said]]'' <blockquote> I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me. </blockquote> That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited ''(and would have been eventually)'' by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that. In Firefox 42 some prefs that were being exploited by Malware were just plain removed; gone is the old pref that allowed to user to specify an alternative to the new Tab page URL. ''Although that can now be accomplished by using an add-on, which uses a different pref that would be unique for that add-on. And any similar add-ons that might come about would most likely use their own unique pref for the same thing. That makes it harder for malware providers to know what would work to "be malicious", IMO.'' At least Mozilla didn't eliminate add-on installation from anywhere except for the official Add-ons website; similar to Apple's "walled garden" approach for apps made for iPhones and iPads - "you get it from Apple or you don't get it". And Mozilla didn't block add-on installation from 3rd party websites; didn't stop "back-door" or "side-load" installations of add-ons from other programs (like Bit-Defender and other security applications). By requiring signing of all extensions, Mozilla didn't feel the need to prohibit those types of installation of extensions. Now as far as individuals ''(like "me")'' not having the deal with changes like this "signing" now and in the future, I knew that 3 of my extensions would be disabled in Firefox 43. So before Firefox 43 was released I installed the Firefox 38 ESR (Extended Support Release) and got it all set up with my own preferred extensions and settings. The ESR version receives the same security updates as the Release version receives, but not the new features that came with 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43; and will continue like that until Firefox 47 when support will end for Fx38 ESR. That will get me thru to June 2016. and beyond that I intend be a "former" Firefox user. Overall, just shy of using Firefox for 14 years - I started with Phoenix 0.3 in Aug 2002. ''At least that is my current plan.''

Question owner

Yea, Apple's "walled garden" approach is the reason I refuse to purchase any of their products. Apple became everything it originally stood against. The irony is kind of funny.

Ill look into the FF ESR

Yea, Apple's "walled garden" approach is the reason I refuse to purchase any of their products. Apple became everything it originally stood against. The irony is kind of funny. Ill look into the FF ESR

Question owner

the-edmeister said

karelin said
I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me.

That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited (and would have been eventually) by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that. In Firefox 42 some prefs that were being exploited by Malware were just plain removed; gone is the old pref that allowed to user to specify an alternative to the new Tab page URL. Although that can now be accomplished by using an add-on, which uses a different pref that would be unique for that add-on. And any similar add-ons that might come about would most likely use their own unique pref for the same thing. That makes it harder for malware providers to know what would work to "be malicious", IMO.

At least Mozilla didn't eliminate add-on installation from anywhere except for the official Add-ons website; similar to Apple's "walled garden" approach for apps made for iPhones and iPads - "you get it from Apple or you don't get it". And Mozilla didn't block add-on installation from 3rd party websites; didn't stop "back-door" or "side-load" installations of add-ons from other programs (like Bit-Defender and other security applications). By requiring signing of all extensions, Mozilla didn't feel the need to prohibit those types of installation of extensions.

Now as far as individuals (like "me") not having the deal with changes like this "signing" now and in the future, I knew that 3 of my extensions would be disabled in Firefox 43. So before Firefox 43 was released I installed the Firefox 38 ESR (Extended Support Release) and got it all set up with my own preferred extensions and settings. The ESR version receives the same security updates as the Release version receives, but not the new features that came with 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43; and will continue like that until Firefox 47 when support will end for Fx38 ESR. That will get me thru to June 2016. and beyond that I intend be a "former" Firefox user. Overall, just shy of using Firefox for 14 years - I started with Phoenix 0.3 in Aug 2002. At least that is my current plan.

" That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited (and would have been eventually) by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that"

As somebody , somewhere put it: If my tried and true proven add-ons stop working, it is reasonable to allow me to want to re-enable them at my own risk, by my OWN choice once again.

''the-edmeister [[#answer-823227|said]]'' <blockquote> ''karelin [[#answer-823204|said]]'' <blockquote> I still, however, don't see why FF can not allow users to have a whitelist of unsigned Extensions. Then we can continue to permit updates and require other Extensions to have a signature. That seems like the simplest solution to me. </blockquote> That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited ''(and would have been eventually)'' by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that. In Firefox 42 some prefs that were being exploited by Malware were just plain removed; gone is the old pref that allowed to user to specify an alternative to the new Tab page URL. ''Although that can now be accomplished by using an add-on, which uses a different pref that would be unique for that add-on. And any similar add-ons that might come about would most likely use their own unique pref for the same thing. That makes it harder for malware providers to know what would work to "be malicious", IMO.'' At least Mozilla didn't eliminate add-on installation from anywhere except for the official Add-ons website; similar to Apple's "walled garden" approach for apps made for iPhones and iPads - "you get it from Apple or you don't get it". And Mozilla didn't block add-on installation from 3rd party websites; didn't stop "back-door" or "side-load" installations of add-ons from other programs (like Bit-Defender and other security applications). By requiring signing of all extensions, Mozilla didn't feel the need to prohibit those types of installation of extensions. Now as far as individuals ''(like "me")'' not having the deal with changes like this "signing" now and in the future, I knew that 3 of my extensions would be disabled in Firefox 43. So before Firefox 43 was released I installed the Firefox 38 ESR (Extended Support Release) and got it all set up with my own preferred extensions and settings. The ESR version receives the same security updates as the Release version receives, but not the new features that came with 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43; and will continue like that until Firefox 47 when support will end for Fx38 ESR. That will get me thru to June 2016. and beyond that I intend be a "former" Firefox user. Overall, just shy of using Firefox for 14 years - I started with Phoenix 0.3 in Aug 2002. ''At least that is my current plan.'' </blockquote> " That may have been possible, but Mozilla didn't go that way. I think that a user whitelist pref like that could be exploited (and would have been eventually) by malicious add-ons and the best way to avoid that is to just not have a pref like that" As somebody , somewhere put it: If my tried and true proven add-ons stop working, it is reasonable to allow me to want to re-enable them at my own risk, by my OWN choice once again.
jenifercooper 1 solutions 10 answers

Thanks karelin. Appreciate your work.

Thanks karelin. Appreciate your work.
the-edmeister
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
5398 solutions 40149 answers

Helpful Reply

karelin said

As somebody , somewhere put it: If my tried and true proven add-ons stop working, it is reasonable to allow me to want to re-enable them at my own risk, by my OWN choice once again.

The reason I am now using the ESR (Extended Support Release for "organizations") version of Firefox, which doesn't any of the new features that were introduced after the Firefox 38 version, but has all the security fixes. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

I have 5 "abandoned" extensions from years ago that I have kept fixing so that I can keep using them. ESR will "buy" me 6 months more use of those extensions.

''karelin [[#answer-823244|said]]'' <blockquote> As somebody , somewhere put it: If my tried and true proven add-ons stop working, it is reasonable to allow me to want to re-enable them at my own risk, by my OWN choice once again. </blockquote> The reason I am now using the ESR ''(Extended Support Release for "organizations")'' version of Firefox, which doesn't any of the new features that were introduced after the Firefox 38 version, but has all the security fixes. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ I have 5 "abandoned" extensions from years ago that I have kept fixing so that I can keep using them. ESR will "buy" me 6 months more use of those extensions.