Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

I want my addons back, don't know how!

  • 16 replies
  • 4 have this problem
  • 1 view
  • Last reply by Fred2179

more options

When I logged on to Firefox today, I noticed that several of my addons were missing (they've been there as a rule) something about(not being signed) I do not know how to go about getting them back, can you help I use these addons very often.





when I loged on to Firefox today

When I logged on to Firefox today, I noticed that several of my addons were missing (they've been there as a rule) something about(not being signed) I do not know how to go about getting them back, can you help I use these addons very often. when I loged on to Firefox today

Chosen solution

Sorry, but it's a different piece of hardware. My laptop has a little 'fingerprint reader' a long way from the touchpad. The latter don't read your fingerprint, they just track your movements.

Softex who produced the s/w for Simplepass make them: http://www.softexinc.com/fingerprint-readers

Read this answer in context 👍 0

All Replies (16)

more options

I really wonder who is running this ship. You'd think the wonderful volunteers at Mozilla would check how many add-ons are in use before they start arbitrarily disabling them.

And at least inform the suppliers that their add-ons are about to get stopped dead.

HP Simplepass is the latest victim. I have downgraded back to Firefox 42.0 to make it work again.

Modified by Fred2179

more options

There has been warning message for each unverified extension in the Add-ons Manager with Firefox 40, 41, and 42 and that didn't cause any concern for you guys? And add-on developers have resources available to them to allow Mozilla to keep them abreast of upcoming changes that may affect their product. "I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."



There's an add-on - https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/install-unsigned-add-ons/ - to "automate" this procedure. removed from the add-ons site

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox#w_what-can-i-do-if-firefox-disables-an-installed-unsigned-add-on

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 typed in the URL bar). Support is not available for any changes made with the Configuration Editor so please do this at your own risk.

Note: That pref will be gone in Firefox 44 (Release slated for Jan 26. 2016) so user's of currently un-signed extensions should contact the developers of those extensions and prod them into getting their act together & get their extensions signed by Mozilla. Otherwise the users of those extensions will be SOL come the release of Firefox 44. Mozilla has already pushed back the version in which this new security feature was to be enabled from Firefox 40 to 44. I doubt if there will be any further reprieve.

Modified by the-edmeister

more options

the-edmeister/Mr Moderator,

I note all you say, but the issue merely opens a black hole. We (the users) don't usually get involved with how third-party apps (add-ons, extensions) are treated in Firefox. In previous versions, I get a warning "could not be verified for use". What does that mean to me? Who's verifying what? We're not all techies, you know.

I would hope there is a mechanism within Mozilla that, when some developer produces an Add-on, your organization says "hold on - it needs to be verified". Not my job, I think.

P.S. I have posted a support case at Softexinc (http://store.softexinc.com/hp/support/faq if anyone else wants to pile on!) Shame you guys didn't contact them BEFORE you disabled our add-ons.

more options

If you want to leave feedback for Firefox developers, you can go to the Firefox Help menu and select Submit Feedback... or use this link. Your feedback gets collected at http://input.mozilla.org/, where a team of people read it and gather data about the most common issues.

more options

OK. I posted a link to this thread for the developers.

more options

Fred2179 said

the-edmeister/Mr Moderator, .......... In previous versions, I get a warning "could not be verified for use". What does that mean to me? Who's verifying what? We're not all techies, you know.

I would hope there is a mechanism within Mozilla that, when some developer produces an Add-on, your organization says "hold on - it needs to be verified". Not my job, I think.

P.S. I have posted a support case at Softexinc (http://store.softexinc.com/hp/support/faq if anyone else wants to pile on!) Shame you guys didn't contact them BEFORE you disabled our add-ons.

Keep in mind that I an a retired automotive service technician / service shop owner and not a computer software professional ...

If I saw that "could not be verified for use" I would have been concerned enough to research what that was about. It may just be my cautious, inquisitive nature or having spent over 30 years in business watching out for my customer's interests by telling them "if something changes with your vehicle that doesn't seem right, ask me about it before it breaks which usually costs you a lot more than if we caught it early in the symptomatic stage."


Can I assume that Softexinc created HP Simplepass? And HP Simplepass is supplied with HP laptops, correct? And HP provides the updates?

When does Mozilla gain access to the HP Simplepass program or the updates for it?

Mozilla would see it when it was submitted for "signing" - but neither Softexinc nor HP submitted it; if they had you and I may not have met each other.

Mozilla can't look inside your computer to see what software you have installed and tell if it is up-to-date; really all they can do is to set a standard for add-ons and it the add-on doesn't meet that standard, the add-on is disabled until it is updated or replaced. The "not verified" warnings have been there for months for users to see, and add-on developers have access to information made specifically for them, if they took the time to read the Add-ons Blog or signup to add-on developers mailing lists. And yes. Mozilla didn't have to "lock-down" the add-on infrastructure so tight - but at the risk of Firefox users getting inadvertent installation of Malware or PUP (Potentially Unwanted Programs) that has gotten increasing worse over the last few years. I honestly wish Mozilla had 'fixed" this years ago before they felt that they needed such a draconian measure. And consider that Mozilla could have gone so far as Apple did a few years ago, by creating a "walled garden" where nothing that wasn't obtained thru Apple wouldn't be allowed to be installed. At least Mozilla allows "side-loaded" add-ons, self-hosted add-ons, and even allows users to write their own extensions - but they all need to be "signed".

And don't think I am "towing the company line"or defending Mozilla and this "signing thing" - I am upset as hell that I can't continue "hacking" existing extensions to keep the abandoned extensions compatible for my own use. It has become a retirement hobby of mine to help keep my mind sharp and learn something new; and sure as hell a lot cheaper than modifying cars as I did years ago. I may be still here providing support for fellow Firefox users, but I am half way out the door "looking for love" with Firefox older, ugly sister - SeaMonkey who isn't going down the "signing" path.

more options

Hi lowrider198, I just want to make sure that amidst all this discussion, you actually are back in business with your unsigned extensions by either

(1) Manually changing a setting in about:config, or (2) Installing the add-on which changes it for you

more options

the-edmeister/Mr Moderator, Said: Can I assume that Softexinc created HP Simplepass? And HP Simplepass is supplied with HP laptops, correct? And HP provides the updates?

It's a lot more complicated than that. Simplepass 6 was supplied with the laptops for a few years (came with mine - don't know how many more.) It was a nice program. Unfortunately, Apple then bought the company that wrote it.

Hp seems to have asked Softexinc to write a new version as they no longer had access to vers 6. Vers 8 is a bit crude but it works - sort of. There's a whole 5 page thread on the problems of getting vers 8 to work in Firefox 40+.

the-edmeister/Mr Moderator, Said: If I saw that "could not be verified for use" I would have been concerned enough to research what that was about.

The software was supplied by HP with their computer. Why would anyone be concerned? It looked to me like Firefox/Mozilla was just creating difficulties for the sake of being pure and living by the letter of the law.

Given that it was supplied by HP in a million laptops (i guess) you'd think Mozilla would try to help the users keep their add-ons running.

more options

jscher2000 said

Hi lowrider198, I just want to make sure that amidst all this discussion, you actually are back in business with your unsigned extensions by either (1) Manually changing a setting in about:config, or (2) Installing the add-on which changes it for you

thanks for the response, not sure I know how to change a setting in about:config, I think I was in there but didn't see any add ons that I am concerned about

more options

Hi lowrider198, you can make a temporary exception to the signing requirement as follows. This is global for all extensions, there's currently no way to only make an exception for specific extensions, so keep an eye out for any unknown/unexpected extensions.

(1) In a new tab, type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Enter/Return. Click the button promising to be careful.

(2) In the search box above the list, type or paste xpin and pause while the list is filtered

(3) Double-click the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to switch it from true to false -- note that this is for Firefox 43 only

more options

jscher2000 said

Hi lowrider198, you can make a temporary exception to the signing requirement as follows. This is global for all extensions, there's currently no way to only make an exception for specific extensions, so keep an eye out for any unknown/unexpected extensions. (1) In a new tab, type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Enter/Return. Click the button promising to be careful. (2) In the search box above the list, type or paste xpin and pause while the list is filtered (3) Double-click the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to switch it from true to false -- note that this is for Firefox 43 only
more options

lowrider198 said

jscher2000 said
Hi lowrider198, you can make a temporary exception to the signing requirement as follows. This is global for all extensions, there's currently no way to only make an exception for specific extensions, so keep an eye out for any unknown/unexpected extensions. (1) In a new tab, type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Enter/Return. Click the button promising to be careful. (2) In the search box above the list, type or paste xpin and pause while the list is filtered (3) Double-click the xpinstall.signatures.required preference to switch it from true to false -- note that this is for Firefox 43 only jscher2000, thanks so much, with your help, I now have my add ons back. again Thanks
more options

Fred2179,

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this, but due to DMCA I doubt if Mozilla can just step in and modify someone's software for Firefox user goodwill; and Mozilla isn't set up to do "for profit" jobs for outside concerns. But I'm sure that if Softexinc asked Mozilla for help, they would get it.

And out of all the laptop brands out there, my seat-of-the-pants guess is that HP Simplepass is mentioned in 19 out of 20 support threads that I have seen here about scrollpad issues in Firefox. Why do all the other laptop brands out there work with the default scrollpad software, yet HP has to pay a vendor to make Simplepass for Firefox? And if some of the other brands do need special software for Firefox, why don't we see an equal number of support threads about those brands? Of course sales volume differences not withstanding.

Modified by the-edmeister

more options

the-edmeister,

Simplepass doesn't have anything to do with touchpads - it's a dedicated fingerprint reader supplied by HP.

I have modifed the config to allow unsigned add-ons for now. I'm told this will not be allowed in Firefox Vers 44, due the end of January.

Anyway, Softexinc assure me they have made a new version and have submitted it to HP for release. We'll see how eager HP is to help.

Time to look for a new browser, I think.

more options

Touchpad or scrollpad, the hardware has a similar function - it's a finger-touch interface pad.

more options

Chosen Solution

Sorry, but it's a different piece of hardware. My laptop has a little 'fingerprint reader' a long way from the touchpad. The latter don't read your fingerprint, they just track your movements.

Softex who produced the s/w for Simplepass make them: http://www.softexinc.com/fingerprint-readers