502 - Bad Gateway
debugpointnews.com

In a major update towards cross-browser compatibility, Firefox users are set to enjoy the benefits of importing Chrome extensions (note this is really part of the data import/migration from an existing Chrome browser installed, just for extensions that are already supported, and not installing from the Chrome web store), thanks to a new feature unveiled by Mozilla. This is a big deal because it brings us one step closer to having more compatibility between browsers.

Mozilla has been working on making extensions easier across multiple browsers, and this new feature is currently being tested.

Best part? It’s already available to all users of the latest stable version of Firefox.

Firefox itself actually has quite a few excellent extensions that you don’t find on Chromium based browsers, so I’m wondering whether Google will be responding with importing Firefox extensions into Chrome? But I’m not holding my breath at all.

See https://debugpointnews.com/firefox-chrome-extensions/

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    136·
    1 year ago

    I think you’re misunderstanding what this is. This is simply grabbing data from an extension installed on chrome, and putting into the firefox version of the extension. This doesn’t allow chrome extensions to run within Firefox.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    49·
    1 year ago

    No they don’t. They detect if an extension is installed in Chrome, and if so, automatically install the Firefox equivalent - if it exists - and migrate the data. An extension that’s chrome exclusive can’t be ported over. I just tested and confirmed this as well, instead I was the one misunderstanding the feature, but no. Can’t import any extensions not already natively existing in Firefox.

    • lowleveldata
      23·
      1 year ago

      It’s the only sane way to implement this. Can’t imagine what kind of strange compatibility issues they would run into if they try to run chrome extensions directly.

    • GadgeteerZA@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Thanks, I see now it is actually more a migration option for some supported extensions, I’ll see if I can update the post accordingly. The title they gave was a bit misleading.

      • viq@social.hackerspace.pl
        2·
        1 year ago

        @beta_tester @4vr bitwarden/protonpass are implementations of a password manager storing (generally) username + password combinations.
        Passkeys are a cryptographic way to prove your identity to a website, after authenticating yourself (generally with PIN or biometrics) to the secure store holding the cryptographic material.

        As a side note, at least BitWarden and 1password are getting support to be used *as* passkey.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        It’s passwordless login, not a password manager. It’s in development and they said the earliest release would be v120.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            4·
            1 year ago

            Hardware keys are compatible with passkeys. Once you step into two-factor territory, your identity will be linked to something. I can see the issue with devices themselves, but I don’t see that same issue with hardware keys. And I don’t see any movement towards not supporting traditional passwords in the future. There’s more services (granted many are small scale) in the world using passwords than not. So I doubt passkeys will become the only supported option.