![]() (Which, honestly, there's not much to be said against the "enterprise deployment" parts of app-stores don't usually force developers to go through pre-vetting before new versions are published or anything. This means that every extension in these browsers now has to live in the browser's extension store-even if it's a private, just-for-your-own-company extension. ![]() What all the browser-makers seem to favor nowadays, for IT departments who want to do OS-image deployment, is an approach where the burned-in Group Policy will just list out a set of extension IDs that are to be force-installed and force-enabled and then the browser itself will do the work of retrieving and installing them (but will still treat them like any other extension as it goes through the install process, vetting it for compatibility, upgrading it through its registered upgrade channel, etc.) makes it too hard for these extensions to be updated as often as they might need to be, or disabled if the browser-maker declares incompatibility with an API in them, etc. too easy for malware to just set itself up as seemingly "deployed by Group Policy" and 2. I believe that all the browser makers have, at this point, reached a consensus that deploying extensions directly as on-disk files this way makes it 1. Usually this was combined with Group Policy / Device Profile settings that made the extensions impossible to deactivate or remove ("force enabled") and potentially blocked any extensions other than those preinstalled. ![]() Yes, the older method of extension side-loading, supported at some point by Edge, Chrome, and Firefox, was for IT departments who created OS deployment images with software (incl. ![]() probably made more sense for IT departments
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |