# LibreWolf (Firefox-Based Browser)

**URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-browser/148
**Category:** Tool Suggestions
**Tags:** rejected
**Created:** 2022-10-01T12:55:04Z
**Posts:** 446
**Showing post:** 393 of 446

## Post 393 by @jonah — 2026-03-11T20:04:20Z

So I have read everything again and I have more thoughts, but right out of the gate, one of our minimum requirements is:

> Must be available on Linux, macOS, and Windows.

I would argue that [this…](https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/#why-is-librewolf-marked-as-broken)

> This happens because we do not notarize the macOS version of the browser: we don’t have a paid Apple Developer license and we don’t want to support this signing mechanism

…means Librewolf does not meet this criteria, which has been an [issue noted by the community](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-browser/148/79) here since 2023.

I note that LibreWolf _does_ sign packages on Windows, and even distributes via the Microsoft App Store, making the argument against supporting Apple’s distribution methods even less convincing. Do we know if there are any plans to change this?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-browser/148)._