Firefox za Enterprise Forum podrške

Hello,

I am trying to create a management policy for extensions where all themes are allowed, some extensions are force installed, other specified ones are allowed, and anything else is blocked. I have been scouring the web looking for samples and I just can't get it to work as intended. Here is a sample of what I have written.

{ "*": { "blocked_install_message": "IT has blocked the installation of UNAPPROVED add-ons. Please contact the IT Service Desk to request approval.", "install_sources": "https://addons.mozilla.org/*", "allowed_types": ["theme","extension"] }, "plugin@okta.com": { "installation_mode": "force_installed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/3601147/okta_browser_plugin.xpi" }, "support@lastpass.com": { "installation_mode": "force_installed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/lastpass-password-manager/latest.xpi" }, "developer@zoom.us": { "installation_mode": "allowed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4212428/zoom_new_scheduler-2.1.52.xpi" }, "info@katalon.com": { "installation_mode": "allowed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/3826743/katalon_automation_record-5.5.3.xpi" } }

In this current state, I am allowed to install themes, I get the forced installs, but I can install ANY extension. I don't want that.

If I modify the blocking section with [ "installation_mode": "blocked", ], then I only get the force installed plugins and I can't do anything else. It even removes any previously installed themes or plugins not explicitly forced in. The allowed plugins can't be installed either.

I have also tried it without the "extensions" allowed_type but the result did not change. To recap, I need to block any extensions not explicitly pushed or allowed. Would anyone be able to assist and point out what I may be missing please?

~Regards

We are working on implementing Firefox for Enterprise and rolling it out through Intune/Company Portal, one challenge we are encountering is that we have disabled Pocket as thoroughly as we can (followed the guide from Mozilla https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-or-re-enable-pocket-for-firefox) and we are still seeing requests go out to "img-getpocket.cdn.mozilla.net" we do not want Pocket available at all, we do not want queries made to those domains, is it not possible to completely eradicate Pocket?

It wouldn't be a problem but our AV solution (MDE) has a popup every time the URL is queried and blocked.

Attached image of our configuration profile for Pocket.

I have a need to use regular browser (not kiosk), but disable the "open downloads folder" once a file has been downloaded. This is opening a file manager (thunar or alike) which then allows the user to browse the filesystem and open a terminal emulator from /usr/bin.

Using the policies, I am able to prompt for downloads, or select a download location, however I have been unable to completely stop the user from opening the download folder which opens a file browser.

Is there any way I can select policies or profile options for disabling the option for opening download folder?

Hello,

As the title mentions, applying a block to all extensions via "*" by utilizing Extension Management GPO will block about:debugging.

Is there a way to simultaneously have all extensions blocked and about:debugging available?

Here's the JSON - { "*": { "installation_mode": "blocked" } }

Appreciate your time and help, - Dom

Hello, Qualys is detecting Vulnerabilites on our Firefox ESR 91.12 Versions which were patched by MFSA2022-29.

It is showing Vulnerabilities because MFSA2022-30 lists CVE's for ESR 102.X and we are on 91.12.

Is there anywhere I can go to get a list of all Vulnerabilities on 91.X to show our Security team, I believe CVE-2022-36314 and CVE-2022-2505 are not present in 91.12 because they are not listed in https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2022-29/ but need evidence

Thank You,

Hello

I am looking for a way to disable the QUIC protocol in Firefox through Jamf Pro. tried by below value but its not working, anyone did the settings for Mac?

<plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>Preferences</key> <dict> <key>network.http.http3.enable</key> <dict> <key>Value</key> <false/> <key>Status</key> <string>user</string> </dict> <key>network.http.http3.enable_0rtt</key> <dict> <key>Value</key> <false/> <key>Status</key> <string>user</string> </dict> </dict> </dict> </plist>

Thanks

in our organisation i need several domainnames to be added in network.negotiate-auth.delegation-uris and network.negotiate-auth.trusted-uris, so that sso for some webapplications is working. some are allready in the list. when i make changes to the list, everything is working ok, but when i clos all mozilla windows and restart mozilla, the changes are gone.

I am installing Firefox via microsoft endpoint, and deploying multi account containers with the OMA-URI policy for extensions. (this blog page is super helpful! https://securitygeneralist.blogspot.com/2019/08/auto-installing-extensions-on-firefox.html )

The extension by default has containers for Personal, Work, Banking, Shopping.

Is there a way to automatically remove that default container list as part of the install?

Even better, is there a way to create a different default containers list through Endpoint?

Thanks

Hi All, I have been on the struggle bus lately trying to get the application handlers set properly in our GPO. I am trying to get PDF, webp, avif to open in browser, and jnlp to auto launch Java. Any help will be greatly appreciated!

{"application/pdf":{"action":3,"extensions":["pdf"]},"image/webp":{"action":3,"extensions":["webp"]},"image/avif":{"action":3,"extensions":["avif"]},"application/x-java-jnlp-file":{"action":4,"handlers":[{"name":"javaws.exe","path":"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Java\\jre-1.8\\bin\\javaws.exe"}],"extensions":["jnlp"]}}

I am looking for information regarding the support life for settings that are defined in the Preferences (Deprecated) section of the ADMX templates provided in GitHub. There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer as to when these preferences are no longer applicable to a version of Firefox. The term "Deprecated" certainly applies they're on their way to extinction. But only a small handful of preferences have been ported over to non-deprecated template settings (like Auto Update). Is there an expected version of Firefox where all these preferences are meaningless? Or will they be supported indefinitely? "Industry recommendations' from 3rd party security vendors are bloating my policies in the domain space and I can't definitively say they are 'no longer supported as of version xyz' for all these Firefox Preference settings, which happen to be about 80% of the security parameters defined by STIG and/or CIS Workbench.

We would like to install a custom search engine using Firefox policies. We have the latest version of Firefox installed. We have the latest admx files installed on our Domain Controllers. In the Policy, I go into the User -> Administrative Templates -> Mozilla -> Search and setup a search engine using Search Engine One. I then go into Default Search Engine and configure our custom search to be default. What we find is that the custom search engine never installs, so the custom search engine is not set at the default. If I manually add the custom search engine using the Search Engine Helper Add-on, I can verify that the custom search settings do indeed work. With that said, does anyone have thoughts on how to troubleshoot this issue? First, need to figure out why the custom engine isn't installing at all. Thanks.

We use Microsoft MDT for computer deployment. We have been installing the Standard version of Firefox for a long time with no problem. Recently we started using AD GPO Templates to configure firefox. To be able to configure certain settings you need to be running the ESR version. I downloaded the more recent ESR version: 102.12.0esr.msi file.

When deploying machine MDT to install Mozilla firefox I keep getting this error: Application Mozilla Firefox ESR returned an unexpected return code: 1618

This is the only application having issues and this issue only came up since I change the installation file to the ESR version.

This is the install command being used in MDT: msiexec /i "Firefoxesr.msi" /qn /norestart

I am posting here and not with MDT support, as this only started happening when I changed the installation file to the ESR version. Has anybody else had a problem deploying ESR version through MDT? Any help on how to fix?

From my point of view, the setting " What should Firefox do with other files?" has been added in the current ESR version.

"What should Firefox do with other files?" ("Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren?") . "Save files" ("Dateien speichern") . "Ask whether to open or save files" ("Fragen, ob Dateien geöffnet oder gespeichert werden sollen")

How can I control/change this setting using mozilla.cfg?

By the way:

// What should Firefox do with other files? - Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren? lockPref("applications-ask-before-handling", false);

// What should Firefox do with other files? - Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren? lockPref("applications-ask-before-handling", true);

works detectably via about:config but does not change the setting for "What should Firefox do with other files?".

We try to deploy Extension Management Settings via GPO.

Goal is to allow only whitelisted extensions, but don't block themes, dictionaries and locales.

Below find the JSON-settings deployed to the client, which should allow all themes and whitelisted extensions. Unfortunately this blocks everything except whitelisted IDs. See example screenshot with error-message, when trying to install a theme. We don't want to whitelist locales or themes, they should be still allowed for installation.

What I'm doing wrong? - Thanks for your feedback.

##############

{
"*": {
"installation_mode": "blocked",
"allowed_types": ["theme"]
},
"uBlock0@raymondhill.net": {
"installation_mode": "allowed"
},
"jid1-ZSMfwe4lCAw9oQ@jetpack": {
"installation_mode": "allowed"
}
}

We are looking to mass deploy Firefox x64 for Windows to all staff in our organization, using SCCM. I know you can set a default home page in mozilla.cfg for all users, including future users who don't yet have a profile on the computer Firefox is installed on. Is there a similar option so I can configure Firefox to always show the menu bar for all users? Preferably, another line I can add to mozilla.cfg so that I can easily copy that to all our machines? Thanks.

Hello

I am looking for a way to disable the QUIC protocol in Firefox through Intune. tried by below value but its not working, anyone did the settings in MS Intune for Windows? <enabled/> <data id="JSON" value=' {

 "network.http.http3.enable": {
   "Value": 0,
   "Status": "user"
 },

{

 "network.http.http3.enable_0rtt": {
   "Value": 0,
   "Status": "user"
 }

}'/>

Thanks

I am trying to reach an internal company website (www.gqma.drw), with a certificate chain rooted in a company certificate authority. This works fine in Chrome, and worked in Firefox on my previous computer. But i recently got a new machine, and something somewhere is not quite right. I get an error message looking like this (between the ~~~s):

~~~ Someone could be trying to impersonate the site and you should not continue.

Web sites prove their identity via certificates. Firefox does not trust www.gqma.drw because its certificate issuer is unknown, the certificate is self-signed, or the server is not sending the correct intermediate certificates.

Error code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER

View Certificate ~~~

If i click on the error code, i get these details:

~~~ https://www.gqma.drw/

Peer's Certificate issuer is not recognised.

HTTP Strict Transport Security: false HTTP Public Key Pinning: false

Certificate chain:

MIICczCCAhigAwIBAgIUcg0ZTKoxYO3E5288qtNnymZ/L6AwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIw NzEMMAoGA1UEChMDRFJXMRQwEgYDVQQLDAtJU1NAZHJ3LmNvbTERMA8GA1UEAxMI U1NETlMgQ0EwHhcNMjIwMzA5MTQxOTAwWhcNMjQwMzA4MTQxOTAwWjA5MQwwCgYD VQQKEwNEUlcxFDASBgNVBAsMC0lTU0BkcncuY29tMRMwEQYDVQQDEwoqLmdxbWEu ZHJ3MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEfXDxyLTebEuPHmneR4faNHoQ PouLPrBqOKnDOW/T+eexbAHcghiZqcQHoHW/Qo/kNQZYPhoHeMZK1ACdvnFTUaOB /zCB/DAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwEwYDVR0lBAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHAwEwDAYDVR0T AQH/BAIwADAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUvuzqIs1O1ioHT3qF+olSZ3dDseEwHwYDVR0jBBgw FoAUjGD9eMez/VkLc5nlNkg/U6dBgmUwNQYIKwYBBQUHAQEEKTAnMCUGCCsGAQUF BzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5pc3MuZHJ3L3NzZG5zMB8GA1UdEQQYMBaCCiouZ3Ft YS5kcneCCGdxbWEuZHJ3MC8GA1UdHwQoMCYwJKAioCCGHmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0cy5p c3MuZHJ3L3NzZG5zL2NybDAKBggqhkjOPQQDAgNJADBGAiEAtEj7K/C2IHMzh175 9TpPu74YktH/1WJM12zUNIioi30CIQDpLqn09bmTFDgQDkg+0YHu1YSBTlCArWYJ KUxQUa0KPQ==

MIIB3DCCAYKgAwIBAgIUeLNrkgHyp2GhO6Ee4fyvVbGaUg0wCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIw OjEMMAoGA1UEChMDRFJXMRQwEgYDVQQLDAtJU1NAZHJ3LmNvbTEUMBIGA1UEAxML SVNTIFJvb3QgQ0EwHhcNMTcwMzAxMjA0MzAwWhcNMjcwMjI3MjA0MzAwWjA6MQww CgYDVQQKEwNEUlcxFDASBgNVBAsMC0lTU0BkcncuY29tMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtJU1Mg Um9vdCBDQTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHA0IABAjg18NvaBfwKP0BC/9U Cppc1W2rfSqzsY4KCRIAubItoMyQ13zp25KjVg9IF7Uru7cWQcUMvwf4+2Gb/4m4 sFSjZjBkMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEBMB0GA1Ud DgQWBBSA3cairIJP/ooZLqrq+L9hSNwxczAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSA3cairIJP/ooZ Lqrq+L9hSNwxczAKBggqhkjOPQQDAgNIADBFAiAgvGnmTJgMosKFYuRJ7HZMuD/p ZTNapVJltFiGzKAtewIhAJMVQ72U+m7kLNRw6ej7icBQ9d+T4MuhGyJEeYeX5wR4

MIICYjCCAgigAwIBAgIUDZxs4OPknZA8SgUkWZ7EncHkYVIwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIw OjEMMAoGA1UEChMDRFJXMRQwEgYDVQQLDAtJU1NAZHJ3LmNvbTEUMBIGA1UEAxML SVNTIFJvb3QgQ0EwHhcNMTcwMzAxMjA0NDAwWhcNMjcwMjI3MjA0NDAwWjA3MQww CgYDVQQKEwNEUlcxFDASBgNVBAsMC0lTU0BkcncuY29tMREwDwYDVQQDEwhTU0RO UyBDQTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHA0IABNsaSU2QU1Z5ktRf19DaXZk6 TrPko0TPZFTSYFH9bPxVJ4guUfGnN5nZ7vQajX2NJJLZEL9TZGYSsE8RD/ftcsij ge4wgeswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGmMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEF BQcDAjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSMYP14x7P9WQtzmeU2 SD9Tp0GCZTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSA3cairIJP/ooZLqrq+L9hSNwxczA1BggrBgEF BQcBAQQpMCcwJQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmlzcy5kcncvc3NkbnMw LwYDVR0fBCgwJjAkoCKgIIYeaHR0cDovL2NlcnRzLmlzcy5kcncvc3NkbnMvY3Js MAoGCCqGSM49BAMCA0gAMEUCIBU5FNCu7ZmE7H1Oautblig4iA5JIgOO+4D/do2c pQ8IAiEAkIdZb5Doptfk1C5uofcvww3E0ZrSG98ZJ2+TW9sz4VA=

~~~

If i click 'View Certificate', i get a chain of three certificates:

1. Subject common name = *.gqma.drw, issuer common name = SSDNS CA, subject key ID = BE:EC:EA:22:CD:4E:D6:2A:07:4F:7A:85:FA:89:52:67:77:43:B1:E1
2. Subject common name = SSDNS CA, issuer common name = ISS Root CA, subject key ID = 8C:60:FD:78:C7:B3:FD:59:0B:73:99:E5:36:48:3F:53:A7:41:82:65
3. Subject common name = ISS Root CA, issuer common name = SS Root CA, subject key ID = 80:DD:C6:A2:AC:82:4F:FE:8A:19:2E:AA:EA:F8:BF:61:48:DC:31:73

If i go to Settings > Privacy & Security > View Certificates > Authorities, i can find both the SSDNS CA and ISS Root CA certificates. As far as i can tell, they are identical - i can open the certificate from 'View Certificate' and the corresponding one from the certificate manager and flip between tabs, and all the details are the same.

I am using Firefox 120.0, via a flatpak, on Ubuntu 22. I have given the flatpak access to /etc/ssl/certs, where my company's internal CA certificates are located.

To me, this seems like it should all work. The server has a certificate signed by an internal CA, which is signed by another internal CA, and both those internal CA certificates are in my certificate manager. So what is going wrong? Is there any way i can debug this?

Dear Everyone, Facing issue with deploying Configuration Profile for Extension Settings via Intune. Tried ADMX imported template with adding there "block all extensions" and allow certain ones. Worked perfect in Jamf, for Intune failing all time. We are using Firefox v.121, policies are for v.120, but I am in doubt that this is the issue. Can someone review and let me know if there any issue or may be changes? Using latest instructions https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/#extensionsettings Also here is my OMA, very easy.

OMA used ./Device/Vendor/MSFT/Policy/Config/Firefox~Policy~firefox~Extensions/ExtensionSettings

Value(string):

<enabled/> <data id="ExtensionSettings" value=' {

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "Security Test",
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["extension"]
 },
 "{bf855ead-d7c3-4c7b-9f88-9a7e75c0efdf}": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/zoom-new-scheduler/latest.xpi"
 },
   "@react-devtools": {
   "installation_mode": "allowed"
 }

}'/>

Good morning,

I'm reaching out to see if I can get some assistance with Firefox on of our network. I'm System Admin at Goodfellow AFB. I've tried searching this issues on the web and found similar issues but solutions that were recommend online have not worked for us. Yes I have uninstalled Firefox completely and installed it from scratch. I know it has something to do with autoconfig file but not sure what exactly I'm looking for. Thanks.

When looking at the ExtensionSettings page for Firefox or Chrome they both use an example that shows the registry key Software\Policies\Mozilla\Firefox\ExtensionSettings (REG_MULTI_SZ) being set to a long JSON string with every extension ID and the settings for that particular ID. For example...

{

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "Custom error message.",
   "install_sources": ["https://yourwebsite.com/*"],
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["extension"]
 },
 "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/ublock-origin/latest.xpi"
 },
 "https-everywhere@eff.org": {
   "installation_mode": "allowed"
 }

}

The problem with this method is that if I am installing an extension, and I overwrite what already exists in Software\Policies\Mozilla\Firefox\ExtensionSettings then all of those other settings get removed. So even if I am a non-malicious actor and just make a mistake with my installer I can easily delete every other extension's settings. Instead what I have to do is during install I have to read the current value of Software\Policies\Mozilla\Firefox\ExtensionSettings and then insert my extension's settings into the JSON blob.

So the examples that Firefox and Chrome provides do of course work, however they do not make very much sense to me. Why would it be formatted this way since all of those are additional key/value pairs and that is exactly what the registry excels at storing. So why put all of those into a single key/value instead of breaking them into multiple?

Additionally breaking them a part into multiple key/value pairs does work! So if instead of the example above I were to split them into multiple key value pairs it works just fine!

Software\Policies\Mozilla\Firefox\ExtensionSettings

   uBlock0@raymondhill.net
       "installation_mode": "force_installed",
       "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/ublock-origin/latest.xpi"

So knowing that this way with multiple key/value pairs works why am I bothering to ask this question at all instead of just doing it the way that makes sense to me? Well the issue is that by breaking it up into multiple key value pairs it actually overrides the other method and makes it so that all those registry settings are ignored. So it doesn't delete them but it still leaves me with nearly the exact same problem.

While I believe "my" way is superior because it uses the registry in a more common sense route, if that is not what the majority of extension developers do then it doesn't matter and I should be conforming to the other way.

As I am typing this question up I did realize just how hard/annoying it is to properly format and make it clear and digestible what the multi key/value format of the registry would look like instead of being a JSON string. So perhaps that is the reason why all the documentation puts it all as one JSON string?