Windows 10 reached EOS (end of support) on October 14, 2025. If you are on Windows 10, see this article.

Hilfe durchsuchen

Vorsicht vor Support-Betrug: Wir fordern Sie niemals auf, eine Telefonnummer anzurufen, eine SMS an eine Telefonnummer zu senden oder persönliche Daten preiszugeben. Bitte melden Sie verdächtige Aktivitäten über die Funktion „Missbrauch melden“.

Weitere Informationen

Does Firefox address autofill fill in inputs that are hidden with CSS? If so, should it?

  • 4 Antworten
  • 1 hat dieses Problem
  • 200 Aufrufe
  • Letzte Antwort von regularmike

I ran into an issue today where a honeypot field in a form I created was populated by the Firefox address autofill feature. This was causing a form submission to be rejected for a human user who was trying to register on my website. The field was a normal input element of type "text" but the containing div was hidden with CSS. When I tested the form with Chrome and Edge's address autofill feature it didn't populate it. Is there a reason this behavior is different in Firefox? Does it also fill in inputs of type "hidden?"

I ran into an issue today where a honeypot field in a form I created was populated by the Firefox address autofill feature. This was causing a form submission to be rejected for a human user who was trying to register on my website. The field was a normal input element of type "text" but the containing div was hidden with CSS. When I tested the form with Chrome and Edge's address autofill feature it didn't populate it. Is there a reason this behavior is different in Firefox? Does it also fill in inputs of type "hidden?"

Alle Antworten (4)

Perhaps you're right. You can read some discussions about it under these bug reports:

There are some interesting points made in the first report. "Hidden" is indeed hard to define. However, not filling an input that appears to be hidden seems a lot safer than filling it. If there is a CSS rule to hide an input or its parent element I wish it would just err on the side of caution and not fill it like the other clients seem to.

That is certainly a point one could add to one of the relevant bug reports.

Good idea. Done. This was resolved for me by using a name that's unrelated to address information for my honeypot field.