This forum is a discussion about improving the "Unable to access secure (HTTPS) sites in Firefox 43" article. If you'd like to participate, please register.

If you need help with Firefox, please ask a question.

Is this article still needed?

  • 6 Replies
  • Last reply by AliceWyman
  1. AliceWyman 5189 posts
    Report Abuse

    I have a revision pending to remove the warning for WinXP/Vista since sha-1 signed installers are now available for Firefox 49 - see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/get-latest-version-firefox-windows-xp-vista/discuss/6770

    I was wondering if this article is still needed. If it also affects more recent Firefox versions (44 and above) then "43" should be removed from the title.

    I have a revision pending to remove the warning for WinXP/Vista since sha-1 signed installers are now available for Firefox 49 - see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/get-latest-version-firefox-windows-xp-vista/discuss/6770 I was wondering if this article is still needed. If it also affects more recent Firefox versions (44 and above) then "43" should be removed from the title.
  2. jscher2000 482 posts
    Report Abuse

    On the forum, at least one user reported it in Firefox 44. Turned out it was due to malware MITM. So the article could be useful until all the malware is updated.

    On the forum, at least one user reported it in Firefox 44. Turned out it was due to malware MITM. So the article could be useful until all the malware is updated.
  3. AliceWyman 5189 posts
    Report Abuse

    jscher2000 said

    On the forum, at least one user reported it in Firefox 44. Turned out it was due to malware MITM. So the article could be useful until all the malware is updated.

    Thanks for the reply. I asked because these links indicate that the problem was resolved in Firefox 43.0.4: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/01/06/man-in-the-middle-interfering-with-increased-security/ Bug 1236975 Re-enable SHA-1 Certificates https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/43.0.4/releasenotes/

    How was this article useful for the person who was unable to access secure sites in Firefox 44? Thanks again.

    ''jscher2000 [[#post-14443|said]]'' <blockquote> On the forum, at least one user reported it in Firefox 44. Turned out it was due to malware MITM. So the article could be useful until all the malware is updated. </blockquote> Thanks for the reply. I asked because these links indicate that the problem was resolved in Firefox 43.0.4: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/01/06/man-in-the-middle-interfering-with-increased-security/ [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1236975 Bug 1236975] Re-enable SHA-1 Certificates https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/43.0.4/releasenotes/ How was this article useful for the person who was unable to access secure sites in Firefox 44? Thanks again.
  4. jscher2000 482 posts
    Report Abuse

    AliceWyman said

    How was this article useful for the person who was unable to access secure sites in Firefox 44?

    I think I imagined this article was broader than it is. I see now it just suggests an update... not useful for the malware situations.

    Another user with a Fx44 user agent who reported having this problem on the forum could have encountered a problem with how they did their upgrade (default value for the preference not updated), or they [or something like Advanced SystemCare] might have restored a backup prefs.js. One such report wouldn't justify keeping an expanded version of this article.

    I have seen one or two recent threads where a user somehow had a non-default value for the security.pki.sha1_enforcement_level preference so that instead of a warning (yellow/orange triangle padlock icon) they were blocked from the site. This might have been caused by following a general security advice article or by an extension. Either way, it's probably too obscure to justify revising this article unless there are MANY reports.

    ''AliceWyman [[#post-14447|said]]'' <blockquote> How was this article useful for the person who was unable to access secure sites in Firefox 44? </blockquote> I think I imagined this article was broader than it is. I see now it just suggests an update... not useful for the malware situations. Another user with a Fx44 user agent who reported having this problem on the forum could have encountered a problem with how they did their upgrade (default value for the preference not updated), or they [or something like Advanced SystemCare] might have restored a backup prefs.js. One such report wouldn't justify keeping an expanded version of this article. I have seen one or two recent threads where a user somehow had a non-default value for the '''security.pki.sha1_enforcement_level''' preference so that instead of a warning (yellow/orange triangle padlock icon) they were blocked from the site. This might have been caused by following a general security advice article or by an extension. Either way, it's probably too obscure to justify revising this article unless there are MANY reports.
    Modified by jscher2000 on
  5. AliceWyman 5189 posts
    Report Abuse

    Thanks again.

    Do you (or anyone else) still think this article is useful or should it be archived?

    Thanks again. Do you (or anyone else) still think this article is useful or should it be archived?
  6. jscher2000 482 posts
    Report Abuse

    I don't feel a need to preserve this specific article. I think the SEC_ERROR_CERT_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM_DISABLED error code is so rare that search should be sufficient to find earlier advice.

    I don't feel a need to preserve this specific article. I think the SEC_ERROR_CERT_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM_DISABLED error code is so rare that search should be sufficient to find earlier advice.
  7. AliceWyman 5189 posts
    Report Abuse

    jscher2000 said

    I don't feel a need to preserve this specific article. I think the SEC_ERROR_CERT_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM_DISABLED error code is so rare that search should be sufficient to find earlier advice.

    Thanks, I've archived the article.

    ''jscher2000 [[#post-14482|said]]'' <blockquote> I don't feel a need to preserve this specific article. I think the SEC_ERROR_CERT_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM_DISABLED error code is so rare that search should be sufficient to find earlier advice. </blockquote> Thanks, I've archived the article.