X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.
Your Firefox is out of date and may contain a security risk! Upgrade Firefox

Support Forum

How Wrong Is This Answer To 'Blocked Redirect'?

Posted

I don't like the message that Firefox has prevented redirection and sought a way to switch it off.

These forums provided a (supposedly) definitive answer.

But Just how wrong is it:

Here's where it is at: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/890333

and there it says: The setting in "Firefox > Preferences > Advanced > General" is meant as an accessibility feature, as you can see by the label of that section, so that people with disabilities or people who use screen readers do not get confused and is not meant as a safety protection to stop redirecting.

Quote: "...not meant as a safety protection to stop redirecting..."

But it provides a link to: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/advanced-settings-browsing-network-updates-encryption?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=Options+window+-+Advanced+panel#General_tab

Which clearly says:

Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page: When this option is enabled, Firefox will prevent websites from redirecting you to another page, or automatically reloading.

Quote: "....will prevent websites from redirecting..."


 Seems contradictory to me. I am going to switch it off (uncheck the  box) and see what happens. Because it seems to me that I only get smooth net operation when I (repeatedly, annoyingly) 'allow' these redirects.
 If I'm right and that Q & A are misleading I think they should be removed - you'll note the question is locked at the moment and can't be amended but just sits there with its erroneous message (according to me ).

Chosen solution

Actually, the volunteers on this forum improvise a lot, so please don't take any of these posts as "definitive." The Knowledge Base articles are more reliable, but are somewhat simplified and can't address every detail.

I have read in some posts here that the effect of the checkbox is limited because it targets only one of the several ways that pages can redirect/reload, particularly using JavaScript. So the text in the article might need an asterisk or parenthetical mentioning that.

Read this answer in context 5

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • Next Generation Java Plug-in 10.25.2 for Mozilla browsers
  • NPRuntime Script Plug-in Library for Java(TM) Deploy
  • Shockwave Flash 11.8 r800
  • GEPlugin
  • Google Update
  • Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape 11.0.03
  • Google Updater pluginhttp://pack.google.com/
  • Picasa plugin
  • The QuickTime Plugin allows you to view a wide variety of multimedia content in Web pages. For more information, visit the QuickTime Web site.
  • Version 1.8.0.0
  • Google Talk Plugin Video Accelerator version:0.1.43.5
  • wpidetector
  • Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in for Mozilla browsers
  • DRM Netscape Network Object
  • Npdsplay dll
  • DRM Store Netscape Plugin
  • Windows Multimedia Services DRM Store Plug-In

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:22.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/22.0

More Information

jscher2000
  • Top 10 Contributor
2368 solutions 20966 answers

Chosen Solution

Actually, the volunteers on this forum improvise a lot, so please don't take any of these posts as "definitive." The Knowledge Base articles are more reliable, but are somewhat simplified and can't address every detail.

I have read in some posts here that the effect of the checkbox is limited because it targets only one of the several ways that pages can redirect/reload, particularly using JavaScript. So the text in the article might need an asterisk or parenthetical mentioning that.

cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
10762 solutions 96861 answers

Some servers may use multiple redirects and also in case of JavaScript allowing blocked redirect may not work properly in some cases.

The KB article is too simplified in my opinion and doesn't accurately address all possible cases.

  • Bug 685496 - (redirect-warn) Tracking bug for enhancements and bugs with "Warn Me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page" feature and the corresponding "Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page" information bar
  • Bug 443254 - Bad wording for Refresh/redirect setting in the Options

Please DO NOT comment in bug reports: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html

Jam3sK 0 solutions 2 answers

First, this problem is marked "Solved", in what possible way is "Oh, well, we can't provide a DIFINITIVE answer" any sort of "solution"?

It's dismissive, and rude. That's what it is.

And I am having this problem CONSTANTLY now.

When clicking on a link in my gMail account, when shopping online, and pretty much anything I want to do online.

No website is immune to this scourge.

Why can't we whitelist and blacklist sites for this? And why can't we at least TURN IT OFF?

Mozilla is turning into Microsoft. Giveth with one hand, Taketh away with the other.

First you removed Javascript and Java controlls from Prefrences, now you're deciding for me what webpages can and cannot do. This is not acceptable!

It's enough to move me out of Firefox.

I've attached a screenshot of me getting this message when confirming my email account with Mozilla.

cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
10762 solutions 96861 answers

Helpful Reply

Note that Firefox 3 versions already had this accessibility setting to block redirects, so it isn't something new.
You can enable or disable it in Tools > Options > Advanced > General
This setting should be disabled b default, so if it became enabled for you then other (security) software or an extension must have done this.

The Firefox developers leave details as implementing a whitelist or blacklist to extension developers as you can't put every possible feature in Firefox.

Jam3sK 0 solutions 2 answers

Helpful Reply

Doh! I'm blind!

I must have looked at that a thousand times, just never READ it. (-_~)

Thanks!

As far as features go, whitelists seems like a no-brainer. To me anyway.