All Products Support Forum

We realized that our Firefox ESR 91.4.1 (installed on couple of hundreds of PCs) tries to connect to the IP 34.107.221.82 which is marked as high risk. How is it possible? What exactly wants Firefox to do with this IP.

It is strange that connection to this IP goes directly and be blocked on our corporate firewall. Why does it go directly even if proxy is enabled and works. ?

Kind regards Vladimir

There is a certificate for an internal website that FireFox is saying is not valid/secure and it makes you add an exception. However, if you use IE, Edge or Chrome it loads fine with the valid CA Certificate. I've cleared all data (cache/etc...) and it hasn't fixed it. Hopefully someone has a fix for this?

Getting "SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER" for the certificate and its saying:

   Peer’s Certificate issuer is not recognized.
   HTTP Strict Transport Security: false
   HTTP Public Key Pinning: false

FireFox Version: 91.8.0esr (64-bit) Operating System: Windows 10 (64-bit)

Hi,

I got an issue that bookmarks are saved in the library, but this doesn't reflect on the Bookmark toolbar.

I have already removed the entire profile, did a reinstall .. nothing seems to reset it. When I perform a backup, the entries are also in the backup json.

I hope somebody can help, this started happening recently it seems.

Thanks in advance!

I try to disable the transition to fullscreen by following the steps. But after restart the Firefox ESR (waterfox), the rule don't apply. The rule:

/* Minimize fullscreen transition time */
#navigator-toolbox[fullscreenShouldAnimate] {
    transition: 0ms !important;
}

toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets

As Chromium has been announcing, version 98 removed support for TLS 1.0/1.1. I know Mozilla has extended support for TLS 1.0/1.1 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Other browsers did the same.

I’m curious if there is an official statement on a target end date for TLS 1.0/1.1 in Firefox Extended Support release. While the warnings show up, “Connection not secure. This page uses weak encryption”, can we expect Firefox ESR to stop this displaying websites using TLS 1.0/1.1?

What I’m hoping to avoid is a surprise. Thank you for your time, and I really do appreciate this community!

I need to set the max TLS version to 1.3 and the min version to 1.2 on my shstems. The max and min TLS versions are set to 4 and 3 by default in about:config. If I use lockPref(“security.tls.version.max”,”3”), it is still 4 in about:config for some reason. If I set the min version to 2, it is still 3. This also doesn’t work if I use “SSLVersionMin”: “tls1.2” how can I fix this issue? Thank you in advance!

Hello,

I'm trying to deploy Firefox with several languages.

I followed the guide on [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/deploying-firefox-language-packs].

Everything work fine until I set up ExtensionSettings policy. This policy hide and block languages menu.

After scratching my head for a while, I finally figured out how to do it. I would to like to know if an easier way to whitelist all locales and dictionaries. I would like to only control the extensions.

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

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "Blocked by your administrator.",
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["extensions", "dictionary", "locale"]
 },
 "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/ublock-origin/latest.xpi"
 },

"qwantcomforfirefox@jetpack": {

   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/3658805/latest.xpi"

}, "langpack-en-CA@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-en-GB@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-en-US@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-es-AR@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-es-CL@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-es-ES@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-es-MX@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-fr@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-pt-BR@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

}, "langpack-pt-PT@firefox.mozilla.org": {

 "installation_mode": "allowed"

} }'/>

Thank you

Hello,

We want to run Firefox in our environment which is constantly scanned by a security scanner, and deducts points for applications which have a vulnerability that has an available patch, but the patch has not been installed. These are on shared Windows terminal servers. Firefox is one of two browsers, Edge being the other one.

If users do not launch firefox at least once, then Firefox never gets updated.

Yes, we have the background update service installed, but it sets itself to manual, and if I try to start it, it simply gives the error "error 1: incorrect function"

How can we configure Firefox 115ESR to be able to run this service automatically, check for updates, and install, without a user on a particular terminal server ever having launched the application once?

Good morning,

Can you please answer some questions regarding the Rapid Risk Assessment tool that is available at the following link:

https://infosec.mozilla.org/guidelines/risk/rapid_risk_assessment.html

1. Will any information input into the tool be hosted within the United Kingdom's Servers? 2. Can you please clarify if any information submitted to the RRA toll is retained on your Servers? 3. Is there the option to configure the tool so that no information submitted is retained after the session has terminated.

Kind Regards,

Mark Gormley.

Hi All,

I have recently been enhaciing our security posture and have started sorting out our browser extensions, however I seem to be having errors allowing 2 extensions

• 1Password; and
• Firefox Multi Containers.

This is my json:

{ "*": { "blocked_install_message": "version 0.4 - Addon or Extension is not approved. Please submit a ticket to Help Desk if you need access to this extension.", "install_sources": ["https://addons.mozilla.org/"], "installation_mode": "blocked" }, "{bc8367b6-d946-484e-8da6-37691f23ee64}": { "installation_mode": "allowed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/1password-x-password-manager/latest.xpi" }, "{2a28e7e4-64c9-4e7f-81fb-0475af840c0f}": { "installation_mode": "allowed", "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/multi-account-containers/latest.xpi" } }

I have tried the obvious and removed the {} from both extensions, however still having troubles.

Is someone able to point me in the right direction?

I recently deployed Mozilla Firefox 102.4 ESR here in our environment expecting that when a new version is released Firefox would automatically update on clients computers. Well today I noticed at a new release is out but isn't automatically updating on end users workstations. Does Firefox ESR not automatically update?

Version: Firefox ESR 102.9.0 (64-bit) - Windows 10 Enterprise 22H2

Customers have been complaining for about 6 months that they can no longer drag and drop email attachments from Outlook (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019 - Exchange) into a Help Desk formula. I tested dragging from Outlook desktop and from the web version.

Drag and Drop works when using Edge and Chrome.

This is not a major issue, since customers can use the other browsers, but since they would prefer to use Firefox, a fix would really be appreciated.  :-)

In Supernova (v115) on Windows 11, when I view a message by double-clicking it to open it in a new window, I can set the Mail Toolbar to visible, then right click on it and select Customize. In previous versions I would put large icon/text button up there for Reply, Reply All, Forward, Print, and Delete. Those buttons don't appear to be available in Supernova for this toolbar.

Some of them appear to be in a fixed area as buttons with text beside the icon, and this area does not appear to have any customization available. For example, I don't use the Junk and Archive buttons, so if this "button area" must remain visible in this position, I'd like to be able to customize which of these buttons are visible.

My real preference would be to not have these buttons appear where they are now (to the right of the FROM: info), but instead to be able to have them in the Mail Toolbar at the top of the window as I could in the past. See attached screenshot for clarification of the Mail Toolbar->Customize window that doesn't currently allow for Reply, Reply All, Forward, Print and Delete to be added to the top Mail Toolbar.

Hello,

I am managing Firefox for a very large organization. We have several extension that we deploy using registry keys and we don't allow users to install additional addons. However, since version 102.3 I noticed some extensions that are present on the machine as .xpi files, but should not install unless a specific application is also present, are also being activated. They are enabled in the add-on manager, the information is present in the "extensions.json" and "extension-preferences.json" files. This should not happen. Is there any way to prevent the activation of these files?

Thank you!

Hi,

i'm running Firefox on +70 Windows 10 PCs in three labs in a university. I've applied a computer configuration GPO with AppAutoUpdate enabled, BackgroundAppUpdate enabled and DisableAppUpdate disabled to my PCs, but it looks like i don't get automatic updates. In my labs i see some workstations have Firefox 108.0.1, but most workstations still have Firefox 107.0.1...

As my users can switch between workstations and labs, this leads to the annoying 'older version' message box when a user worked on a PC which already got the update and later uses another PC which didn't get the update. The users are also forced to create a 'new' profile then, which is quite problematic because of the size of the roaming profiles.

Any hints?

This might be a simple question. Does Firefox ESR still supports NTLM v1 ? Can we still add the value "network.negotiate-auth.delegation-uris" in preference. Does that enabled NTLM v1. Is there any document or release notes that states Firefox is disabling this setting from Firefox 78 and later. Some how I am not able to find it in release notes.

Hello, I am trying to manage Firefox Extension using "Extension Setting" via Intune. Source: https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings I am testing below JSON for testing. <enabled/> <data id="ExtensionSettings" value=' {

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "Not Allowed contact HelpDesk.",
   "install_sources": ["https://www.example.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"
 },
 "jetpack-extension@dashlane.com": {
   "installation_mode": "allowed",
   "install_url": "https://prod.extensions.dashlane.com/downloads/firefox/dashlane-latest-fx.xpi"
 }

}'/>

When deployed to test devices, all extension previously installed get removed and Ublock get installed, seem like working as intended but when I try to install any "Allowed" I get the block installed message. I see no error in "about:policies". I don't know where else to look for why its getting blocked?

Any help will be much appreciated.

Dear Team, Our application is accessible on Firefox v101.0.1. But recently we have upgraded our desktops with Firefox v112.0.1. The same application accessible on Firefox 101.0.1 is not able to accessible on v112.0.1.

The error code we could see on browser is SEC_ERROR+PKCS11_GENERAL_ERROR. We have already raised a case with HTTP support team but they have suggested to check at browser level. We had also collected traces from firefox but unable to upload the same. Kindly help here at the earliest. Thanks, Shruti Fegade

I have seen many references to this problem that Mozilla does not seem to want to fix.

I have to log in to my (remote) server regulary using the server IP address - there is not a domain name.

Every time (cookies/history always cleared on exit) it presents the message "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" and then have to click advanced then accept the risk. Under previous versions I use, this could be stored so you do not have to go thrugh this process EVERY time on logging in to the server.

Everyone knows you can NOT assign a security certificate to an IP address so why does Mozilla not take this into consideration?

Will they change this in future versions?

Is there a work around (no config changes seem to work or chrome changes)

rgds JR UK