Firefox for Enterprise Community Forum

I am trying to manage Firefox for company devices via Intune and would like to know if there is a way to uninstall all extensions/add-ons besides one or two approved ones.

I have been able to import the Firefox AMDX into Intune and have made a policy to install uBlock (which works without issue) and I can uninstall specific extensions/add-ins via their Extension ID (also without issue), however I can't see a way to uninstall all extensions. If I try and put a wildcard in the Extension ID field, nothing is affected.

We have a large number of devices with their own user-installed extensions so auditing this and then updating a policy manually with specific extension IDs may be quite painful.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"
}
}

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?

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.

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.

Hello

I am looking for a way to disable the QUIC protocol in Firefox by GPO. I got your latest AMDX templates but I don't see the option to modify network.http.http3.enabled.

Either an AMDX template with this option or a Registry will do the trick

Thanks

Hello, in Firefox browser, my organization has always blocked all extensions except for ones we allow through OMA-URI ./Device/Vendor/MSFT/Policy/Config/Firefox~Policy~firefox~Extensions/ExtensionSettings.

About a month ago this stopped working and our end users can now install any extension in the Firefox browser that they choose, without approval, creating a security risk.

When checking in about:policies, there is a policy error: Unable to parse JSON for ExtensionSettings. We have checked with Microsoft Intune support and they verified that the policy looks to be configured and targeted correctly.

Here is a snippet of our JSON, this is a test policy where microsoft support had us remove "about:addons" from the 'install sources'. Both test and production policies are not working.

<enabled/>
<data id="ExtensionSettings" value='
{
    "*": {
        "blocked_install_message": "Contact Service Line",
        "install_sources": ["https://addons.mozilla.org/*"],
        "installation_mode": "blocked",
        "allowed_types": ["extension"]
    },
    "cloudmetering@snowsoftware.com": {
        "installation_mode": "force_installed",
        "install_url": "file:///C:/Program Files/Snow Software/Inventory/Agent/FFCloudmetering.xpi"
    },
    "fpdlpffext2@forcepoint.com": {
        "installation_mode": "force_installed",
        "install_url": "file:///C:/Program Files/Websense/Websense Endpoint/winFFext.xpi"
    },
    "jid1-5AULKXLKGyjuLQ@jetpack": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "abb@amazon.com": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "ciscowebexstart1@cisco.com": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "linkedinConverted@firefox-extension": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "{7bc53591-5218-45a0-b572-4366979097fd}": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "queryamoid@kaply.com": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },
    "jid1-93WyvpgvxzGATw@jetpack": {
        "installation_mode": "allowed"
    },

Is this a bug? Or something wrong with our configuration? Has firefox changed the requirements of the extensionsettings OMA-URI?

Thanks for any help in advance.

Hello,

Firefox 102.6.0esr (x64) Firefox 108.2.0 (x64)

after implementing the bookmarks (JSON) setting by GPO policy, it turns out that an entry for Bookmarks is created in the registry and not ManagedBookmarks, which causes bookmarks not to appear in the bookmarks bar. When I manually rename a registry entry from Bookmarks to ManagedBookmarks, the bookmarks appear properly. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong or if there really is a problem reported by me.

Yours sincerely Bart

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"]}}

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.

Hello, ever since we moved endpoints from Firefox ESR 91.13 to 102.3, it has become impossible to play any media with Firefox.

No video will play in youtube, for instance (it just loads endlessly as if it would start, but it doesn't).

Can't use radio websites either. Anything with a "play" button (video or sound) does nothing.

This has been tested with a clean profile, a clean install, after allowing autoplay in the settings.

Is there any info on what exactly changed between ESR 91 and 102 that might explain this ? There has been no system change, If I reinstall 91 instead it works again as usual.

No issues anywhere else on the endpoints (Edge, Windows), this is on Windows 10 if it makes any difference.

Tanks for any help on this.

Environment: Windows 10 22h2 clients, latest ESR build, Domain servers Windows 2016 or better.

So I followed the guide https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings and tried to set up the config. We are using the latest ESR build but after the settings is applied I still dont have working extensions.

Here is the code

{
     "*": {
           "blocked_install_message": "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"
     },
     "{d10d0bf8-f5b5-c8b4-a8b2-2b9879e08c5d}": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/adblock-plus/latest.xpi"
           },
     "ciscowebexstart1@cisco.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/cisco-webex-extension/latest.xpi"
     },
     "{d0210f13-a970-4f1e-8322-0f76ec80adde}": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/instapaper-official/latest.xpi"
           },
     "appstore-mini@feedly.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/feedly_mini/latest.xpi"
           },
     "extension@one-tab.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/onetab/latest.xpi"
           },
     "support@lastpass.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/lastpass-password-manager/latest.xpi"
           },
     "sweb2pdfextension.4@kofax.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/kofax-pdf-create-4-0/latest.xpi"
           },
     "Aternity-WebExt-12.1.4@aternity.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           },
     "its_addons_wrap@onelog.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://extensions.onelog.com/extension/onelog.xpi"
     }

}

I have placed the settings in HKCU but also tried in HKLM and there has been no difference. in each case I get Unable to parse JSON for Extensionsettings when checking the about:policies section and when I look at the registry I see the REG_MULTI_SZ value but when i click on it to read it I get another error message. Cannot edit ExtensionSettings: Error reading the values contents.

I tried re-entering the code and tried not listing the install URLs and even tried only listing 1 item. I haven't been able to get past this error so any help would be greatly appreciated.

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 an admin of some servers, i modify the proxy settings of firefox in a GPO, and it works, but now ont thing is that users can modify the settings of "No proxy for" in Connection Settings, then add the urls, then users can access to any web site which they want to, is there a method to disable this? 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?

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