Official Documentation required: Export Control Classification Number (ECCN)

My company needs to follow regulation on Export rules. I need to provide our ITAR regulation team "Vendor documentation" regarding the Export Control Classification Numb… (read more)

My company needs to follow regulation on Export rules. I need to provide our ITAR regulation team "Vendor documentation" regarding the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) for Mozilla Firefox ESR. They will not accept a blog or article. Any one from Mozilla able to provide this in an official capacity?

Asked by Michael.Klein2 1 month ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 1 month ago

in a corporate environment, using Kerberos authentication to authenticate AD user to OKTA (IdP) via Firefox

We have used Firefox in our environment for well over a year in the configuration explained here: https://help.okta.com/en-us/content/topics/directory/ad-dsso-configure-b… (read more)

We have used Firefox in our environment for well over a year in the configuration explained here: https://help.okta.com/en-us/content/topics/directory/ad-dsso-configure-browsers.htm

OKTA is our Identity provider to do Single Sign on to our SaaS applications.

today when version 118 rolled out, this functionality stopped working. Can you help me to get this working again. Chrome and Edge are not affected, so we have options, but we would really like to use Firefox.

Thanks so much for your help

Scott

Asked by Scott Voll 2 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 1 month ago

Firefox conflict with Windows HTTPS (DoH) -> Requipred DoH

When setting Windows to "Require DoH", firefox will not resolve DNS addresses, regardless of which "Enable secure DNS" setting is picked in FireFox security settings tab.… (read more)

When setting Windows to "Require DoH", firefox will not resolve DNS addresses, regardless of which "Enable secure DNS" setting is picked in FireFox security settings tab.

I expected at least "Off -- Use your default DNS resolver" to work.

If Windows is configured to just "Allow DoH", Firefox has no issues resolving DNS addresses, for any of the Firefox policy settings.

For reference, you can find the DoH policy setting in windows group policy editor, here:

gpedit.msc

Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Network -> DNS Client -> Configure DNS over HTTPS

(Have to enable it, then select Configure DoH options: Require DoH.)

you may need to issue a gpupdate /force for the setting to be picked up quickly.

Asked by s189 2 months ago

Last reply by Valentin 1 month ago

  • Solved

What is the proper format for the ExtensionSettings policy registry key/value that is used to manage browser extension settings?

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… (read more)

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?

Asked by perihwk+firefox 2 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

Intune OMA-URI extensions

I am trying trying to install the keeper extension via intune but am having trouble with the oma-uri. It looks right to me but I might be missing something. Prior to runn… (read more)

I am trying trying to install the keeper extension via intune but am having trouble with the oma-uri. It looks right to me but I might be missing something. Prior to running this I followed https://mzl.la/3vYAIYT and added the Firefox ADMX. Both run successfully but it does not add the extension. Firefox version 116.0.3

OMA-URI: ./Device/Vendor/MSFT/Policy/Config/Firefox~Policy~firefox~Extensions/ExtensionSettings

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

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": Opps, this may have been a mistake reach out to IT.",
   "install_sources":["about:addons","https://addons.mozilla.org/"],
   "installation_mode": "allowed",
   "allowed_types": ["extension" ,"theme"]
 },
 "KeeperFFStoreExtension@KeeperSecurityInc": {
   "installation_mode": "normal_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/keeper-password-manager/latest.xpi",

"default_area": "navbar"

 },

}'/>

Asked by ParisTheGreat 3 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

Issues configuring browser extensions using Intune and ADMX templates

Hi All, I am trying to block the Last Pass extension in Firefox using Intune, and the ADMX configuration setting is not working on the endpoint. I've used the templates … (read more)

Hi All,

I am trying to block the Last Pass extension in Firefox using Intune, and the ADMX configuration setting is not working on the endpoint. I've used the templates found here

https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/releases / Target Extension "support@lastpass.com"

And have tried using the imported admx template as well as a single line OMA-URI.

I've worked with Microsoft, and they see the correct settings on the device as pushed out via Intune, so they said it is not on their end. Any ideas why blocking named browser extenstions is not working? I've configured a few other settings with Intune/ADMX templates and they work.

Thanks! -Doug

Asked by dgreene3206 2 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

update extension installed with GPO

Hello, I have a plug-in installed on multiple machines using group policy. The installation source is a link to <my_add_on.xpi>. My question is regarding the upda… (read more)

Hello,

I have a plug-in installed on multiple machines using group policy. The installation source is a link to <my_add_on.xpi>. My question is regarding the updates approach. If I replace the source file with an updated version, but keeping the name/link the same. Will Firefox automatically update the plug-in? Only found brief docs here: https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings """

If you need to update the extension, you can change the name of the extension and it will be automatically updated. Extensions installed from file URLs will additional be updated when their internal version changes.

""" I don't point to a local file, but rather a URL. Does that make a difference. Or I'll have to provide the updates.json in the plug-in manifest that points to the latest version?


Thank you.

Asked by pimenov 2 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

Assistance with managing extensions on Mac OS

Hello, I am trying to manage extensions in my organization. What would be the best way to block all extensions by default and allow only certain specific extensions? I … (read more)

Hello, I am trying to manage extensions in my organization. What would be the best way to block all extensions by default and allow only certain specific extensions?

I am following the Mac OS Extension Settings Policy and adding this to a configuration profile, but I am not sure how to manipulate it to suit my needs.

What would be the best way to go about this, and what would the plist file look like?

Thanks!

Asked by tkozlofski 2 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

Firefox ESR 115.2.0 Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead - No advanced Button

Hello Guys, in our network we have several Fritzbox Routers which we remote administrate. If we connect to the routers with Firefox V115.2.0 we get a warning message - b… (read more)

Hello Guys,

in our network we have several Fritzbox Routers which we remote administrate. If we connect to the routers with Firefox V115.2.0 we get a warning message - because it´s a Fritzbox self-signed certificate and cannot be validated. No Problem - everything okay with the message. But in Firefox 115.2.0 there is no advanced button that lets you go futher to connect to the website. With Version 102.14.0 ESR the advanced button is there. The webinterface works fine with Edge and Chrome (with warning but with advanced button to continue)

https://imgur.com/2ykzjY9

https://imgur.com/5LyIwzt

Is this a bug?

Best Regards, Michael

Asked by michael.reiter 2 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

https only website exception through GPO

Hello, we have set the "dom.security.https_only_mode" setting through Windows Group Policy. Is there a way to add websites as exceptions, also through Group Policy? Tha… (read more)

Hello, we have set the "dom.security.https_only_mode" setting through Windows Group Policy.

Is there a way to add websites as exceptions, also through Group Policy?

Thank you.

Asked by Kranenburg 2 months ago

GPO Search Engine: spaces replaced with pluses instead of %20

Good day. I have created a custom Search Engine via a GPO. The search engine is added to Firefox without issue. However, when a user enters in a search with a space,… (read more)

Good day.

I have created a custom Search Engine via a GPO.

The search engine is added to Firefox without issue. However, when a user enters in a search with a space, Firefox replaces the space with a "plus" instead of a %20. The search engine does not know how to interpret a "plus," so the search engine returns 'no results found.' I use the same search string in a Chrome GPO, and it works as Chrome replaces a space with a %20. Is there a way I can tweak the Search engine GPO to use %20 instead of a "plus" for a space?

Thanks.

Peter

Asked by peterc5 3 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

Security issues with access to IP adress

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 - ther… (read more)

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

Asked by firefox2030 5 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

  • Solved

Problem with ExtensionSettings

Hello I have installed german Firefox Version 117.0 (Build-ID 20230824132758) on Windows 10. The following ExtensionSettings policy works as expected. The addons ublock … (read more)

Hello I have installed german Firefox Version 117.0 (Build-ID 20230824132758) on Windows 10.

The following ExtensionSettings policy works as expected. The addons ublock and TreeTabs are both installed automatically.


{

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "My Message",
   "install_sources": ["https://addons.mozilla.org/"],
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["locale", "extension"]
 },
 "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/ublock-origin/latest.xpi",
   "default_area": "navbar"
 },
 "TreeTabs@jagiello.it": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/tree-tabs/latest.xpi"
 }

}


But I don't want TreeTabs to be installed automatically on all workstations. So I want to change installation_mode to allowed.


{

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "My Message",
   "install_sources": ["https://addons.mozilla.org/"],
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["locale", "extension"]
 },
 "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/ublock-origin/latest.xpi",
   "default_area": "navbar"
 },
 "TreeTabs@jagiello.it": {
   "installation_mode": "allowed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/tree-tabs/latest.xpi"
 }

}


But with this setting I'm unable to install it manually from https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ The message "An unexpected error occurred during installation." and a popup with the "blocked_install_message" "My Message" is displayed.

The same error occurs without the line (and the comma) "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/tree-tabs/latest.xpi"

I don't know why this does not work. Please help. Thank you.

Asked by ewomy 2 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 2 months ago

  • Solved

Site not loading when using ESR due to CSP

One of our vendors websites does not load under Firefox ESR, with errors in the console pointing to CSP. Error is: Content Security Policy: The page's settings blocked th… (read more)

One of our vendors websites does not load under Firefox ESR, with errors in the console pointing to CSP. Error is: Content Security Policy: The page's settings blocked the loading of a resource at inline ("default-src")

However if I load the site under the normal Firefox release, it displays correctly. When looking at errors in console, it is showing 3 errors for CSP, however it does not stop the site from working correctly. Content-Security-Policy: The page's settings blocked the loading of a resources at https://..... ("connect-src") or ("img-src")

The site is https://app.approvalmax.com If you get the login screen then the site is working otherwise just getting a green background when it is not working.

I am unsure why ESR and RR versions are behaving differently in this case. Using the latest versions of each.

Asked by chris.foster1 3 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 3 months ago

Firefox polices deployments from Intune

Dears, Based on your documentation on https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings I am not able to successfully deliver setting … (read more)

Dears, Based on your documentation on https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings I am not able to successfully deliver setting to firefox app via Intune OMA-URI. Can you check this on your side and help?

ExtensionSettings [./Device/Vendor/MSFT/Policy/Config/Firefox~Policy~firefox~Extensions/ExtensionSettings] Error -2016281112


Summary Session ID 68f1c5af4fb3404789cf Resource ID Not available Extension Microsoft_Intune_DeviceSettings Content PolicyReportSettingDetailBlade Error code 404

Thank you very much

Asked by Michael 3 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 3 months ago

  • Solved

I can’t change the min and max TLS versions with either policies.json or mozilla.cfg

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 lo… (read more)

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!

Asked by Terwassolam21434 3 months ago

Answered by jscher2000 - Support Volunteer 3 months ago

A few questions re: policies.json

Hi there, I'm playing with policies.json on Linux/Ubuntu now, trying to improve my knowledge of Firefox customization through different policies and user interaction aft… (read more)

Hi there,

I'm playing with policies.json on Linux/Ubuntu now, trying to improve my knowledge of Firefox customization through different policies and user interaction after the Firefox deployment. I added a custom bookmark and extension, which show and install okay when I restart the browser. But when I delete them from within the browser and restart Firefox, they show up again. To avoid this, I can delete /etc/firefox/policies/policies.json after the Firefox deployment. Hence my questions:

  • Is the deletion of the JSON file after the Firefox deployment a reasonable option at all?
  • If yes, how can I automate the process silently, without user interaction?
  • If no, what would be your advice to let users modify the browser settings like removing extension(s) or bookmark(s) set in policies.json so that they do not reappear after the browser restart?

Thank you! Rustam

Asked by ralhas 3 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 3 months ago

Why do SanitizeOnShutdown and Preferences look different from other policies on the Enterprise Policies page?

Are these supposed to look different, or am I just doing something wrong? In the image I included here, SanitizeOnShutdown and Preferences look different from FirefoxHome… (read more)

Are these supposed to look different, or am I just doing something wrong? In the image I included here, SanitizeOnShutdown and Preferences look different from FirefoxHome and look incorrect. I removed other policies to make this simpler, but all of the other policies with multiple policy values look just like FirefoxHome. It appears that SanitizeOnShutdown is at least working since my history is indeed getting cleared on shutdown, but I'm unsure whether this actually works when I set these to the settings they should be since they should all be false other than Locked. Am I doing something wrong here or are these two policies supposed to look like that for some reason? Thank you in advance for the help!

``` {

   "policies": {

"DisablePrivateBrowsing": true,

       "SanitizeOnShutdown": {
           "Cache": false,
           "Cookies": false,
           "Downloads": false,
           "FormData": false,
           "History": true,
           "Sessions": false,
           "SiteSettings": false,
           "OfflineApps": false,

"Locked": true

       },
       "FirefoxHome": {
           "TopSites": false,
           "Search": false,
           "SponsoredTopSites": false,
           "Pocket": false,
           "SponsoredPocket": false,
           "Highlights": false,
           "Snippets": false,
           "Locked": true
       }

"Preferences": {

   	    "browser.contentblocking.category": {
   			"Value": "strict",
   			"Status": "locked"
   		},
   		"extensions.htmlaboutaddons.recommendations.enabled": {
   		    "Value": false,
   		    "Status": false
   		}

}

   }

} ```

Asked by Terwassolam21434 3 months ago

Last reply by Terwassolam21434 3 months ago

  • Solved

Unable to set multiple ExtensionSettings through imported admx

I am using the intune preview feature which allows you to import admx/adml instead of using the custom injection method. Everything works far better then with the inject… (read more)

I am using the intune preview feature which allows you to import admx/adml instead of using the custom injection method. Everything works far better then with the injection method, except for one settings:

ExtensionSettings this setting is working when I have only one setting set (ex):

{"someplugin@test.com": { "installation_mode" : "allowed" }}

If I add a second line to the entry:

{"someotherplugin@test.com":{ "installation_mode" : "allowed"}}

I understand this is a new feature, but if I had the correct format that would work for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Mozilla\Firefox\ExtensionSettings to allow two plugins to work I belive I shouldn't have any issue getting the admx feature to do this, I even tried manually editing the registry setting and it breaks whenever I add the second line to it.

Asked by robert.deed 3 months ago

Answered by robert.deed 3 months ago

  • Archived

How can I allow certain host permissions to each user machine installation as an organization admin

I have one extension to be installed on the enterprise network machines. There are host permissions required to access All websites data. How can I, as an Admin, enable… (read more)

I have one extension to be installed on the enterprise network machines. There are host permissions required to access All websites data. How can I, as an Admin, enable this host permissions for the installation ?

Asked by Morankar 7 months ago

Last reply by Mike Kaply 3 months ago