• Solved
  • Archived

Can I set Multi Account Containers default containers with endpoint deployment?

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:/… (read more)

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

Asked by Chris 1 year ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 1 year ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

How to disable QUIC http3 in Firefow either by Windows Registry editor o by AMDX template

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.ena… (read more)

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

Asked by rmirandacr 1 year ago

Answered by rmirandacr 1 year ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Allowed Extension is getting removed.

Hello, I am trying to manage Firefox Extension using "Extension Setting" via Intune. Source: https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensions… (read more)

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.

Asked by bluekind12 1 year ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 1 year ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

network.negotiate-auth content changes are deleted after restart mozilla

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 webappl… (read more)

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.

Asked by bonami 1 year ago

Answered by bonami 1 year ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Group Policy Templates / Preferences (Deprecated)

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. Th… (read more)

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.

Asked by rott3nhippi3 1 year ago

Answered by TyDraniu 1 year ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Firefox Policies

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 J… (read more)

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"
}
}

Asked by Mario.Daub 12 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 11 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

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 7 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 7 months ago

  • Solved

Certificate problem accessing an internal company website

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… (read more)

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:


BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----

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==


END CERTIFICATE-----
BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----

MIIB3DCCAYKgAwIBAgIUeLNrkgHyp2GhO6Ee4fyvVbGaUg0wCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIw OjEMMAoGA1UEChMDRFJXMRQwEgYDVQQLDAtJU1NAZHJ3LmNvbTEUMBIGA1UEAxML SVNTIFJvb3QgQ0EwHhcNMTcwMzAxMjA0MzAwWhcNMjcwMjI3MjA0MzAwWjA6MQww CgYDVQQKEwNEUlcxFDASBgNVBAsMC0lTU0BkcncuY29tMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtJU1Mg Um9vdCBDQTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHA0IABAjg18NvaBfwKP0BC/9U Cppc1W2rfSqzsY4KCRIAubItoMyQ13zp25KjVg9IF7Uru7cWQcUMvwf4+2Gb/4m4 sFSjZjBkMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEBMB0GA1Ud DgQWBBSA3cairIJP/ooZLqrq+L9hSNwxczAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSA3cairIJP/ooZ Lqrq+L9hSNwxczAKBggqhkjOPQQDAgNIADBFAiAgvGnmTJgMosKFYuRJ7HZMuD/p ZTNapVJltFiGzKAtewIhAJMVQ72U+m7kLNRw6ej7icBQ9d+T4MuhGyJEeYeX5wR4


END CERTIFICATE-----
BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----

MIICYjCCAgigAwIBAgIUDZxs4OPknZA8SgUkWZ7EncHkYVIwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIw OjEMMAoGA1UEChMDRFJXMRQwEgYDVQQLDAtJU1NAZHJ3LmNvbTEUMBIGA1UEAxML SVNTIFJvb3QgQ0EwHhcNMTcwMzAxMjA0NDAwWhcNMjcwMjI3MjA0NDAwWjA3MQww CgYDVQQKEwNEUlcxFDASBgNVBAsMC0lTU0BkcncuY29tMREwDwYDVQQDEwhTU0RO UyBDQTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHA0IABNsaSU2QU1Z5ktRf19DaXZk6 TrPko0TPZFTSYFH9bPxVJ4guUfGnN5nZ7vQajX2NJJLZEL9TZGYSsE8RD/ftcsij ge4wgeswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGmMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEF BQcDAjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSMYP14x7P9WQtzmeU2 SD9Tp0GCZTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSA3cairIJP/ooZLqrq+L9hSNwxczA1BggrBgEF BQcBAQQpMCcwJQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmlzcy5kcncvc3NkbnMw LwYDVR0fBCgwJjAkoCKgIIYeaHR0cDovL2NlcnRzLmlzcy5kcncvc3NkbnMvY3Js MAoGCCqGSM49BAMCA0gAMEUCIBU5FNCu7ZmE7H1Oautblig4iA5JIgOO+4D/do2c pQ8IAiEAkIdZb5Doptfk1C5uofcvww3E0ZrSG98ZJ2+TW9sz4VA=


END CERTIFICATE-----

~~~

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?

Asked by twic 5 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 5 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Dragging and Dropping email attachments into a formula not working

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 attach… (read more)

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.  :-)

Asked by fischer404 11 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 11 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

GPO Settings for AutoFill Address and Credit Cards

We downloaded the GPO Templates for AD and looking to customize Firefox. We would like to disable Forms and Autofill: Autofill addresses Autofill credit cards Also wou… (read more)

We downloaded the GPO Templates for AD and looking to customize Firefox.

We would like to disable Forms and Autofill: Autofill addresses Autofill credit cards

Also would like to lock down so they can't reenable if possible.

We would like to do this all through GPOs if possible. I found these in the about:config: extensions.formautofill.addresses.enabled extensions.formautofill.creditCards.enabled

But again want to do through the GPO. Is this possible?

Side note while working on GPOs, I set Exceptions for the popup blocker and they are not showing up in the browser. I also filled out to remove Search Engines but they all still appear in the browsers. These two GPO settings don't appear to be working.

Asked by Joshua_Calais 11 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 11 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

A specific website wont redirect to their ADFS website.

We use Firefox ESR for along time in our organisation but with the last update, a specific page wont redirect to the ADFS page. In the latest normal version of Firefox it… (read more)

We use Firefox ESR for along time in our organisation but with the last update, a specific page wont redirect to the ADFS page. In the latest normal version of Firefox it works and also other browser but not in ESR.

The webpage is https://rx-base.nl/ and https://preprod.rx-base.nl/

We are using the latest version of ESR. It gives a blank page with in the console a error:

Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: Fout bij het oplossen van modulespecificatie ‘@rxbase/root’. Relatieve modulespecificaties moeten beginnen met ‘./’, ‘../’ of ‘/’.

Please advise on what to do.

Asked by b.debakker 11 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 11 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Configure Firefox to always show menu bar, for all users

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, i… (read more)

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.

Asked by rick.sparrow 11 months ago

Answered by cor-el 11 months ago

  • Solved

Extension GPO help

Hello, I am trying to create a deny all & white list only gpo for Firefox extensions. I am using the gpo; Computer Configuration/Policies/Administrative Templates/M… (read more)

Hello, I am trying to create a deny all & white list only gpo for Firefox extensions.

I am using the gpo; Computer Configuration/Policies/Administrative Templates/Mozilla/Firefox/Extensions/Extension Management

I started out simple using a template which worked.

{ "*": { "blocked_install_message": "Your Company Blocked Message", "installation_mode": "blocked" }, "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": { "installation_mode": "allowed" } }

However, when I tried to add in more allowed extensions it now longer worked and was able to install any extension.

{ "*": { "blocked_install_message": "Your Company Blocked Message", "installation_mode": "blocked" }, "uBlock0@raymondhill.net": { "installation_mode": "allowed" }, "querymoid@kaply.com": { "installation_mode": "allowed" } }

Asked by zick.rockco 5 months ago

Answered by zick.rockco 5 months ago

  • Solved

Firefox Intune OMA-URI error

Dear Everyone, Facing issue with deploying Configuration Profile for Extension Settings via Intune. Tried ADMX imported template with adding there "block all extensions"… (read more)

Dear Everyone, Facing issue with deploying Configuration Profile for Extension Settings via Intune. Tried ADMX imported template with adding there "block all extensions" and allow certain ones. Worked perfect in Jamf, for Intune failing all time. We are using Firefox v.121, policies are for v.120, but I am in doubt that this is the issue. Can someone review and let me know if there any issue or may be changes? Using latest instructions https://mozilla.github.io/policy-templates/#extensionsettings Also here is my OMA, very easy.

OMA used ./Device/Vendor/MSFT/Policy/Config/Firefox~Policy~firefox~Extensions/ExtensionSettings

Value(string):

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

 "*": {
   "blocked_install_message": "Security Test",
   "installation_mode": "blocked",
   "allowed_types": ["extension"]
 },
 "{bf855ead-d7c3-4c7b-9f88-9a7e75c0efdf}": {
   "installation_mode": "force_installed",
   "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/zoom-new-scheduler/latest.xpi"
 },
   "@react-devtools": {
   "installation_mode": "allowed"
 }

}'/>

Asked by Valery Volos 4 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 4 months ago

  • Solved

How to disable Quic protocol in Mac with Jamf

Hello I am looking for a way to disable the QUIC protocol in Firefox through Jamf Pro. tried by below value but its not working, anyone did the settings for Mac? <… (read more)

Hello

I am looking for a way to disable the QUIC protocol in Firefox through Jamf Pro. tried by below value but its not working, anyone did the settings for Mac?

<plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>Preferences</key> <dict> <key>network.http.http3.enable</key> <dict> <key>Value</key> <false/> <key>Status</key> <string>user</string> </dict> <key>network.http.http3.enable_0rtt</key> <dict> <key>Value</key> <false/> <key>Status</key> <string>user</string> </dict> </dict> </dict> </plist>


Thanks

Asked by Shri Sivakumaran 4 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 4 months ago

  • Solved

How to disable Quic protocol in Windows with MS Intune

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 W… (read more)

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

Asked by Shri Sivakumaran 4 months ago

Answered by Shri Sivakumaran 4 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Firefox ESR deployment with MDT Error: 1618

We use Microsoft MDT for computer deployment. We have been installing the Standard version of Firefox for a long time with no problem. Recently we started using AD GPO Te… (read more)

We use Microsoft MDT for computer deployment. We have been installing the Standard version of Firefox for a long time with no problem. Recently we started using AD GPO Templates to configure firefox. To be able to configure certain settings you need to be running the ESR version. I downloaded the more recent ESR version: 102.12.0esr.msi file.

When deploying machine MDT to install Mozilla firefox I keep getting this error: Application Mozilla Firefox ESR returned an unexpected return code: 1618

This is the only application having issues and this issue only came up since I change the installation file to the ESR version.

This is the install command being used in MDT: msiexec /i "Firefoxesr.msi" /qn /norestart

I am posting here and not with MDT support, as this only started happening when I changed the installation file to the ESR version. Has anybody else had a problem deploying ESR version through MDT? Any help on how to fix?

Asked by Joshua_Calais 10 months ago

Answered by Joshua_Calais 9 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

Firefox Extension Management

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… (read more)

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?

Asked by andrew219 10 months ago

Answered by andrew219 10 months ago

  • Solved
  • Archived

how to disable common users to modify the settings of "No proxy for" in "Connection Settings"

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… (read more)

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.

Asked by fas910 10 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 10 months ago

  • Solved

HTTPs Only Mode

Hello, I have a problem with setting up HTTPs only Mode in my Organization, I read a lot about that, but I dont see the "dom.security.https_only_mode" switch in GPO, we h… (read more)

Hello, I have a problem with setting up HTTPs only Mode in my Organization, I read a lot about that, but I dont see the "dom.security.https_only_mode" switch in GPO, we have the newest admx for Firefox. We need that to specific container, but still I dont know how to set it up, even via regedit, or preferences. Can someone describe me when can I set it up ? It could be using json file (which exactly file and how?), registry or just gpo. Regards, M.

Asked by marcin.markiewicz 4 months ago

Answered by Mike Kaply 4 months ago