Firefox for Enterprise Support Forum

I work for the local County and we recently got a new content provider that allows for SSL Inspection (Barracuda 410) but it requires a certificate to be installed on every device to work. I am aware of Edge having a way to create a custom installer that would allow us to preinstall the proper certificate, but was wondering if Firefox had the same thing. I am also needing to know that if we push out the version of Firefox with the certificate preinstalled, would it auto import our user's data from their current install of standard Firefox?

We have Firefox rapid-release (not ESR) deployed on Windows 10 across our Enterprise where users do not have local Administrator privileges.

Occasionally the rapid-release updates fail to be installed, with the updater requiring Admin privileges to execute. For example, today a user's Firefox 111.0.1 was asking for elevate to update to 112.0.

The IT team user accounts also are non-admin, but we have not run into this, and judging from the lack of support tickets on this I would say most of our users are not running into this either.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to avoid this, or troubleshoot further?

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.

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.

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

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.  :-)

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

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" } }

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

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.

Software used: Firefox ESR 102.15.1 on RedHat Enterprise Linux 8 with the Xfce4 desktop environment in version 4.16.3.

I run two Firefox windows on two different virtual desktops. Most open tabs in each of them are tied to the workflow I use on each desktop, in case this is somehow important.

Problem description: Sometimes, Ctrl+clicking on HTTP or HTTPS links will open the resource in a new window instead of in a new tab. This appears to be random, and does not depend on the link target. It is also not properly reproducible, so the same link may work just fine and open the resource in a new tab as expected on another attempt to Ctrl+click it.

Properties like browser.link.open_newwindow or browser.link.open_newwindow.override.external are unmodified and set at their default values.

I can drag the new window's only tab back into the browser window in which I originally clicked on such a link, but this is becoming tedious. Sometimes I overlook this, resulting in a chaos of multiple open Firefox windows with multiple open tabs in each of them.

The behavior I would expect: When Ctrl+clicking on links, their resources should always open in a new tab, never in a new window, unless it's a link with a protocol that Firefox by itself won't handle and where it will have to rely on another program to open it (e.g. ftp://, ssh:// or mailto:somebody@somedomain.com).

My request: I would like this to be fixed if it's a real bug. If I am somehow responsible myself without knowing why, please just let me know what I might be doing wrong.

If there are some workarounds for this, e.g. some properties I could set in about:config, help with those would be appreciated as well.

Most information I can find about similar problems is pretty old by now and pre-dates Firefox 102.15.1 by many releases and years. All suggestions I could find about what one would need to change in about:config to fix this seem to be the default by now anyway.

Thank you very much!

I figured out that Comcast hijacked all my Firefox bookmarks and moved them to their internet email platform. I still like and will always use Fire-Fox. I today removed all my bookmarks from the Comcast platform that were my Fire Fox bookmarks and only left their one and only email bookmark on Comcast platform. I can only assume this was a per-arranged maneuver and you were aware of this. I sure the long 4th weekend made time for a underhanded switch over for Comcast.

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?

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.

Good afternoon,

We're currently trying to set up a Hardening Guide for Firefox ESR but are struggling with a few policies and setting wildcards.

For example, we're trying to set an origin in Cookies > Block Settings to something like "*", and we get the error "Ignoring parameter "*" - not a valid origin."

In Chrome / Edge you can set a wildcard like this: [*.]google.com for example - we receive the same error message for this.

Can you do such a thing for Firefox ESR without having to list every site you want to block?

ESR Version: 115.6.0esr (64-bit)

Kind Regards, Ethan Jerrum

I'm a security analyst. I would like to get email notifications on security advisories, alerts and vulnerability information regarding Firefox to stay up to date. Please help on how I can get the subscription?

Hello everyone,

being annoyed of a huge amount of Qualys tickets in my enterprise environment, i have decided to use the ability of firefox to update itself on its own instead of deploying a new version each time.

Requirement: Firefox has to stay up-to-date even on devices where it is not used. That´s what the scheduled background update task and Mozilla Maintenance Service are for, right?

Problem: The background update task will only be created if a logged on user will run firefox at least one time. Since Firefox is used as the secondary browser here, it is installed on all clients, but not even half of the clients/users are running it.

I didn´t find any option to create that task manually. So - at least in my environment - the autoupdate mechanism is useless.

Is there any hope for an autoupdate mechanism which can be run independent of logged on users? Or does anyone have an idea how i could achieve my goal?

Thank you in advance!

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
   		}

}

   }

} ```

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.