Firefox Community Forum

Hi 🙂

Many extensions don't work on support.mozilla.org.

For ex, Clippings and Unicodify – Text transformer are very useful to write text. It's annoying not to be able to use them to write in https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/new/thunderbird/form.

Seeing https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/tyytcy/how_to_get_rid_of_this_extension_restriction/i3vke2p/,

1) Why is support.mozilla.org privileged and can pull out information about visitor's system, while connect.mozilla.org cannot?

2) I see that:

• Copy Link Text works,
• Unicodify – Text transformer is able to read selected text but not to write in forms,
• Clippings is not able to read selected text.

Is there a doc which explains what are the limits of what's allowed for extensions in "internal restricted sites"?

I thought the webcam was not working but in another browser like Google Chrome Internet Explorer, the webcam works in all other browsers.

If allowed camera site permissions but not save change in browser

not working camera

please help me

Hello

What are the restricted sites in the Firefox extension details? What are the sites restricted by Mozilla, as referred to on the page https://support.mozilla.org/pl/kb/dlaczego-niektore-dodatki-nie-sa-dozwolne-na-stronach-ograniczonych-przez-mozille?as=u&utm_source=inproduct#firefox:win10:fx135 ?

I am looking to turn on review checker and cannot see how to do it. I don't have the price tag icon displayed nor do I have any reference to Review Checker in my settings. I'm wondering if my version of Firefox supports it (133.0). Any ideas?

how to protect my user name and password to avoid hacker accesibilty because every time he calling to offering products by email, i need support to protect about it.

I have a HUGE problem with Firefox memory usage. Some open instances of firefox are taking anywhere from 600mb to 2.8gb of memory. Since firefox opens MANY instances even with only ONE active window, this very quickly uses all available memory (4gb) causing a full laptop crash.

More concerning is that CLOSING the worst instance of memory usage STILL leaves the single open page/tab open, so what exactly was the memory eating instance actually doing ???

I have included a screengrab of the many remaining instances of firefox in windows task manager AFTER closing the main culprit.

I have also included a screengrab of all the adblockers I use which I believed would limit unnecessary memory usage, but does not seem to be effective.

Many Thanks

Please read below my emails to Ghostery support that describes the issue and the Ghostery response.

The issue is using DuckDuckGo in Firefox with the Ghostery add-on enabled, and changing DuckDuckGo AI settings.

Please let me know if there is a resolution available.

Thanks, Malc [edited] @gmail.com __________________________________________________________________________________________

Malc May 1, 2025, 7:39 AM GMT+2

An FYI -

Ghostery Tracker & Ad Blocker - Privacy AdBlock 10.4.32 has an issue in Firefox with DuckDuckGo search engine Settings changes to AI Features, Chat to off, Assist to Never, then saved and shown working with a page refresh.

When Firefox is then shutdown and restarted the intended DuckDuckGo browser changes are not applied. Assist will still show a result in a search.

Proven by disabling Ghostery, again changing DuckDuckGo AI features and saving, shutting down Firefox and restarting, then searching with DuckDuckGo with no Assist displayed in result.

I can answer any questions you may have.

Regards, Long time happy Ghostery user Malc [edited] @gmail.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Ghostery Support 2 (Ghostery) May 1, 2025, 10:30 AM GMT+2

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out to Ghostery and bringing this to our attention!

We were able to reproduce the issue on our end, though with slightly different conditions. It appears that DuckDuckGo’s settings are stored locally in the browser. If Firefox is set to clear cookies and site data (either manually or automatically), this would reset DuckDuckGo’s preferences each time — even with Ghostery disabled.

Could you please check if the option “Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed” is turned off in your Firefox settings and try again? In our tests, DuckDuckGo’s settings were preserved when this option was disabled. It would greatly help to narrow this down.

Here for any further questions! Best, Ghostery Support

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Malc May 1, 2025, 8:20 PM GMT+2

Hi Ghostery Support 2,

Thank you for replying.

Yes, the option “Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed” is turned on. When turned off and the Ghostery extension enabled, the changes to DuckDuckGo were saved and implemented correctly when Firefox was restarted.

I did find this.

In Firefox settings Cookies and Site Data, Manage Exceptions, I added "https://duckduckgo.com" and set Status to Allow. I also turned on “Delete cookies and site data when Firefox is closed”.

With the Ghostery extension enabled, the saved settings to DuckDuckGo were still active when Firefox was restarted.

But I do not think it wise to give DuckDuckGo an exception to use cookies and site data with no restriction.

Please keep me informed.

Regards, Malc [edited] @gmail.com

________________________________________________________________________________

Ghostery Support 2 (Ghostery) May 2, 2025, 10:23 AM GMT+2

Hi there, Thanks for getting back to us!

Unfortunately, there’s not much Ghostery can do in this case. If DuckDuckGo saves its settings internally, there may be no way to keep duckduckgo.com out of exceptions while preserving those settings elsewhere.

You might want to look into third-party tools that support this kind of setup, or consider reaching out to Mozilla’s support team with this request.

Here for any further questions! Best, Ghostery Support Support Ghostery

Hello, a locally hosted application has a web interface which tries to send a data (POST request) to a remote resource (which is under my control) yet the web browser (Firefox ESR 128.9.0esr) blocks this resource request saying in a developer console (F12) this:

• NS_ERROR_GENERATE_FAILURE(NS_ERROR_MODULE_SECURITY, MOZILLA_PKIX_ERROR_SELF_SIGNED_CERT)

• Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at https://myRemoteServerIP/request.php. (Reason: CORS request did not succeed). Status code: (null).

I suspect that the CORS blocking is a result of the first (SSL) error, AI also told me that I can configure my remote server/resource (e.g., using Apache, Nginx, or PHP) to include the necessary CORS headers in its responses and indeed the remote server of mine has such lines inside a PHP script that is receiving the request: header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *'); header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods: POST'); header('Access-Control-Allow-Headers: *');

The remote resource (server) is using self-signed SSL certificate and it is referenced using IP instead of a domain name.

When I try to do the same request via Private browsing window (without extensions), there is no NS_ERROR about self-signed cert. but only CORS one. When I try browser Librewolf 137.0.2-1 (my FF version is older: 128.9.0), the request is NOT blocked, is OK..

My main aim is not to avoid blocking in my browser, but in all main browsers for everyone.

Is it so that this kind of blocking is default behavior in browsers? Is there please any way to avoid that, beside getting a domain name and CA signed SSL certificate?

I keep getting pop-ups in the right lower corner from "mozilla firefox" (not sure if they are legit). They will say: "zeus.2020 trojan detected" or "virus detected" or "system is infected", etc. All have "Mozilla Firefox" in the upper left of the pop-up, and "via rgfirewall.xyz" at the bottom. Is this truly legit, or is it just a nuisance? I've just been closing them with the x or dismiss buttons.

I got an email supposedly from breach-alerts@mozilla.com that claims there are currently 3 data breaches and has this link to resolve: https://blrv1ly5.r.us-west-2.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fmonitor.mozilla.org%2Fuser%2Fdashboard%2Faction-needed%3Futm_source=monitor-product%26utm_medium=product-email%26utm_campaign=monthly-report-free-us-scan-no-exp-yes-breach-resolved-no%26utm_content=resolve-exposures-us/1/01010195ceba1024-6e3f74fe-119a-4e2e-9033-398671a830d9-000000/DDeGOTLjROOXCCk2fJvXJbdefc4=419

This seems like a phishing email, is it legit? Should I find another browser?

Now that Mozilla/Firefox have joined Google on the dark side, who is everyone switching to? I would like something that works well in both Windows and android. I hear Opera can't be trusted and I don't like how there are like 6 difference versions of Opera in the android app store. DuckduckGo is just badly made IMO. Edge causes some glitches with one of the sites I use most. Should I try Brave? I just want a browser to BROWSE the web. I don't want AI. I don't need a VPN or adblock built in. I don't want a "gamer" browser. A decent local password manager would be nice but I don't want to have to make an account to use it. I know if the product is free, you are the product, so I would almost prefer a browser you pay for but oddly that doesn't seem to be a popular option. Probably because the user data the companies collect makes them more money then people would be willing to pay. Sad times. I miss the 90's.

I regularly receive email advice (via Thunderbird) from companies to access my account with them.

Two days ago I selected a link to direct me to the secure form. I note that the exact same link has been provided to me in the past and opened. This time however I was confronted with "Invalid Address".

I was advised to copy the link into another browser; I chose "Edge" and the form opened.

I have cleared FireFox's "Recent History" but that still gives no joy.

How do I overcome this?

Is there something in a configuration file that I might edit, or a potentially corrupt Windows Registry entry?

I do not use any Windows Security depending upon Bitdefender (which has never created any issues of this nature).