എല്ലാ ഉൽപ്പന്നങ്ങളും Community Forum

I am trying to make the internet experience for myself and my family as safe as possible. Transparency is part of this, so I want to know how to disable private browsing in a way my kids won't be able to turn back on again. Also, are there 'safe search'-like settings in Firefox? I haven't been able to find anything like it yet.

I am using a local library and it comes to me that I find some activities that occur whilst working on my daily tasks and wonder, I would really like to run a diagnosis in my tasks and activities and check if there are no spams running me dry.

So im new and need guidance. I want to have all the vey most protection I can on my device and need to learn how to properly operate it ad well. Thank your for your time and effort you put into this it is very well appreciated!

Is there any documented way our I.T department can disable the ability to connect to or even see the Firefox VPN that is being rolled out via group policy or another settings method? Firefox is a great asset for our agency but we cannot have users having the ability to bypass our web filtering. If there's not an option currently, could we have the IP's or the servers that it runs off of so we can manually block it in our firewall?

In the Settings, the "HTTPS-Only" feature seems broken. There is an option to 'Don't enable" this feature, but that doesn't make any difference. I can get to an "http:" site using any other browser, but not with the latest Firefox.

I publish NinePane Connector at https://ninepane.com. On September 12, 2026, a Firefox test on Windows displayed NinePane-Connector-Setup-0.8.56-Windows-x64.exe as not commonly downloaded, with Remove file and Allow download controls. I have two matching Firefox screenshots of the warning.

The intended release candidate is distributed through our private authenticated test route. These screenshots do not establish the exact final download URL or completed bytes. The exact Firefox version and capture-time Windows build were not recorded, so I have not guessed them in this form.

The intended local candidate was independently checked as validly Authenticode signed by NINEPANE STUDIO with a timestamp. That identifies the signed local file; it is not proof of safety or of the blocked browser copy's exact bytes. We are not asserting malware detection or requesting a way to bypass the warning.

Which official publisher-support or assessment route applies to Firefox's uncommon-executable warning? Is there a supported way to obtain classification or remediation guidance without publishing a private installer or sharing login credentials? We have already reported the related Chrome warning to Google; should a publisher take any separate Firefox-specific action?

No installer, credentials, session data or unrelated browser diagnostics are included.

chrome logs onto my email without me entering password, and facebook under firefox stays logged in even when i log out with no password. i neeed help forget the vfb but my [redacted] @gmail.com email is dangerously in jeprody

I used Private Browsing to review a web site, and saved a couple of files to my hard drive. When I closed the Private window and went to a different page in Firefox, then used Print and "Microsoft Print to PDF", the print dialog came up with the Private window's last save location as my initial save location. It doesn't matter whether the regular Firefox window was open before or after the Private window was closed.

This was a leak from Private to Regular. Windows 11. Firefox 155.0.1 (64-bit)

I am looking for an addon which displays times in different locations. I find one, FoxClock, which initially seems to meet my need. However, although the developer says its safe, and it has a Recommended badge, text in the app description says "Access your data for all websites." This may be 'honest' but it seems to be honest at the level of a thief saying "I'm going to rob you." WHY would a clock app need access to my data for all websites? Why would a clock app displaying on my desktop, not my browser, need to access any info about my data for any website? Poor coding? Lazy coding? Dangerous coding? Is this only a result of less than nuanced messaging by the developer or Mozilla, by using a generic message, rather than one which accurately states the 'access' is only for specified installation needs? Or another understandable safe reason? I'd like an explanation, since it does call into question the degree of security offered by Mozilla.