• Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

Windows GPO Help with JSON configs

Environment: Windows 10 22h2 clients, latest ESR build, Domain servers Windows 2016 or better. So I followed the guide https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/m… (funda kabanzi)

Environment: Windows 10 22h2 clients, latest ESR build, Domain servers Windows 2016 or better.

So I followed the guide https://github.com/mozilla/policy-templates/blob/master/README.md#extensionsettings and tried to set up the config. We are using the latest ESR build but after the settings is applied I still dont have working extensions.

Here is the code

{
     "*": {
           "blocked_install_message": "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"
     },
     "{d10d0bf8-f5b5-c8b4-a8b2-2b9879e08c5d}": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/adblock-plus/latest.xpi"
           },
     "ciscowebexstart1@cisco.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/cisco-webex-extension/latest.xpi"
     },
     "{d0210f13-a970-4f1e-8322-0f76ec80adde}": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/instapaper-official/latest.xpi"
           },
     "appstore-mini@feedly.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/feedly_mini/latest.xpi"
           },
     "extension@one-tab.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/onetab/latest.xpi"
           },
     "support@lastpass.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/lastpass-password-manager/latest.xpi"
           },
     "sweb2pdfextension.4@kofax.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/latest/kofax-pdf-create-4-0/latest.xpi"
           },
     "Aternity-WebExt-12.1.4@aternity.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           },
     "its_addons_wrap@onelog.com": {
           "installation_mode": "allowed",
           "install_url": "https://extensions.onelog.com/extension/onelog.xpi"
     }

}

I have placed the settings in HKCU but also tried in HKLM and there has been no difference. in each case I get Unable to parse JSON for Extensionsettings when checking the about:policies section and when I look at the registry I see the REG_MULTI_SZ value but when i click on it to read it I get another error message. Cannot edit ExtensionSettings: Error reading the values contents.

I tried re-entering the code and tried not listing the install URLs and even tried only listing 1 item. I haven't been able to get past this error so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Asked by daniel.david.white 1 unyaka odlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 1 unyaka odlule

  • Kusonjululiwe

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"… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 4 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

AutoConfig Alert

Good morning, I'm reaching out to see if I can get some assistance with Firefox on of our network. I'm System Admin at Goodfellow AFB. I've tried searching this issues … (funda kabanzi)

Good morning,

I'm reaching out to see if I can get some assistance with Firefox on of our network. I'm System Admin at Goodfellow AFB. I've tried searching this issues on the web and found similar issues but solutions that were recommend online have not worked for us. Yes I have uninstalled Firefox completely and installed it from scratch. I know it has something to do with autoconfig file but not sure what exactly I'm looking for. Thanks.

Asked by Chase Cathey 1 unyaka odlule

Answered by jscher2000 - Support Volunteer 1 unyaka odlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 7 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Shri Sivakumaran 4 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Joshua_Calais 9 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by cor-el 11 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 5 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

Firefox GPO: Add Custom Search Engine

We would like to install a custom search engine using Firefox policies. We have the latest version of Firefox installed. We have the latest admx files installed on our … (funda kabanzi)

We would like to install a custom search engine using Firefox policies. We have the latest version of Firefox installed. We have the latest admx files installed on our Domain Controllers. In the Policy, I go into the User -> Administrative Templates -> Mozilla -> Search and setup a search engine using Search Engine One. I then go into Default Search Engine and configure our custom search to be default. What we find is that the custom search engine never installs, so the custom search engine is not set at the default. If I manually add the custom search engine using the Search Engine Helper Add-on, I can verify that the custom search settings do indeed work. With that said, does anyone have thoughts on how to troubleshoot this issue? First, need to figure out why the custom engine isn't installing at all. Thanks.

Asked by peterc5 9 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by peterc5 9 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

about:preferences " What should Firefox do with other files?" change with mozialla.cfg / How can I control this setting using mozilla.cfg?

From my point of view, the setting " What should Firefox do with other files?" has been added in the current ESR version. "What should Firefox do with other files?" ("Wi… (funda kabanzi)

From my point of view, the setting " What should Firefox do with other files?" has been added in the current ESR version.

"What should Firefox do with other files?" ("Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren?") . "Save files" ("Dateien speichern") . "Ask whether to open or save files" ("Fragen, ob Dateien geöffnet oder gespeichert werden sollen")


How can I control/change this setting using mozilla.cfg?


By the way:

// What should Firefox do with other files? - Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren? lockPref("applications-ask-before-handling", false);

// What should Firefox do with other files? - Wie soll Firefox mit anderen Dateien verfahren? lockPref("applications-ask-before-handling", true);

works detectably via about:config but does not change the setting for "What should Firefox do with other files?".

Asked by bzam 1 unyaka odlule

Answered by bzam 1 unyaka odlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 11 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

install firefox

im tryin to instal firefox in a firm users are non admins, and i distributing from a network server made a json file with som changes and on my test machine is lookin goo… (funda kabanzi)

im tryin to instal firefox in a firm users are non admins, and i distributing from a network server made a json file with som changes and on my test machine is lookin good but on a computer in the firm is startin to act funny creatin "Firefox Privat surfning.lnk" in "C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" dont wont that changing my homepage settings showing "https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ " dont want that how can i fix that try to google but no help there or is it another installer for enterprises? tryed this "https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/#download" no diffrent

Asked by svensvensson487 6 izinyanga ezidlule

Last reply by svensvensson487 5 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

Automatic updates

We have recently enabled background updates in our organization, however I noticed that a requirement for this to work is that Firefox needs to be run with the default pr… (funda kabanzi)

We have recently enabled background updates in our organization, however I noticed that a requirement for this to work is that Firefox needs to be run with the default profile at least once after the feature is enabled. The issue we have is that not all users are actively using Firefox and therefore they are not being updated. I realize the security flaws won't be exposed if it's not in use, but management doesn't like seeing out of date browsers. Is there a way to force auto updates on all device where Firefox isn't not being used. Background updating is working for the majority of those that do use Firefox.

Also, we do have a couple of users reporting a credential prompt when updating from 119 to 119.0.1. These same users had no issues updating from 118 to 119. I have not figured out why this is happening just yet and why only for a handful of users so far. Would anyone have an idea why that is happening?

Asked by rob.scott1 6 izinyanga ezidlule

Last reply by Mike Kaply 6 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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 … (funda kabanzi)

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 8 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 8 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by zick.rockco 5 izinyanga ezidlule

Folder redirection conflicts synchronization firefox profile

Welcome, We are implementing redirected folders in our company via Widnows Server. We are also redirecting the Appdata folder. We have offline mode enabled which means th… (funda kabanzi)

Welcome, We are implementing redirected folders in our company via Widnows Server. We are also redirecting the Appdata folder. We have offline mode enabled which means that the folders are synchronised every 5 minutes. The synchronised Appdata folder has a Firefox profile which causes a lot of conflicts. Every time the folder is synced there are conflicts like "Both versions have been updated since the last sync" or "Cannot sync now. Try again". I attach a screen shot of how much of this there is. No other applications cause such errors. Only Firefox blocks us from a large deployment. If the problem cannot be resolved we will be forced to abandon the FireFox browser altogether. Has anyone had a similar problem?

Asked by sebastian.pawlowski 2 izinyanga ezidlule

Last reply by Mike Kaply 1 inyanga edlule

  • Kusonjululiwe
  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

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… (funda kabanzi)

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 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by andrew219 10 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Kusonjululiwe

Application Handlers

Hi All, I have been on the struggle bus lately trying to get the application handlers set properly in our GPO. I am trying to get PDF, webp, avif to open in browser, and… (funda kabanzi)

Hi All, I have been on the struggle bus lately trying to get the application handlers set properly in our GPO. I am trying to get PDF, webp, avif to open in browser, and jnlp to auto launch Java. Any help will be greatly appreciated!

{"application/pdf":{"action":3,"extensions":["pdf"]},"image/webp":{"action":3,"extensions":["webp"]},"image/avif":{"action":3,"extensions":["avif"]},"application/x-java-jnlp-file":{"action":4,"handlers":[{"name":"javaws.exe","path":"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Java\\jre-1.8\\bin\\javaws.exe"}],"extensions":["jnlp"]}}

Asked by Chris Wilkerson 2 izinyanga ezidlule

Answered by Mike Kaply 2 izinyanga ezidlule

  • Okugcinwe kunqolobane

ESR 115 Windows - background update without user ever logging in or launching FF?

Hello, We want to run Firefox in our environment which is constantly scanned by a security scanner, and deducts points for applications which have a vulnerability that h… (funda kabanzi)

Hello,

We want to run Firefox in our environment which is constantly scanned by a security scanner, and deducts points for applications which have a vulnerability that has an available patch, but the patch has not been installed. These are on shared Windows terminal servers. Firefox is one of two browsers, Edge being the other one.

If users do not launch firefox at least once, then Firefox never gets updated.

Yes, we have the background update service installed, but it sets itself to manual, and if I try to start it, it simply gives the error "error 1: incorrect function"

How can we configure Firefox 115ESR to be able to run this service automatically, check for updates, and install, without a user on a particular terminal server ever having launched the application once?

Asked by zach.heise 8 izinyanga ezidlule

Last reply by Mike Kaply 6 izinyanga ezidlule

Bypass UAC prompts through GPO settings

We are currently attempting to automate our Firefox update processes. Currently we use robocopy to push out new versions on release, but ideally we'd like to use the back… (funda kabanzi)

We are currently attempting to automate our Firefox update processes. Currently we use robocopy to push out new versions on release, but ideally we'd like to use the background updater instead. We are currently on 64-bit 119.0.1, on Windows 10 Pro 22H2. We'd prefer not to switch over to ESR if at all possible. I've already reactivated the AppAutoUpdate and BackgroundAppUpdate policies, and DisableAppUpdate is disabled, but I'm still being hit with a UAC Admin prompt when I try to launch Firefox. I tried to bypass it through the registry at [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers], with "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" = "RUNASINVOKER", but that also doesn't seem to have done anything. Any and all assistance would be appreciated

Asked by ddrake1 5 izinyanga ezidlule

Last reply by Mike Kaply 5 izinyanga ezidlule