Important Notice: We're experiencing email notification issues. If you've posted a question in the community forums recently, please check your profile manually for responses while we're working to fix this.

On Monday the 3rd of March, around 5pm UTC (9am PT) users may experience a brief period of downtime while one of our underlying services is under maintenance.

Søg i Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Læs mere

Why does Firefox block secure sites that are trusted by a sub-ca cert if the site uses a non-standard port that isn't included in the SANs?

  • 3 svar
  • 1 har dette problem
  • 13 visninger
  • Seneste svar af John

more options

Navigating to an HTTPS site (ex. https://consul.service.consul) works fine with my imported sub-ca cert as it includes consul.service.consul as a SAN. If I change the port the site is served from to something non-standard however, the site comes back as not trusted (ex. https://consul.service.consul:8501). Is this expected behavior to have to include port numbers in a SAN listing for certificates, or is this a bug potentially?

Navigating to an HTTPS site (ex. https://consul.service.consul) works fine with my imported sub-ca cert as it includes consul.service.consul as a SAN. If I change the port the site is served from to something non-standard however, the site comes back as not trusted (ex. https://consul.service.consul:8501). Is this expected behavior to have to include port numbers in a SAN listing for certificates, or is this a bug potentially?
Vedhæftede skærmbilleder

Valgt løsning

It appears that this issue was resolved in the latest releases. Not sure what was done, but I'm glad it's fixed never-the-less. Thanks for the responses all!

Læs dette svar i sammenhæng 👍 0

Alle svar (3)

more options

sometimes your add on preventing that with a pop up , or else check your FF settings if they are at default!!

it could be even something wrong with the site as well,

more options

I'm finding this question hard to research. I think that means it is supposed to work. If you want to file a bug:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

more options

Valgt løsning

It appears that this issue was resolved in the latest releases. Not sure what was done, but I'm glad it's fixed never-the-less. Thanks for the responses all!