HI, There is security software like Avast/AVG, Kaspersky, BitDefender and ESET that intercept secure connections and send their own certificate. If you are running any of the above software please their their community forum for a work around to apply settings.

These pages are also for the errors you may have besides relating to the above.

• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-cant-load-websites-other-browsers-can
• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-and-other-browsers-cant-load-websites
• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/secure-connection-failed-error-message
• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/connection-untrusted-error-message
• http://kb.mozillazine.org/Error_loading_websites
• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/secure-connection-failed-error-message#w_avast-and-avg-security-products

That's a pretty broad explanation.

Nevertheless--it wasn't doing it--before--the update. Or am I having the issue with either of my other browsers. In fact, I just got off the phone with my ISP because I wanted them to check my connection, which is fine, and they, too, believe the error lies within the Firefox browser.

I tell you now--I can surf porn sites without a problem but your browser, for whatever reason. will not load Google, a public web site.

The only antivirus I have is AVG free, and I don't believe I will be taking this issue to their forum, or do I think they would listen when Mozilla has a history of causing conflicts with their updates.

Took me over a week to get into my Wordpress text editor because of one. When enough people complain about it, then you might fix the bug. But right now my Gmail is loading randomly, and I should say that the new tab page is loading randomly as well, and that the Google site loads at all, it's only because I'm using IE to do it.

As I said--when enough people complain about it, then perhaps you'll fix the bug.

Well look what I found, using my other browser:

https://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+blocks+google&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

What security software do you have?

Security software like AVG/Avast may have a problem with TLS 1.3 that might have been enabled in your Firefox version. You can try to modify the value this pref from 4 to 3 on the about:config page.

• security.tls.version.max = 3
  1 means TLS 1.0; 2 means TLS 1.1; 3 means TLS 1.2; 4 means TLS 1.3;

You can open the about:config page via the location/address bar. You can accept the warning and click "I accept the risk!" to continue.

• http://kb.mozillazine.org/about:config

Another option would be to disable HTPS scanning in your security software.

• https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER

Hi springheel, could you check the error page for a code that starts with SEC_ERROR or SSL_ERROR and copy/paste that back here?

"SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" is occurring when Firefox and a website try to negotiate a connection using the latest TLS protocol (version 1.3) and a "man-in-the-middle" -- typically Avast Web Shield or AVG Web Shield -- somehow messes it up.

Until this is sorted out, I think your two workarounds are either:

(1) Remove the man in the middle (disable Web Shield for secure connections).

See the Avast section of: How to troubleshoot security error codes on secure websites.

(2) Disable TLS 1.3 in Firefox so it connects using an older protocol. To do that:

(A) In a new tab, type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Enter/Return. Click the button promising to be careful or accepting the risk.

(B) In the search box above the list, type or paste TLS and pause while the list is filtered

(C) Double-click the security.tls.version.max preference to display a dialog where you can change the value from 4 to 3 (this corresponds to TLS 1.2) and then click OK

Neverthelesss--I'll tell you something: there should be an add-on to opt out of some of the changes engineers make to Firefox. I get sick & tired of having them think for me or think they are doing things in our best interest. there are some things I'm willing to take a chance on, others maybe not so much, but--for example--my Stylish add-on is being glitchy today, and I see it is highlighted as to it may be insecure or not--I KNOW THIS--and yet I use it, have used it for several years now, to help make websites more viewable for me because I am legally blind and "bright backgrounds" such as the one on this site, and most site, make it difficult, even painful, for me to read the page. Stylish has always worked great for me on many sites e.g. Google, Wikipedia, Youtube (sadly it doesn't wprk on this forum) but I know well enough when I installed it that it wasn't entirely secure. It fact, it pissed me off enough that you flagged it, that if you disable it entirely, I will dump this browser of which I have used since the Netscape days, and go back to using IE, despite the fact that IE can't hold water. But for me, you people are not--that--innovative, but are simply making it more difficult for me to use & view the net.

There reaches a point when you are going to have to let people make their own decisions and live by them for better or worse.

ex: I have a 64 bit machine, that you've blacklisted me from installing the latest version of Java. Do you really think I care that you find it insecure? The thing is--we all use the web for different reasons. And you can't protect everybody all of the time from every given glith in every given program.

Sometimes you have to let people make mistakes.

It's the only way we learn.

So it's little bugs like this that really irk me. I--shouldn't--have to find a work around, I should simply be able to opt out of certain things.

That said, I can go into options and simply turn off your stupid updates.

Hi springheel, I read yesterday that the Stylish extension was removed from the Add-ons site due to sending all your browsing activity to the publisher ("Stylish" browser extension steals all your internet history). That might have something to do with it not working normally.

I suggest immediately exporting your Stylish user styles so you can more easily migrate them to Stylus or another similar extension. Last time I checked, that is under:

Sylish button > menu > Manage All Styles > Backup All Installed

The file type is JSON and a .json extension might need to be added to the file name to make it usable (I don't know whether they fixed that).

Interesting forum on Stylish, though I didn't read the entire thing. I have to agree with the one comment/question: how many more extensions out there are malicious? For that matter, I probably have more than one questionable extension.

I can say this: the new Mozilla browser killed my Ad Block Plus pop-up blocker, and extension, which I would think has a very good reputation, and in light of that I had no real choice but to install Popup Blocker Ultimate, and extension which randomly opens up another tab when I launch the browser asking me for monetary contributions--so you have to wonder all these extensions & publishers.

I find it ironic, that in light of the recent Facebook fiasco (their second fubar) that "privacy" has suddenly become an issue, when it's always been an issue and it's no small wonder that there has been so much identity theft.

Stylus. I do not remember installing this extension, though I did notice it when it did. I am assuming it was installed via a browser update.

This reminds me a bit of how Apple operates.

That said, and it's not that I wouldn't use it other than Stylish, if I only knew how. That is to say: I have no idea how to export only two Stylish settings to Stylus. Do you have a link to a more indepth tutorial?

That said, apparently Mozilla isn't quick to condemn Stylish altogether since I can still toggle it on and off. Though I guess this is the "choice" I asked for in my last post.

Thank you for the note.

Ah ha. I think I have figured it out, or at least I have gotten it to do what I want/need it to do as far as the sites I use most frequently.

Thanks for the Stylus tip jscher2000.

springheel said

I can say this: the new Mozilla browser killed my Ad Block Plus pop-up blocker, and extension, which I would think has a very good reputation, and in light of that I had no real choice but to install Popup Blocker Ultimate, and extension which randomly opens up another tab when I launch the browser asking me for monetary contributions--so you have to wonder all these extensions & publishers.

I'm sure there are other options.

Stylus. I do not remember installing this extension, though I did notice it when it did. I am assuming it was installed via a browser update.

Firefox doesn't install third party extensions for users.

I have no idea how to export only two Stylish settings to Stylus. Do you have a link to a more indepth tutorial?

Do you mean when you go to Manage All Styles you have lots of rules but you only really care about two of them? If think if you have disabled the other ones, when you use the Import feature in Stylus to use your Stylish backup file, that enabled/disabled state will be preserved. Or you can re-disable or delete the ones you don't want. (I did my migration nine months ago and I can't remember all of the details.)

FF is not in the business of Addon policing that is up the the creator and user to know what is good and what is bad or what they shouldn't use. FF comes plain Jane as they come what you customize after that is the User choice and problems arising from those choices are user issues not FF. If addons/extensions fail security checks or gets flagged then users need to decide whether or not they use it or don't use it. Again it comes all down to the User themselves to do their homework on Addons/Extensions this isn't a FF problem if just a standard install. That's how I see it.

Hi WestEnd, Mozilla has policies posted on the Add-ons site for extension developers. Some problems aren't noticed during the initial review, so it's important for users to be careful what they install and report bad behaviors to the Add-ons review teams when they are discovered. So Mozilla definitely will do some policing, but it's pretty rare that extensions get deleted months after their release.

This could be related to the May 22nd Privacy Policy updates by Stylish's publisher, and an extension update made after that date, but unfortunately, there's now no way to roll back to a compliant version -- users must opt-in to data sharing -- from before that date.

WestEnd said

FF is not in the business of Addon policing that is up the the creator and user to know what is good and what is bad or what they shouldn't use. FF comes plain Jane as they come what you customize after that is the User choice and problems arising from those choices are user issues not FF. If addons/extensions fail security checks or gets flagged then users need to decide whether or not they use it or don't use it. Again it comes all down to the User themselves to do their homework on Addons/Extensions this isn't a FF problem if just a standard install. That's how I see it.

Actually the company Mozilla that makes the Firefox web browser does have policies on what can be done with Extensions to be hosted by author on addons.mozilla.org.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews

Many extensions do not even become public on AMO as they may get denied or even added to blocklist due to breaking one or more policies. Though most of those extensions on blocklist are malicious extensions from outside of amo hosting. addons.mozilla.org/blocked/

Mozilla used to have a FAQ page on bottom of addons.mozilla.org but have since removed it recently. https://web.archive.org/web/20180529210742/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/faq

springheel said

ex: I have a 64 bit machine, that you've blacklisted me from installing the latest version of Java.

The 64-bit or Win64 Firefox for Windows has existed for Release since version 42.0 as before that there was only 32-bit Firefox for Windows. www.mozilla.org/firefox/all/

The Win64 Firefox 42.0 Release initially only allowed the 64-bit NPAPI Flash Player Plugin from Adobe to run and then starting from 43.0 to 51.0 Releases both Flash Player and Silverlight were the only NPAPI Plugins allowed to run in Win64 Firefox.

Firefox 52.0 and later Releases for Windows, Mac OSX and Linux has only allowed the NPAPI Flash Player Plugin to run since.

Right now only IE and the legacy Firefox 52 ESR still allows other NPAPI Plugins to run besides Flash Player from Adobe. However Windows users needs to use the 32-bit Firefox (52 ESR) if they want to run other NPAPI Plugins like the ever vulnerable Java Plugin from Oracle in Firefox for some reason.

Even Oracle has been in process of discontinuing their NPAPI Java Plugin as it is not with Java 9.

Why do Java, Silverlight, Adobe Acrobat and other plugins no longer work? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/npapi-plugins

Also since you said "you" a lot, nobody posting in this thread is from Mozilla ;-)