Шукати в статтях підтримки

Остерігайтеся нападів зловмисників. Mozilla ніколи не просить вас зателефонувати, надіслати номер телефону у повідомленні або поділитися з кимось особистими даними. Будь ласка, повідомте про підозрілі дії за допомогою меню “Повідомити про зловживання”

Докладніше

Ця тема перенесена в архів. Якщо вам потрібна допомога, запитайте.

New privacy browser 57.0.4 (64-bit) is too cautious

more options

I am ready to give up Firefox altogether. There are sites - from my own experience that I will not go to. c/net for example. You can't download anything without getting saddled with - at best annoying software you don't want, but at worst malicious adware or worse. I don't need Firefox to block me from going there. But now I am being blocked from going places I have gone to in the past with no problem. What I'm doing now - which is really counterproductive and annoying as hell - when Firefox blocks me from something I have had no problem with, I go over to IE and enter the url. I get the same warning from IE, but I can do a real-time (read one-time) by-pass and see the site. I do not **want** the url to an exception list. Most of these sites I'm just going to for information - I'm not entering personal data.

Now let me just ask you - our church's website, which I manage, has sign-up forms for receiving newletters. Are we going to find our-selves blocked?

You need to put more and easier user controls if you're going to publish a browser like this.

I am ready to give up Firefox altogether. There are sites - from my own experience that I will not go to. c/net for example. You can't download anything without getting saddled with - at best annoying software you don't want, but at worst malicious adware or worse. I don't need Firefox to block me from going there. But now I am being blocked from going places I have gone to in the past with no problem. What I'm doing now - which is really counterproductive and annoying as hell - when Firefox blocks me from something I have had no problem with, I go over to IE and enter the url. I get the same warning from IE, but I can do a real-time (read one-time) by-pass and see the site. I do not **want** the url to an exception list. Most of these sites I'm just going to for information - I'm not entering personal data. Now let me just ask you - our church's website, which I manage, has sign-up forms for receiving newletters. Are we going to find our-selves blocked? You need to put more and easier user controls if you're going to publish a browser like this.

Обране рішення

I think they're really trying to do the right thing with HTTPS Everywhere, but it really needs to be HTTPS in just the important places to avoid such issues.

Читати цю відповідь у контексті 👍 0

Усі відповіді (8)

more options

You completely misunderstand Firefox's intentions. CNET is a cesspool of bundled garbage. You download one program and end with 4 different ones. I wouldn't touch anything there with a ten foot pole. Firefox is doing the right thing by not letting you go there.

more options

Why are you only using Private Browsing only? This will happen to many sites when you do this it's not a FF issue. Sites nowdays will block Private Browsers should you prevent cookie or tracking from running. You either choose to regular Browser or not go to those site on Private Browsing.

more options

To Moses and WestEnd

The title of my post misled you. I am not using private browsing. I used "Privacy" in the sense that the warning page hints at the danger of my information being stolen through the mixture of https content with http content.

As I said above, this warning is showing up on sites that I have used many times without problem. It is also showing up on similar kinds of sites where I do not expect a problem. There are a lot of sites that I go to for information and nothing else. The minute I am asked to "sign up" in order to get the information, I'm out of there.

Similarly, if you reread what I said about c/net, you will see that I know c/net is a cesspool. I was using that as an example of sites that, not only do I know that they are a cesspool, I don't need Firefox to tell me that.

Moreover, I'm getting sites where when I click a link, I am seemingly out in the ether. The url box shows the link url, but the page is blank and the reload doesn't work. There's no indication via a warning that there is anything wrong with this site.

These two things are happening to such a noticeable extent that it has caused me to write on this board.

more options

bdjim said

But now I am being blocked from going places I have gone to in the past with no problem. What I'm doing now - which is really counterproductive and annoying as hell - when Firefox blocks me from something I have had no problem with, I go over to IE and enter the url. I get the same warning from IE, but I can do a real-time (read one-time) by-pass and see the site.

Could you describe the error screen you get more specifically? Is this along the lines of the screen shown in either of these articles:

Or something else?

more options

The screen relates to the first article. What does "Your connection is not secure" mean?

more options

bdjim said

The screen relates to the first article. What does "Your connection is not secure" mean?

If you click the "Advanced" button on the error page, which kind of problem do you see there? For example:

  • Certificate is valid for a different address but not this one
  • Certificate issuer is not recognized

The first problem sometimes is caused by HTTPS Everywhere, which I saw on your extensions list. Although the server can make a secure connection, it does so using a general certificate and not one specific to the particular site. HTTPS Everywhere doesn't always distinguish between those two things, but Firefox does.

While you can make an exception in that case to accept the general certificate, it's easier just to edit the address back to HTTP instead, since clearly the site owner did not intend for you to use HTTPS and other things may end up being broken if you make an exception and push forward with HTTPS.

more options

deactivating "https everywhere" seems to have solved the problem. Thanks

more options

Вибране рішення

I think they're really trying to do the right thing with HTTPS Everywhere, but it really needs to be HTTPS in just the important places to avoid such issues.