搜索 | 用户支持

防范以用户支持为名的诈骗。我们绝对不会要求您拨打电话或发送短信,及提供任何个人信息。请使用“举报滥用”选项报告涉及违规的行为。

详细了解

"Allow for Session" cookies not working in FF 67 like it used to.

  • 2 个回答
  • 1 人有此问题
  • 20 次查看
  • 最后回复者为 AZBruno

more options

I use aggressive cookie blocking with exceptions for sites where I want to allow cookies. I use the Manage Permissions... button under Cookies and Site Data

When setting a site exception, I use the format such as https://company.com with Allow for Session. This worked fine for all subdomains on company.com.

Now I find that in order to get some sites to work, I need to add a specific subdomain with the Allow option

Example 1: https://chase.com Allow for Session https://chaseonline.chase.com Allow (this exception was not required before FF67)

Example 2: https://fidelity.com Allow for Session https://oltx.fidelity.com Allow (this exception was not required before FF67)

I can find no explanation for this, nor any setting to avoid the issue. For sites using lots of subdomains it gets tedious trying to figure out which one to allow to make the site work.

I use aggressive cookie blocking with exceptions for sites where I want to allow cookies. I use the Manage Permissions... button under Cookies and Site Data When setting a site exception, I use the format such as https://company.com with Allow for Session. This worked fine for all subdomains on company.com. Now I find that in order to get some sites to work, I need to add a specific subdomain with the Allow option Example 1: https://chase.com Allow for Session https://chaseonline.chase.com Allow (this exception was not required before FF67) Example 2: https://fidelity.com Allow for Session https://oltx.fidelity.com Allow (this exception was not required before FF67) I can find no explanation for this, nor any setting to avoid the issue. For sites using lots of subdomains it gets tedious trying to figure out which one to allow to make the site work.

所有回复 (2)

more options

Is this the same issue as your post from last week?

https://support.mozilla.org/questions/1260390

more options

Basically, yes. I was trying to be a little more direct in the title and clearer about the symptom so that it could be easily verified (or not), in hopes of a wider viewing. Sorry for the redundancy.