Om de ûnderfining foar jo te ferbetterjen is tydlik de funksjonaliteit dan dizze website troch ûnderhâldswurk beheind. Wannear in artikel jo probleem net oplost en jo in fraach stelle wolle, kin ús stipemienskip jo helpe yn @FirefoxSupport op Twitter en /r/firefox op Reddit.

Sykje yn Support

Mij stipescams. Wy sille jo nea freegje in telefoannûmer te beljen, der in sms nei ta te stjoeren of persoanlike gegevens te dielen. Meld fertochte aktiviteit mei de opsje ‘Misbrûk melde’.

Mear ynfo

Dizze konversaasje is argivearre. Stel in nije fraach as jo help nedich hawwe.

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 antwurd
  • 1 hat dit probleem
  • 1 werjefte
  • Lêste antwurd fan 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?
Keppele skermôfbyldingen

Keazen oplossing

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!

Dit antwurd yn kontekst lêze 👍 0

Alle antwurden (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

Keazen oplossing

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!