GPO vs Pref.js
Hi,
We previously deployed Firefox ESR with auto update disabled. We were using the Pref.js file within %appdata%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile\.. folder. We have now decided to move ahead with keeping the auto-update enabled and would like to leverage firefox admx templates. Within the GPO, we have enabled the below GPO settings:
Application.Autoupdate = Enabled browser.search.update = Enabled DisableUpdate = Disabled
However, the below auto update setting does not get enabled. I dont see any other GPO setting specific to it other than the ones I have listed above.
Use a background Service to install updates
Question: Does settings within pref.js takes precedence over GPO(s) or am I missing any additional GPO setting.
Any suggestions..
被采纳的解决方案
Hi Mike,
Unfortunately, 'The background service should be enabled by default' is not the case. If you have an Pref.js file sitting under %appdata%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile\.. folder with the below line within it, it appears to take precedence over the auto-update GPO settings I mentioned above, for this specific update setting under browser :(
user_pref("app.update.service.enabled", false);
Anyways, thank you for clarifying on Mozilla not having a specific GPO setting for this at the moment.
定位到答案原位置 👍 0所有回复 (4)
See:
In Firefox 63+ you can check the about:policies#active page to see whether policies are active.
The background service should be enabled by default. We currently don't have policy to manage that specifically.
选择的解决方案
Hi Mike,
Unfortunately, 'The background service should be enabled by default' is not the case. If you have an Pref.js file sitting under %appdata%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile\.. folder with the below line within it, it appears to take precedence over the auto-update GPO settings I mentioned above, for this specific update setting under browser :(
user_pref("app.update.service.enabled", false);
Anyways, thank you for clarifying on Mozilla not having a specific GPO setting for this at the moment.
由DS于修改
> user_pref("app.update.service.enabled", false);
I guess someone unchecked it.
I'll look into adding a policy for this.