Pretraži podršku

Izbjegni prevare podrške. Nikad te nećemo tražiti da nas nazoveš, da nam pošalješ telefonski broj ili da podijeliš osobne podatke. Prijavi sumnjive radnje pomoću opcije „Prijavi zlouporabu”.

Saznaj više

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 odgovora
  • 1 ima ovaj problem
  • 1 prikaz
  • Posljednji odgovor od 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?
Priložene slike ekrana

Izabrano rješenje

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!

Pročitaj ovaj odgovor u kontekstu 👍 0

Svi odgovori (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

Odabrano rješenje

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!