Any ideas how to install the webroot toolbar in Mozilla Firefox?
The automatic login feature for password manager does not work for me. I receive a message indicating the problem is the webroot toolbar has not been installed. My primary browser is Mozilla Firefox 40.0.2 (which is current). I have tried downloading and running, toolbarfix.exe. This will install the Webroot Tool bar in IE 11 but not Mozilla Firefox. Allegedly it should install in both browsers.
Thanks.
Page 1 / 1
Hello there, welcome to the Community!
There have been a number of reports of this over the day today. Mozilla has changed the way that add-ons must be 'signed' in order to work correctly. Webroot is aware of the situation.
I have heard some reports that a clean install of Webroot, instead of the toolbarfix, may help resolve the issue.
Please follow the steps closely!
If this does not help resolve the problem, you will probably want to Submit a Trouble Ticket and get assistance from Webroot Support. There is on charge for this.
There have been a number of reports of this over the day today. Mozilla has changed the way that add-ons must be 'signed' in order to work correctly. Webroot is aware of the situation.
I have heard some reports that a clean install of Webroot, instead of the toolbarfix, may help resolve the issue.
Please follow the steps closely!
- Make sure you have a copy of your 20 Character Alphanumeric Keycode! Example: SA69-AAAA-A783-DE78-XXXX
- KEEP the computer online for Uninstall and Reinstall to make sure it works correctly
- Download a Copy Here (Best Buy Subscription PC users click HERE)
- Uninstall WSA and Reboot
- Install with the new installer, enter your Keycode and don't import any settings if asked to as you can set it up as you like once it's done
- Let it finish it's install scan
- Reboot once again
If this does not help resolve the problem, you will probably want to Submit a Trouble Ticket and get assistance from Webroot Support. There is on charge for this.
Digital Signing requirement has nada to do with how extensions work at this time.@ wrote:
There have been a number of reports of this over the day today. Mozilla has changed the way that add-ons must be 'signed' in order to work correctly.
This digital signature mandate is also being implemented for current add-ons; after the November 3rd Firefox release (version 42), these will no longer work if they do not have a digital signature.EDIT <url to 3rd party site removed as contray to Community Guidelines>; Baldrick
Hi bjm_
We appreicate you wanting to assist fellow users but as I have said in your post the posting of 3rd party websites is contrary to Community Guidelines (please see here for details of the Guidelines), as this is a Webroot forum.
Many thanks for your understanding in the matter.
Regards, Baldrick
We appreicate you wanting to assist fellow users but as I have said in your post the posting of 3rd party websites is contrary to Community Guidelines (please see here for details of the Guidelines), as this is a Webroot forum.
Many thanks for your understanding in the matter.
Regards, Baldrick
Well, that's not as I'm accustomed. Norton Community welcomes third party. Adding relevant information limited to Webroot. Hmm.
Okay. Closed minds. Your Community. Your rules.
Okay. Closed minds. Your Community. Your rules.
Hi bjm_
I am afraid that I do not make the rules, none of the members do...that is down to Webroot. The rules do allow some referencing to 3rd party sites as long as they are not security apps related, i.e., a competitor product or a malware removal site (I have many that I frequent and would love to share good information from but I cannot).
At best references to the support sites of well known and reputable software companies like Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, etc. are permissible but may still be moderated if the content is deemed to be appropriate.
I appreciate that you may not be used to this but that is what it is here...and in fact is what keeps this Community refreshing by stopping it just being a 'post box' for other site like many have now become.
If you have experise to share with felloow members then what we tend to do is to share that outside the Forum, by the member offering to/inviting members to private message them for the information.
Now, if I have misunderstood the rules or interpretted them in too draconian a fashion then please let me know. ? ? ? please moderate here in case I am off piste.
Regards, Baldrick
I am afraid that I do not make the rules, none of the members do...that is down to Webroot. The rules do allow some referencing to 3rd party sites as long as they are not security apps related, i.e., a competitor product or a malware removal site (I have many that I frequent and would love to share good information from but I cannot).
At best references to the support sites of well known and reputable software companies like Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, etc. are permissible but may still be moderated if the content is deemed to be appropriate.
I appreciate that you may not be used to this but that is what it is here...and in fact is what keeps this Community refreshing by stopping it just being a 'post box' for other site like many have now become.
If you have experise to share with felloow members then what we tend to do is to share that outside the Forum, by the member offering to/inviting members to private message them for the information.
Now, if I have misunderstood the rules or interpretted them in too draconian a fashion then please let me know. ? ? ? please moderate here in case I am off piste.
Regards, Baldrick
Hello!
Yes ? these have been the rules since the beginning of the Webroot Community Forum. It's best to abide by these rules for the strenghth of the Community and the safety as well. If everybody posted external links to the web with their products and links then we'd have alot of issues to deal with and possible bad links. Spamming is not allowed as well!
I'm sure these rules can be easily understood?;)
Yes ? these have been the rules since the beginning of the Webroot Community Forum. It's best to abide by these rules for the strenghth of the Community and the safety as well. If everybody posted external links to the web with their products and links then we'd have alot of issues to deal with and possible bad links. Spamming is not allowed as well!
I'm sure these rules can be easily understood?;)
Thanks, Sherry
I just wanted to check that I was not being in any way unfair to bjm_. It is always good to check just incase things have changed/are not what you expect them to be.
Regards, Baldrick
I just wanted to check that I was not being in any way unfair to bjm_. It is always good to check just incase things have changed/are not what you expect them to be.
Regards, Baldrick
Heck,
I posted related links on Firefox and the op's Topic is Firefox.
I did not compare WSA to other security products.
Firefox digital signing is not security product related.
My links directly went to shorTcircuiT misunderstanding re Firefox signing reqirement.
My info was counter to senior poster shorTcircuiT.
<<Mozilla has changed the way that add-ons must be 'signed' in order to work correctly. >>
The fact that the above quote is wrong. I guess is irrelevant.
No problem. I'll study guidelines to see and interpret for myself.
I assure you my intent was not to furthur Spam. ghacks is not Spam.
WSA Community prefers controlled closed minds. No biggy. Regards.
I posted related links on Firefox and the op's Topic is Firefox.
I did not compare WSA to other security products.
Firefox digital signing is not security product related.
My links directly went to shorTcircuiT misunderstanding re Firefox signing reqirement.
My info was counter to senior poster shorTcircuiT.
<<Mozilla has changed the way that add-ons must be 'signed' in order to work correctly. >>
The fact that the above quote is wrong. I guess is irrelevant.
No problem. I'll study guidelines to see and interpret for myself.
I assure you my intent was not to furthur Spam. ghacks is not Spam.
WSA Community prefers controlled closed minds. No biggy. Regards.
Hi ?,
You state:
I assure you my intent was not to furthur Spam. ghacks is not Spam.
My apologies I didn't mean to say you were spamming. I just threw that in as being part of our rules. To advoid any spamming that others might do. Please do read our guidelines.
Kind Regards,
You state:
I assure you my intent was not to furthur Spam. ghacks is not Spam.
My apologies I didn't mean to say you were spamming. I just threw that in as being part of our rules. To advoid any spamming that others might do. Please do read our guidelines.
Kind Regards,
Hi bjm_
Indeed, I am sure that ghacks and indeed other sites that you have or would want to reference are reputable but as I said before what the Community is trying to avoid is the site becoming a posting box for other articles on other site (the only exception to that is the Security News where we repost from other specialist sites for the benefits of users here).
As Sherry has stated in trying to preventing 'posting box' syndrome one has to try to draw the line and at present it is the approach that has been advised...if that changes I am sure that this will be announced.
The character of this site is special...IMHO it is one of the better sites out there...and Webroot want to keep it that way. If you feel in any way that you have been wronged or that the rules have been misinterpreted by me or anyone else then you are most welcome to contact our Community Manager ? for clarification, guidance and moderation...he is the ultimate arbiter in all such matters.
As to you wishing to correct an apparent misinterpretation/inaccuracy in posting by another member, well we do this all the time but usually in our own words and without having to resort to posting urls, etc. If you believe that something has been posted or said erroneously then just say so...I think that you will find members here very accepting of other members and their experiences...without the need for 'proof' that one is correct...we are a very trusting bunch when it comes to each other.
That is one of the beauties of this Community.
But as you say...'no biggy'...but I do urge you to contact Nic if only to double check that what is being represented to you is not erroneous.
Regards, Baldrick
Indeed, I am sure that ghacks and indeed other sites that you have or would want to reference are reputable but as I said before what the Community is trying to avoid is the site becoming a posting box for other articles on other site (the only exception to that is the Security News where we repost from other specialist sites for the benefits of users here).
As Sherry has stated in trying to preventing 'posting box' syndrome one has to try to draw the line and at present it is the approach that has been advised...if that changes I am sure that this will be announced.
The character of this site is special...IMHO it is one of the better sites out there...and Webroot want to keep it that way. If you feel in any way that you have been wronged or that the rules have been misinterpreted by me or anyone else then you are most welcome to contact our Community Manager ? for clarification, guidance and moderation...he is the ultimate arbiter in all such matters.
As to you wishing to correct an apparent misinterpretation/inaccuracy in posting by another member, well we do this all the time but usually in our own words and without having to resort to posting urls, etc. If you believe that something has been posted or said erroneously then just say so...I think that you will find members here very accepting of other members and their experiences...without the need for 'proof' that one is correct...we are a very trusting bunch when it comes to each other.
That is one of the beauties of this Community.
But as you say...'no biggy'...but I do urge you to contact Nic if only to double check that what is being represented to you is not erroneous.
Regards, Baldrick
shorTcircuiT message comes across as fact by virtue of postes rank without any supportive documentation.
I posted contrary with supportive documentation and documentation was removed.
Come on. If gospel is in every ones own words. Where's the beef.
You have ranked members with moderation privilege.
Okay. I understand. Rank has it's privilege. Privilege to promote false.
Regards
bjm_
I posted contrary with supportive documentation and documentation was removed.
Come on. If gospel is in every ones own words. Where's the beef.
You have ranked members with moderation privilege.
Okay. I understand. Rank has it's privilege. Privilege to promote false.
Regards
bjm_
I am sorry that I did not phrase things exactly as it should be... that I did not correctly note the nuances between add on and extension. To be quite honest, that is not really important to anyone posting here asking why the Password Manager is not working.
The bottom line, which is what is important here, is that the change in Firefox caused the issue. The issue is being worked on.
Personal attacks are not really well tolerated here, so I would ask that you refrain from such.
Thank you.
The bottom line, which is what is important here, is that the change in Firefox caused the issue. The issue is being worked on.
Personal attacks are not really well tolerated here, so I would ask that you refrain from such.
Thank you.
<< The bottom line, which is what is important here, is that the change in Firefox caused the issue. The issue is being worked on.>>
Not true. Signing requirement does not alter extensions in any way in FF40.x.
Reaching for <<Personal attacks are not really well tolerated here, so I would ask that you refrain from such.>>
Come on.... anyone that does not agree is a personal attack. LOL
Ranked posters with moderator privilege = too many cooks in the kitchen.
Not true. Signing requirement does not alter extensions in any way in FF40.x.
Reaching for <<Personal attacks are not really well tolerated here, so I would ask that you refrain from such.>>
Come on.... anyone that does not agree is a personal attack. LOL
Ranked posters with moderator privilege = too many cooks in the kitchen.
I will not argue. Never have I ever said that I know everything, no one here does. Those who have any form of moderation ability have it after earning it, and it does not come by post count.
The situation began with a change in Firefox. Webroot is aware of this. Webroot is not the only software affected. It does no good to confuse the issue with semantics, or arguments, the only item of importance is at this point is providing what workarounds are available to use until Webroot and Mozilla have the issue resolved, which will most likely not take very long.
The situation began with a change in Firefox. Webroot is aware of this. Webroot is not the only software affected. It does no good to confuse the issue with semantics, or arguments, the only item of importance is at this point is providing what workarounds are available to use until Webroot and Mozilla have the issue resolved, which will most likely not take very long.
The Webroot Community should be used to share information about issues relating to Webroot, Webroot products and services and Internet security generally. Please do not attempt to promote a separate organization or cause. Links to third-party security vendors will be removed.
And how does posting correction with supportive documention violate guidlines.
Signing requirement does not alter the way extensions work in FF40
And how does posting correction with supportive documention violate guidlines.
Signing requirement does not alter the way extensions work in FF40
Well, since my last two messages went to moderation or went by by.
Then you'll always be correct.
There is no issue. No need for work around. Signing requirement does not break extensions.
If Webroot extension is broken. Not as yet enforced signing requirement did not break Webroot.
Community ...
Then you'll always be correct.
There is no issue. No need for work around. Signing requirement does not break extensions.
If Webroot extension is broken. Not as yet enforced signing requirement did not break Webroot.
Community ...
Let's try and keep this thread friendly as we figure out what's going on with the Firefox extensions. We can disagree without being disagreeable 🙂
Seems, reaching for innuendo extends to the Community Manager.
I was not being disagreeable. Lets explore the facts.
I made a well intended attempt to add relevant information including link to supportive documentation.
That info was stifled by some vague reference to Guidelines.
EDIT <url to 3rd party site removed as contrary to Community Guidelines>; Baldrick
Definition of Community: A meeting space for digital citizens to learn, share and connect through common and divergent views.
Actually, Guidelines state: Links to third-party security vendors will be removed.
Funny, thing is I did not post link to third-party security vendor.
So, disagreeable would be removing a link that is not against Guidelines.
Who was...being disagreeable .. ?
Now, if I can get the Manager to replace the link that was not in violation of Guidelines.
Granted. Webroot and its Moderators reserve, at their sole discretion, the right to choose what content is appropriate, and to remove content, including, but not limited to, comments that do not further the goals of the Community.
So, how did the removed links go against furthuring the goals of the Community. The links were not to third party security vendor and were still removed. The links must therefore go against Community goals.
How did the links go against the goals of the Community.
Seems, since ranked members have moderator powers.... ranked members may enhance the Community goals by common sense moderation.
I was not being disagreeable. Lets explore the facts.
I made a well intended attempt to add relevant information including link to supportive documentation.
That info was stifled by some vague reference to Guidelines.
EDIT <url to 3rd party site removed as contrary to Community Guidelines>; Baldrick
Definition of Community: A meeting space for digital citizens to learn, share and connect through common and divergent views.
Actually, Guidelines state: Links to third-party security vendors will be removed.
Funny, thing is I did not post link to third-party security vendor.
So, disagreeable would be removing a link that is not against Guidelines.
Who was...being disagreeable .. ?
Now, if I can get the Manager to replace the link that was not in violation of Guidelines.
Granted. Webroot and its Moderators reserve, at their sole discretion, the right to choose what content is appropriate, and to remove content, including, but not limited to, comments that do not further the goals of the Community.
So, how did the removed links go against furthuring the goals of the Community. The links were not to third party security vendor and were still removed. The links must therefore go against Community goals.
How did the links go against the goals of the Community.
Seems, since ranked members have moderator powers.... ranked members may enhance the Community goals by common sense moderation.
Reply
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.