Closed
Bug 1457142
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
Policies: Disable/Configure camera access
Categories
(Firefox :: Enterprise Policies, enhancement, P1)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 60
People
(Reporter: narutards, Assigned: kanika16047)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
Under about:preferences#privacy you have the option to configure a list of websites that are allowed to access your camera and to deny the permission to any new websites.
It would be really nice if you could configure this through the enterprise GPOs.
The option I'm looking for is "permissions.default.camera".
Updated•7 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Updated•7 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P1
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → kanika16047
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8979044 [details]
Bug 1457142 - Added Policy: Camera Access
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/245304/#review253382
::: browser/components/enterprisepolicies/Policies.jsm:121
(Diff revision 3)
> + if (param.BlockNewRequests) {
> + if (param.Locked) {
> + setAndLockPref("permissions.default.camera", 2);
> + } else {
> + setDefaultPref("permissions.default.camera", 2);
> + }
> + } else if (!param.BlockNewRequests) {
> + if (param.Locked) {
> + setAndLockPref("permissions.default.camera", 0);
> + } else {
> + setDefaultPref("permissions.default.camera", 0);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + },
this is not quite perfect because if BlockNewRequests is not defined, it will enter the !param.BlockNewRequests block.
What you should do is check:
`if ("BlockNewRequests" in param) {`
and then inside that block you decide about setting the value 2 or 2 depending if that is true or false
::: browser/components/enterprisepolicies/tests/browser/browser_policy_camera_access.js:32
(Diff revision 3)
> + Ci.nsIPermissionManager.DENY_ACTION,
> + Ci.nsIPermissionManager.EXPIRE_SESSION);
> +});
> +
> +add_task(async function test_setup_activate_policies() {
> + await setupPolicyEngineWithJson("camera_access.json");
I know that you just followed the example from the other test.. it was one of the first tests that were written, but after that, we decided to not create these external .json files anymore, and just have the JSON inlined in the test
The setupPolicyEngineWithJson supports it. See for example https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/5a744713370ec47969595e369fd5125f123e6d24/browser/components/enterprisepolicies/tests/browser/browser_policy_cookie_settings.js#134
Attachment #8979044 -
Flags: review?(felipc)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8979044 [details]
Bug 1457142 - Added Policy: Camera Access
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/245304/#review253624
Attachment #8979044 -
Flags: review?(felipc) → review+
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
Mike, are you fine with the names of the policy and the properties here?
Flags: needinfo?(mozilla)
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
I'm almost starting to wish we'd put all of these under a top level "Permissions" category so we could have just called it "Camera"
Permissions->Camera
Naming is hard.
Since we're basically going to be using this model for a number of other permissons, I'm also wondering if we think we need to make all three options available in this case:
Always Ask/Block/Allow
And use an enum.
But then I don't know what to name it. Because the enum is really the "Camera" permission and we need a way to lock it.
Unrelated - have we verify that locking this preference locks it in page permissions (It can't be overridden)
Flags: needinfo?(mozilla)
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Assignee: kanika16047 → ksaini
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•