Firefox MSI installer does not behave like an MSI, thus Intune cannot detect whether it's installed
Categories
(Firefox :: Installer, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: olavbirkeland, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
|
96.17 KB,
image/png
|
Details |
190704 - Registry entry - Mozilla Firefox MSI.PNG
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36
Steps to reproduce:
I installed latest stable firefox using the MSI from Intune MDM. (https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/67.0.4/win64/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2067.0.4.msi).
Actual results:
Mozilla Firefox MSI behaves like the EXE installer, and creates a registry path for uninstall like so: "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\Mozilla Firefox 67.0.4 (x64 en-US)".
Without using the GUID for the MSI as Uninstall folder name in registry, like for instance Google Chrome does ("HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall{7F544E85-3FC4-3F6B-BE1C-679880E73AD3}" in my test), Intune is not able to verify success.
Expected results:
Mozilla Firefox MSI isntaller should behave like a MSI, it should not create registry items that are identical to the MSI installer.
|
Reporter | |
Updated•5 years ago
|
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
Could I get some insight from the Firefox dev team if this is even a priority/ will it ever get fixed? Or do we have to create custom detection rules without using GUID? Then what good is a MSI if it does not behave like a MSI?
|
||
Comment 2•5 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the feedback. You're not the first to report a problem like this. We released the MSI package knowing what its limitations were, but also understanding that we didn't know how serious they would end up being in practice. Speaking for myself, this particular problem has proven to be more impactful than I had anticipated, so I'd like to address it. I can't put a timeline on a solution because I am the only developer doing installer work and there are other short and medium term priorities right now, and also because I don't know exactly how that solution would work (but I have an idea).
This bug is asking for the same thing that bug 1505436 is asking for, so I'm closing it as a duplicate of that bug. I'll also comment over there with my current thinking regarding what to do about this.
Description
•