Option to allow extensions to run only on specific websites.

[alamalo]

There should be a way to allow extensions to execute only on specific websites like the Site access option in Edge does, this improves extensions usability and may also enhance privacy.

 

[dhananjayraut]

Would be very helpful. If possible at container level as well.

[Bjones]

I’ve always wondered why this doesn’t exist. Giving an addon access to all your browsing data when you only need it for one or a few specific sites just seems like a massive security flaw.

As the above commented noted, it’d also make sense to be able to specify that an addon only works with specific containers. 

[Mte90]

Browser extensions have a list of website where to be executed, there are others that required all the tabs and so on.

Maybe if you share some examples of extension it is more easy to understand the user case or maybe asks to the developer to fix it.

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with an exciting update…

Your idea has quickly received a great deal of votes (kudos) and support here in the Mozilla Connect community, so we are upgrading the status to “Trending idea.” This means it’s now one step closer to reaching our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey.

Please keep the conversation going and stay tuned for updates 😃

-The Community Team

[Anonymous]

In browsers such as Google Chrome, you can go to extensions settings and choose to limit an extension to certain sites.

But on Firefox, there is no such feature to limit add-ons. I really need this for a personal reason, it's genuinely the one thing preventing me from using the browser. I would really like to see this implemented in the future.

[Jon]

Thanks for submitting an idea to the Mozilla Connect community! Your idea is now open to votes (aka kudos) and comments.

[jscher2000]

This is on the "To Do" list but thank you for posting because more encouragement might help to "get it done."

[masoudahmadi1]

Good

[AlfoMora]

Yes

[dyne]

It is very important to have this functionality. Important for security and privacy.

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with another exciting update…

This idea has been upgraded to "In review" which means it will be brought to our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey. As soon as we have another update on its status, we’ll let you know right here in the comment section.

Stay tuned 😃

-The Community Team

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with another exciting update…

This idea has been upgraded to "In review" which means it will be brought to our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey. As soon as we have another update on its status, we’ll let you know right here in the comment section.

Stay tuned 😃

-The Community Team

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with another exciting update…

This idea has been upgraded to "In review" which means it will be brought to our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey. As soon as we have another update on its status, we’ll let you know right here in the comment section.

Stay tuned 😃

-The Community Team

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with another exciting update…

This idea has been upgraded to "In review" which means it will be brought to our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey. As soon as we have another update on its status, we’ll let you know right here in the comment section.

Stay tuned 😃

-The Community Team

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with another exciting update…

This idea has been upgraded to "In review" which means it will be brought to our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey. As soon as we have another update on its status, we’ll let you know right here in the comment section.

Stay tuned 😃

-The Community Team

[Zaf9670]

I was just thinking how great it would be for certain extensions (like Honey for Shopping) would be great if they can have limited access based on Sites or if using the Containers extensions already.

It sounds like "Containers" would be the best option for security due to the cookie/tracking isolation layer. Hope this gets in the line-up for a Firefox 10X release!

[mennabah]

Hi everyone

Sometimes while developing frontend applications it's the case that we need to test without having extra scripts injected by installed extensions.

What do you think of adding the option to disable browser extensions on localhost and/or file://  domains?

Generally speaking, I think it's even better if we can specify any custom domain (with wildcards). Ideally this sits outside about:config.

Thanks

[jonathanbckr]

This is a Chromium feature that I find really helpful and miss from Brave. I need extensions like Grammarly for work, but I wish I could contain them to certain areas.

[Corbot9000]

Completely agree - this is definitely one of those "must have" features on Chrome that I miss - I often limit extensions to the website they're used for (FakeSpot for Amazon only, SponsorSkip for YouTube, etc).