6/19/2026 at 5:26:02 PM
This is not a Google-wide thing… this is from Google’s Context-Aware Access product, which is configurable in Google Workspace environments. OP should direct their ire at their corporate IT or infosec team.by bgc
6/19/2026 at 5:34:28 PM
it shouldn’t be an option.Some IT departments just see a “more secure” checkbox and will always check it, even if it doesn’t make sense holistically- sometimes compliance incentivises (or forces) this behaviour.
A common example is forcing intune/device enrolment for mobile devices (including ipads)- but not for the infinitely less secure laptops: because no such endpoint enforcement checkbox exists
by dijit
6/19/2026 at 8:24:26 PM
While this is true, allow me to give another POV. I run corporate security and internal IT for a 100 person SaaS. I "nudge" our users towards Chrome. Why? Because I can manage Chrome using the config infrastructure provided by Google. Because Google has more resources to secure their browser. Because my observability and DLP stuff works with Chrome and not with Firefox. And I'm probably still missing out on a bunch of things.Those are real, practical reasons. Not just "if I do this I get to check another box".
Yes. I know. It's a pain that when you cannot do what you want to do. But it's not your laptop. It's the company's. Supporting more browsers to the same standard that I just described would take engineering resources, of which I do not have an infinite supply. And the priority goes to keeping the company secure.
by ArnoVW
6/19/2026 at 8:48:37 PM
> Because Google has more resources to secure their browserThey've kneecapped ad-blockers, when ad networks are perhaps one of the biggest causes of malware installs/page hijacking/other unwanted behaviour. I'm not sure how you can consider Chrome remotely secure in this light.
by lol768
6/19/2026 at 9:01:38 PM
My org (or rather, the org they pay to run their IT) blocked browser plugins with a security justification.I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone.
When you outsource IT, there are many, many misaligned incentives.
by flir
6/19/2026 at 10:12:24 PM
> I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone.How so? Bad actors buying existing extensions with large user bases then publishing a new version which does bad stuff is a pretty common pattern. It certainy seems like a reasonable concern for a corp IT department.
by remus
6/19/2026 at 11:56:39 PM
99% of security experts I know use ad blockers.When there are unpatched browser vulnerabilities, attackers will use ad networks to inject attack code into reputable-but-ad-laden websites. And even when there aren't unpatched vulnerabilities out there, many ad networks will happily accept scam ads, ads that trick people into downloading malware, fake download buttons and suchlike.
by michaelt
6/20/2026 at 1:42:37 AM
> 99% of security experts I know use ad blockers.But if they all use Chrome, wouldn't those be really weak ad blockers?
by radley
6/19/2026 at 11:42:47 PM
Not GP, but I think the point was that no extensions => no ad blockers => major malware vehicle unlockable, short of disabling JSby nazgul17
6/20/2026 at 1:41:24 AM
> My org (or rather, the org they pay to run their IT) blocked browser plugins with a security justification.Same here, but only on Chrome. Firefox works fine.
by radley
6/19/2026 at 9:19:03 PM
They didn’t take a decade plus to implement per-domain process isolation, for starters…by DANmode
6/19/2026 at 8:32:03 PM
while valid points, my company uses Microsoft products and they are pretty abysmal in whatever domain they have products in. Edge for example being one of the weaker browser options. (though better than it was in the IE era).Being forced to use various tools for compliance is frustrating, doubly so if it helps create a stronger monopoly position, because a monopoly position creates stagnation, which makes worse products.
But those worse products are forced on users, even when better ones start to come about.
This is the crux of my issue, Microsoft is the king of this behaviour, and they are using this a lot which is squeezing the metaphorical testicles of almost all companies in Europe.
by dijit
6/19/2026 at 8:34:17 PM
If you run a SaaS, large parts of your orgs should be on all major browsers regularly.by chinathrow
6/19/2026 at 8:46:52 PM
I have a handful of endpoints, used by staff that represent a low level of risk, that use Firefox for that precise reason.But really, we have a couple of million enterprise end-users, some of which surely using Edge. If we as much as move a button without telling them about it three months in advance, it's the end of the world. In 10 years time, no customer has raised it.
by ArnoVW
6/19/2026 at 9:20:17 PM
Edge: Chromium with Google Chrome-like data collection, but with data going to Microsoft instead.by DANmode
6/19/2026 at 11:46:05 PM
This is the correct answer. Having your users run multiple browsers by default (instead of with whitelisted exceptions) is now multiple attack surfaces the org has to manage.by mbac32768
6/20/2026 at 1:47:56 AM
Very curious how you avoid supporting multiple browsers. Apple, Google, and Microsoft each require users on their platforms to use their native browsers for secure connections.And if your company has any web presence or apps, you usually can't cherry pick which browsers your customers can use. That means some portion of your company will need access to other browsers for QA purposes.
by radley
6/19/2026 at 8:57:41 PM
Do people get pwned by anything besides spearphishing or ads nowadays? I think ad->phish or targeted phish emails is the only shady thing I've been exposed to in like 10 yearsby verall
6/19/2026 at 10:35:50 PM
It's a pain that when you cannot do what you want to do. But it's not your laptop. It's the company's.But it is my craft, and to be limited to what tools I can use in my craft can decrease the value of my work, and in doing so decrease the company's productivity.
by NewJazz
6/19/2026 at 11:02:00 PM
Let's say you earn a million dollars a year (most of us earn far less). At quite a few companies, a 50% decrease in your productivity (and changing browsers is nowhere near that) would cost the company significantly less than dealing with the fallout of any of the following:* A user intentionally leaking sensitive documents outside the corporate network
* A user installing an infected browser extension that gives attackers access to corporate resources
* A user accessing malware or ransomware which infects corporate resources.
That's on top of the cost of having the IT department having to debug issues among users with bespoke tool sets which can often interact in unintuitive ways.
There are many stupid ways that companies "optimize" costs that cost them more in the end. Standardizing the browser and extension set for data loss protection is not one of them.
by Arainach
6/19/2026 at 10:10:19 PM
This feels like the whole IE6 dance coming back.People know how it ended, but don't seem to remember how it started, which is a shame.
by makeitdouble
6/19/2026 at 9:15:43 PM
> But it's not your laptop. It's the company's.Sure, which is why you should lock down the laptop. Blocking Firefox in Google Workspace seems like entirely the wrong layer for this.
by Wowfunhappy
6/19/2026 at 10:20:59 PM
Google has the resources to do it, but do they actually do it? By the looks of it I'd say "no".See the whole thing with libxml2 for example, or how they started boringssl to "fix" the issues with openssl, but they run it as an internal project you cannot depend on.
by LtWorf
6/19/2026 at 9:04:07 PM
having soon-to-be-nonfunctional adblocking will be far more dangerous to org than any extra security those options might provideby PunchyHamster
6/20/2026 at 2:54:04 AM
Ubo lite is plenty functional. It's not as full-featured as ubo, but... I don't see ads. At all. What sites doesn't it work well on?by zdragnar
6/19/2026 at 6:22:11 PM
It's their organization. They are allowed to make decisions about what software their employees use. I'm a die-hard Mozilla fan, but I don't find this unreasonable.by ktm5j
6/19/2026 at 6:27:18 PM
The problem is Google appears to label this as a security feature. I'm fine with the feature existing, but it should say something like "require Chrome" or "block Firefox" not "require a secure browser (wink wink we actually mean Chrome)"by cmeacham98
6/19/2026 at 6:36:34 PM
The wording here is bad, but basically CAA supports non browser specific policy and, in some cases, browser specific policy (GSuite offers a "Managed Chrome" policy). Firefox users can leverage much of the non browser specific policy, they obviously can not be a part of the "Managed Chrome" offering.by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 7:36:14 PM
There's no contradiction here; it's totally possible for a company to make a feature configurable so that it doesn't block their competitors but also intentionally design and market it in a way that's misleading in ways that will lead to their competitors getting blocked. When we're talking about a company as large as Google and a product with as much market share as Chrome, I don't think it's that crazy to think that things like this add up to encouraging even more hegemony, and when that happens to align perfectly with the incentives of the company making said product decisions, I also don't think it's crazy to think it's unlikely to be a coincidence.by saghm
6/19/2026 at 7:39:13 PM
If the argument is that Google has built a product that encourages use of Google products, of course. The question is whether that's some sort of trickery or odd or bad. "Google offers Managed Chrome as a service" hardly seems controversial to me.by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 7:54:38 PM
Google offering managed chrome as a service is a completely sensible thing. The problem is that they are nearly a browser monopoly, and making Google Workspace work in such a way with Google Chrome feels to me like anti-competitive practices. If we didn't have one giant megacorp that did both things, it would be different.Of course, so far the only workable model for web browsers is having a giant megacorp fund their development and maintenance. Which is a huge issue, and we will do basically nothing about it.
(Don't get me wrong. I have high hopes for Ladybird and even Servo, but they may come too late if effectively-proprietary features force most users to stick to Chrome anyways.)
by jchw
6/19/2026 at 8:29:20 PM
I'm not sure what the alternative is. Is there will from Firefox to support a "standard browser config", at which point GSuite could add support for managed Firefox config? If you want managed Firefox, Mozilla could offer that as well (they have something but it's different enough).by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 8:56:52 PM
The alternative that we've used for the past 100+ years is to force such companies apart. Is Google Docs allowed to offer a "managed chrome" policy? Sure. Is Google Chrome allowed to be a browser? Absolutely!But if either side is close to a monopoly, both cannot be part of the same company, even if that means breaking an existing company up.
by spwa4
6/19/2026 at 8:05:13 PM
It is a security feature. In a corporate environment, you generally don't want users installing their own software. If it's a remote access thing from a personal device, you still generally want to be able to establish some kind of baseline. I don't like Chrome - not even a little bit - but I will admit that they have a pretty damn good security track record. I'd rather my remote users be on there than some crusty Firefox installation with 40 extensions. Organizations have the right to make these decisions when they are the ones that own the data. For example, when I was still in that world, we required personal phones to be encrypted to access corporate email. This was when a lot of people would still walk around with devices without a pin. People complained, but it was non-negotiable.by jm4
6/19/2026 at 8:21:51 PM
Literally the only reason they can argue Chrome is more secure than Firefox in that kind of setting is because they can Google can push Google Chrome profiles via Google Workspaces but they’ve never working with Mozilla to create an interop for Firefox.When Microsoft did this with Windows, AD, and Internet Explore, it was deemed a breach of anti-trust laws. The question is whether such laws apply to Google given they don’t have a monopoly in the identity services domain.
If you’d asked me 5 years ago, I’d have said “no way”, but recent judgements with Apple and their App Store lead me to think there is still hope. Regardless of how remote that might be.
by hnlmorg
6/20/2026 at 1:12:04 AM
And Google would probably say the same thing Microsoft used to say back in the day. Their customers aren't asking for the ability to manage profiles in Firefox. I wouldn't doubt for a second that it's true.Almost nobody outside of the minority of internet users fighting against chromium hegemony cares about Firefox. Firefox lost its casual users years ago. Hell, even most of those people sticking with it out of principle are doing it while gritting their teeth. It's been a subpar browser for a long time and the Mozilla organization kinda sucks.
Why would any for-profit enterprise waste their time or money on Firefox?
by jm4
6/19/2026 at 6:58:59 PM
Note that making lock-in features like this effectively proprietary to the Chrome browser is only possible because of the fact that it's the same company making Google Workspace and Google Chrome.I absolutely see many problems with this and you really ought to as well.
by jchw
6/19/2026 at 8:08:06 PM
>only possibleTwo different companies can partner together and release features in both of the company's interests.
by charcircuit
6/19/2026 at 9:57:56 PM
I didn't mean it would be physically impossible, which is hopefully implied, I mean, it would be de-facto impossible. Absent the perverse forces of anticompetitive behavior, browsers don't really have a good incentive to diminish the open nature of web standards by doing partnerships that bypass standards altogether. If you are not affiliated with Google and there is a healthy ecosystem of browsers, you just simply can tell them to bug off if they want some web feature you feel wouldn't be good for the health of the web. The interaction between browser vendors and certificate authorities has traditionally been a great example of how things can work out between different entities in an ecosystem, though outside Mozilla I am guessing most of the browser vendors are also CAs (but still have very little to no incentive to compromise or weaken the system.)Meanwhile, in our current reality, both Google and Apple have or currently are shoehorning platform level attestation into the web in various different ways, something they are mostly able to do because they have so much control over multiple major ecosystems (among platforms, browsers, web services.) Mostly, even making them "standards", which would be hilarious if it wasn't literally evil. (Apple's approach to sneaking this in is innovative, in that it technically is a hardware platform attestation mechanism, but it was sold and initially implemented as a convenience feature. That and the underlying PAT technology can be used in strictly non-evil ways, like Kagi's rather clever application.)
It's a lot of words to say that I didn't mean literally impossible, but if we're going to get pedantic then a lot of words it is.
by jchw
6/19/2026 at 10:43:47 PM
>browsers don't really have a good incentiveWhy wouldn't money be an incentive. If businesses are willing to pay to have locked down browser access their cloud files, and the cloud file website wants to make money by charging businesses for this feature it makes sense that they may pay a browser to develop such a feature to use with their website.
by charcircuit
6/19/2026 at 11:03:10 PM
I dunno, it just seems like the set of circumstances that would be needed to overcome the inherent friction in a "healthy" ecosystem is a lot more gymnastics than the current situation where the browser company with the vast majority of marketshare is the company that has conflicts of interest to fuck with the browser.by jchw
6/19/2026 at 6:24:59 PM
Google and Microsoft shouldn’t be giving levers that bake you more into their ecosystem regardless.Your corporate serfdom is not in question, but I disagree with that notion too.
by dijit
6/19/2026 at 7:06:22 PM
It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this. Google is obviously going to focus on security testing with their own browser. It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default.There is zero problem here guys.
by ktm5j
6/19/2026 at 7:37:58 PM
> It's understandable that organizations want to require chrome for their employees to access their workspace in the interest of security, but it's not the default.Can you elaborate on why you think that Firefox is inherently insecure in some way for accessing Google workspaces?
> It's a paid product, they are actually allowed to do this.
If that were the only metric, then no monopoly would ever be broken up for any reason (which I guess is the way regulation seems to work nowadays, but at least in theory it's supposed to be possible for it to happen sometimes). The idea that using market pressure from one product a company sells to squeeze out competition in another is totally fine as long as the first product is paid is not a premise I agree with.
by saghm
6/19/2026 at 8:15:09 PM
I don’t think anyone is saying Firefox is inherently bad. What I’m reading, and what I believe, is Google just has a better product for secure enterprise browsing because of the controls they offerThe browser is where basically all your work happens, especially as a Workspace customer—think about how much of your work is done in the browser. That makes it a huge, attractive attack surface. And attackers don't even need a browser vulnerability; they can just convince an employee to install a malicious browser extension, and suddenly they can steal passwords, watch everything you do, and hijack your sessions on other sites.
So security teams need visibility into what's happening in the browser. Google does a decent—not great—job of providing this through Managed Chrome: centralized logs, control over which extensions can be installed, even alerts when someone reuses their Workspace password elsewhere.
Firefox, Safari, and most others don't offer these business controls, which means a security team allowing them is flying blind. And a blind security team is gonna have a bad time… mmmkay.
On support: someone mentioned using Firefox to verify their app works across browsers—god's work, truly. But not every vendor does that, so IT ends up fielding "this site just isn't working" tickets that turn out to be browser compatibility issues. Fewer supported browsers means a smaller surface to support and a better experience all around.
This can't be enforced where you're not using your corporate identity. A Dropbox account on your personal email is still accessible from any browser.
by rabeener
6/19/2026 at 8:12:09 PM
> Can you elaborate on why you think that Firefox is inherently insecure in some way for accessing Google workspaces?Allowing users running who knows what version of Firefox (or any "non-validated"/unmanaged browser, not necessarily just Firefox) browser running who knows what extensions can be pretty unsafe. There are lots of malicious extensions out there that are stupid simple to install.
In the Workspace world, Chrome can be configured and enforced to have certain kinds of settings applied. Only allowing certain extensions. Ensure certain version ranges. That sort of thing.
by vel0city
6/19/2026 at 9:14:53 PM
I'm pretty sure Firefox is configurable using AD. So is automatically updating (not sure about freezing versions).If you don't want your user to run whatever version with whatever extension you can do that.
by dminik
6/20/2026 at 2:50:19 AM
It can, along with a bunch of other GPOs in an admx template.But how many companies are running Workspace + Windows with on-prem AD? I suspect that number is shrinking pretty rapidly. You can do it with InTune as well, but it starts to get real messy if your users aren't on Windows or you have non-windows endpoints.
If you're a mac shop, on google workspace, and using something like JamF (or even Intune+EntraID), you are stuck deploying .plist files to each endpoint, you don't get compliance reporting back, and you lose a ton of visibility.
These are all things that don't matter to each individual user, but are hugely important to IT/security in the company, and Firefox unfortunately just doesn't have any centralized management platform for it.
by thewebguyd
6/19/2026 at 9:25:04 PM
Sure. But there's generally no standardized function ensuring they're actually only using that specifically configured browser when logging in. What happens when they try to log in from some other device? What happens when they manage to load a browser on to that machine?This feature supposedly ensures (or at least pushes users to) only the approved browsers running approved configurations are allowed to log in to the company's instances of Workspace.
by vel0city
6/19/2026 at 6:54:03 PM
If a corporation with my data allowed access to its internal tools using any browser running any arbitrary and possibly compromised third party extensions, that's a data leak and class action lawsuit waiting to happen.by lern_too_spel
6/20/2026 at 5:33:10 AM
It’s a good reminder of the fact that capitalist companies aren’t democratic places, despite how much time and energy is spent there by workers.by abyssin
6/19/2026 at 6:47:46 PM
I would say it's common to find dark patterns that involves ambiguity like the discussion we are having here. We can't know for sure but Google can increase the probability of being on their ecosystem.by wslh
6/19/2026 at 7:09:44 PM
Well, it could als also be argued that Chrome _is_ more secure, for example because it uses app-bound encryption using Windows DPAPI system, for cookies, so that it at least tries to protect cookies from malicious applications running on the device. Firefox does not do this: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/279629/are-cook...If course the reverse can also be argued, for example that Firefox supports proper adblocking.
by Doohickey-d
6/19/2026 at 8:28:10 PM
Unfortunately the malicious actor I want to protect my cookies from is Google.by AlexandrB
6/19/2026 at 8:44:01 PM
Not really a serious argument when you are accessing a Google product. Sure, don't want to interact with Google? Don't interact with Google, but logging into Google workspaces with Firefox definitely isn't protecting your data from Google.by zchrykng
6/19/2026 at 6:17:40 PM
CAA is one of the most powerful security features you can enable in an org. You can manage browser extensions, device password policy, encryption, configuration, cookie attestation, etc.by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 7:07:01 PM
CAA is completely based on trust, it's not one of the most powerful security feature. It's completely voluntary reporting by the browser, and any attacker who cares can just lie without issues.You can make Firefox pass CAA if you want. You take the Chrome "SecureConnect Reporting" (Context-Aware Access) plugin, port it to Firefox with some light changes, and you can report whatever you want to CAA.
by tux3
6/19/2026 at 7:16:27 PM
That's not entirely true. For example, on ChromeOS CAA is hardware backed. But obviously CAA is not intended to be our entire MDM solution, an attacker in a position to spoof your entire browser can bypass some of the policies on some operating systems. Similarly, attackers in that same position can bypass TLS. An attacker who owns the kernel can bypass much of your MDM. An attacker who owns the hardware can bypass just about anything.by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 7:31:09 PM
I haven't dug into the native helper to see how much it checks, I can believe that ChromeOS does full remote attestation. If it's anything like Android Play Integrity, there's not a lot of flexibility without hardware exploits.But who outside of Google is running exclusively ChromeOS? My impression from looking at the JS part is that it's mostly obfuscation, with the possible exception of ChromeOS.
I feel like the secure connect client being closed source would have been an effective deterrent 5 years ago, but these days everyone's throwing LLMs at everything. So an attack that would have taken effort doesn't present nearly as much of a barrier anymore. At least as long as there remain some platforms that don't enforce full attestation...
by tux3
6/19/2026 at 7:37:17 PM
My point was that CAA's threat model is flexible based on your requirements. If your requirement is "an attacker with the ability to make arbitrary network requests from the host can not pretend to be Chrome", CAA does not work unless you have OS/Hardware support (which ChromeOS provides).I just don't think that matters much. CAA is policy enforcement, it is not a full MDM solution, nor is it antimalware.
by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 9:18:01 PM
If it can't prove what it purports to prove, then it is not policy enforcement, because it is not anything enforcement.But someone thinks it is, which is harmful to them on top of being an annoyance to everyone else.
by Brian_K_White
6/19/2026 at 7:41:50 PM
> But who outside of Google is running exclusively ChromeOS?I think Chromebooks are pretty common in school settings
by saghm
6/19/2026 at 7:27:56 PM
Understand that, in this conversation, your use of "attacker" is referring to "end user of the hardware". Which might be part of the Chrome team's definition, or might not, but gosh it would be nice to cater to the folks who are using the dang computer.by tadfisher
6/19/2026 at 7:35:40 PM
We're talking about a device managed by a corporation. I have no idea what your point is.by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 6:55:38 PM
Well - it does make sense. If an organisation that contracts me has to chose between a) BYOD - but restrict downloads, etc, enforce export control, directly in the browser - I happily take that, vs getting a Windows laptop that is locked down and forced to work with that.by farbklang
6/19/2026 at 5:48:46 PM
Using a maintained and up-to-date browser is a reasonable requirement for an IT department (should be for anyone really). Would you suggest they should be allowing IE6 just because a user might prefer it?Of course Google is going to suggest using Chrome, if they detect that the browser might be out of date.
by SoftTalker
6/19/2026 at 5:50:01 PM
Is the implication that Firefox is not maintained or?The issue presented doesn’t seem to be “an up to date browser check” it seems to be a “is it latest chrome” check, which is a very different thing.
by dijit
6/19/2026 at 5:56:20 PM
We don't know. The author doesn't mention how current the Firefox browser is/was.If the organization is indeed enabling a specific check for Chrome that seems a little over the top but they're the ones supporting their users and if they want to make their life easier by only dealing with one browser that's their decision to make. It's like saying that everyone has to use Windows, or a specific line of laptops, or any other standardization to simplify the support workload.
by SoftTalker
6/19/2026 at 6:45:09 PM
> This was for a Google Workspace Business Plus account and workspace, from an up to date browser and OS.by rpdillon
6/19/2026 at 6:24:07 PM
Not a little over the top, it is anticompetitive behavior.by kolinko
6/19/2026 at 7:00:46 PM
[dead]by inquirerGeneral
6/19/2026 at 6:20:20 PM
It's not a little over the top its an antitrust issue and clearly and obviously wrong.by michaelmrose
6/19/2026 at 5:57:46 PM
It's not clear to me that Context-Aware Access is as configurable as you're implying. At a glance, the docs seem to suggest that Chrome is the only browser you can force standardization on, which IMO does push this towards being Google's fault.by SpicyLemonZest
6/19/2026 at 7:35:00 PM
That's correct, there is no way to say "only allow Firefox" in CAA because the attestations are either browser agnostic or chrome specific (as part of the managed Chrome offering that GSuite supports).by insanitybit
6/19/2026 at 6:54:48 PM
No, not at all. The implication is that the organization is dictating the software that employees are to use. There's nothing unusual about this.by ibejoeb
6/19/2026 at 6:26:29 PM
If we are meant to believe that this is a Chrome-invasion-move, it's the least effective lever of all times. Most of the time the more plausible explanations are just the likely ones.by jstummbillig
6/19/2026 at 6:29:11 PM
you’d probably say something different if it were microsoft.I don’t see why I should give affordances of good will to Google here.
They’re not stupid, they know that this is an effective lever to further cement full-fat chrome as the default browser for the internet.
by dijit
6/19/2026 at 6:46:59 PM
Chrome was created because Google felt that the IE monopoly was hindering the advancement of web standards and improved browser capabilities. I suppose you could argue that was a different Google at a different time, but at one point they did feel that browser diversity was a good thing.by SoftTalker
6/19/2026 at 7:53:16 PM
I mean, they claimed to be for browser diversity when it was not them on top lol. Underdogs want the race to tighten up, 85% market leaders want to stay out in front.by recursivecaveat
6/19/2026 at 10:02:42 PM
If that's a the goal, then IT department should start by blocking user ability to install Firefox or other unapproved software not by blocking access to google workspace. Blocking access to google workspace using Firefox doesn't prevent using it for everything else. It's not like the google services are going to exploit a vulnerability in Firefox, everything else might.by Karliss
6/19/2026 at 8:08:45 PM
Strawman argument. Firefox is maintained and up to date browser.Why did you even compare it to IE6, out of the curiosity?
by subscribed
6/19/2026 at 7:19:42 PM
Its a normal choice, given a checkbox on page which advertises that checking it would make your security posture more safe. The IT person is safeguarding their own job.Other way to look at it is, the company is paying for everything, and they get to make decisions based on what suits their security needs.
by sandeepkd
6/19/2026 at 9:03:56 PM
"it shouldn’t be an option."What? Are you serious? An organization has EVERY right to enforce whatever controls they deem appropriate for their environment. Period.
by sgalbincea
6/19/2026 at 10:17:46 PM
Hi there, original author here. Can confirm we're not using IAP for this workspace, or anything I was trying to accessby RichardoC
6/19/2026 at 10:55:53 PM
Psst, you have a merge conflict in your textby lelandfe