As annoying as it can be for individuals, companies have a limited amount of resources that they can dedicate to ensuring compliance with IT security policies. Browsers in particular, since they run arbitrary code, require dedicated policies. Keeping track of vulnerabilities and making sure that all users are running the approved versions takes time and effort. On the other hand, failing to demonstrate compliance (e.g. during regular audits) can have significant consequences.

My advice: if as part of your role you have business requirements that can only be met with Firefox (like ensuring browser compatibility), then ask your manager to put together an exception request, with a compliance plan (e.g. running Firefox on a sandboxed cloud instance).

If you don't NEED Firefox, but WANT it (e.g. based on personal preferences or individual productivity), it will be hard to make a case for it considering that any productivity gain will be offset by increased compliance costs.

I do not advise circumventing company policy since that puts the company itself in jeopardy by potentially being out of compliance with its security policies.

There’s no good reason for such a policy. Someone will argue about extensions, but Firefox has policy management tools available too, and if you’re restricting your devs from full admin I’ll throw a company in the same box, for the same reasons starting somewhere around “if you can’t trust” and ending in “shouldn’t have hired”-and full admin means your policies only kind-of matter.

If the company is large, please name and shame (presuming you’re not concerned about being identifiable), but obviously don’t put yourself at risk if you’re not sure this is safe.

Seriously, and I know everyone doesn’t have this luxury, as a dev this kind of thing would pretty much make me leave immediately-it speaks to a certain kind of culture, and let’s just say I’d be a bad fit.

There are portable version of Firefox if you want to use it. I think there is no security argument to be had aside that IT may only want to support one browser. Advantage is that the deployment on Windows machines is pretty seamless. Other advantages are probably mainly MS selling questionable security features through their licensing model.

I predict that Edge will integrate a lot of contested MS features and in the end will be a horrible browser again. Even know it is bloating up to something else.

I would check the allowed browsers for spy- and bossware though.

> There are portable version of Firefox if you want to use it.

Using that when you know the company has told you about their security policy forbidding it is, ummm, not wise. Especially not as a new hire.

If work says "You use Edge, and are not allowed to use Firefox", then you use Edge, or you ask for an exemption from that policy if you have a good reason (and I'd want that in writing if it's an official security policy). Or you get a different job at a company without that policy.

well I don't like to switch from company I just started at just because I don't like one thing, as of right now I am keeping my FF Developer installation as it is part of my workflow and I don't find anything else as good (just my personal opinion of course, other people may prefer other browsers)

That's actually funny because mine has a security policy of NO Chrome (or anything based on it!)

Yeah , in the past I’ve worked for many similar companies, if it’s not part of the operating system amir they one associated with the OS - then that’s the IT policy - that’s when I bring my own laptop and use my own phone- two phones always in pocket!!

So use a differently named Firefox, like LibreWolf. While you look for a proper job.

What does this company do?

Given that they exist primarily as an anti-trust policy for Google, and word on the street is that they've laid-off most of their actual developers, good on your company!