New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 266 link

Starred by 461 users

Comments by non-members will not trigger notification emails to users who starred this issue.

Issue metadata

Status: Fixed
Closed: Mar 2011
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 3
Type: Feature

issue 24577
issue 25769
issue 60099

  • Only users with EditIssue permission may comment.

Show other hotlists

Hotlists containing this issue:

Sign in to add a comment

Chrome uses Windows' proxy settings

Reported by, Sep 3 2008

Issue description

My Windows environment proxy settings are specific to work, and so I'd like 
to be able to switch my proxy settings to a different setting in Chrome.

Right now, Chrome opens the network settings control panel when I click on 
the Proxy Settings button in the Options menu. This is not optimal.
Showing comments 193 - 292 of 292 Older

Comment 193 by, Jul 13 2010

Feature work for adding a proxy extension API is now being tracked in  issue 48930 .

Suggestions for various other options are welcome.

Re-joining the scheme, host, and port into a single argument will probably happen once I get a bit more of the implementation done.

Comment 194 by Deleted ...@, Jul 14 2010

I must say, this is the one issue that keeps me using Firefox on Windows, since I use FoxyProxy to set different proxies just for Firefox based on URL patterns.
As a company we are restricting IE to internal use only through the use of a bogus proxy - so that users can have the full benefits of Sharepoint from the comfort of a browser they know and "trust".  I would like to continue using Chrome to access the greater Internet and am currently evaluating it with the option of an organisation-wide switch to Chrome from Firefox.  If we cannot use separate proxy settings from IE, we cannot use Chrome.  Please fix.
Is there at least an explanation WHY they WontFix? I love Chrome, but I'm about to have to switch back to Firefox because of this very issue.
This is the single reason why I stay with Firefox for now. My IE proxy setting is specific for my office VPN connection. My browser (chrome/firefox/et all) should be able to use custom setting.

Firefox allow us to us custom proxy, and I have plugin that let me switch my firefox proxy settings at a click, so convenience! This does not work on chrome since the proxy is shared with IE (which I don't want).

This is a MUSTFIX!

Comment 198 by Deleted ...@, Aug 1 2010

I am no longer using Chrome because of this issue.

Comment 199 by, Aug 9 2010

Foxyproxy is a must have for me. Please implement something identical in functionality in Chrome. I have to connect to different URLs through various proxies due to firewall restrictions and to support my customers by using their proxies.

This is a JOKE!  As much as I would like to use Chrome on my work laptop I will continue to use FF.  Using the Windows/IE proxy is ludicrous.  

Comment 201 by, Aug 13 2010

This is the only thing holding me back to throw FF away. The lack of a FoxyProxy-like Addon or functionality in Chorme is simply a deal breaker. FoxyProxy lets you configure rules for each proxy you add, this makes the proxy selection dynamic (you can also switch proxies manually). In my work environment we use 5 separate proxies for different tasks, to that add that I work in a laptop that I also use at school and at my home... its simply unbearable.
it looks like it's being worked on by somebody at least:

i'm not sure if that's by google or not, looks like it is though!
With regards to having a command line option to select a different proxy, that's fine if you're using a Windows shortcut that you can easily edit but not so when Chrome is your default browser and launched by some other application.  You then need to edit the relevant Windows registry keys.  It would be far simpler from a user perspective to have this as an easily editable setting within Chrome.  

If Chrome is going to allow a custom proxy setting (I'm not saying it necessarily should) then the command line option is inadequate.  

Yes this makes Chrome absolutely worthless for me also, back to Firefox.

I can't get the CLI option to work with my (ssh -D) local socks server either so even the cumbersome workaround doesn't work.

Very dissapointed by this, Google have lost me forever unless they revise their decision not to address this.

Comment 205 by Deleted ...@, Sep 1 2010

Won't fix? Is that meant to be a joke? 
I vote too.  This functionality is very useful in a corporate setting when dealing
with many different environments.
My vote to a separete proxy setting.
Can you just add this feature as Firefox did, default is to use system configuration, but the option to use an independient proxy configuration. This is my last milestone to fully migrate to Chrome.

Comment 208 by Deleted ...@, Sep 20 2010

This bug is preventing adoption of Chrome in a professional setting for my company.  We use FoxyProxy to use multiple proxies for various wildcard hostnames, thus enabling us to manage multiple firewalled networks securely.

Comment 210 Deleted

Comment 211 by, Sep 24 2010

This is bullshit.  This makes it impossible to use IE and Chrome on different proxy settings.  WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING GOOGLE!?!?  Back to Firefox...

Comment 212 by, Oct 13 2010

@mcbane: Try Opera, has a different proxy settings.

Comment 213 by, Oct 13 2010

 Issue 59046 :	Proxy settings - your system is not supported

Comment 214 Deleted

So I was trying out chrome for approx. 15 minutes now, looking for the network settings and getting known, that chrome uses windows proxy settings and no else.
Sorry, but bullshit. My company client here resets at every reboot proxy settings to a .pac file designed for outdated company IE6. But I want just the proxy address and port to use (as set in FF, for example).
So "WontFix" leads to only one solution: Throw away this crappy garbage and return to FF. Now testing the FF4 beta.
Its amazing how rude and arrogant most of you are. No wonder its a no fix.

Comment 217 by Deleted ...@, Oct 21 2010

I too would like to have independent proxy settings for Chrome as provided in Firefox.

Company IE has a PAC file and resets the system to that file on login, most users can't even change this setting and that's fine, they don't need to.

I have my own PAC for Firefox so I can test other proxies or no proxy at all.  I have control of it.

It's even better on laptop since at home it can't find the PAC so doesn't set any proxy but on the corporate network it does find the file so sets up the proxies.
Please consider reopening this issue.  Based on the number of stars, it would be near the top of the open issue list.

Comment 219 by, Oct 22 2010

I have to agree with the complaints. I have been using Chrome for 1 month now and I love the implementation of almost everything in it. It's lighter than FF and much easier to configure the tabs, windows, and the extensions just rock. Being a software developer I love what you did with extensions an so.

But sharing the same proxy settings as IE is a deal breaker. I can't run IE and Chrome on my corporate computer without struggling everytime with the settings. All of my colleagues think the same. We keep IE for corporate stuff and its crappy proxy, and we wish we could use Chrome without it, but we simply can't.

I see this issue has almost 2 years going. I respectfully ask you to add a Chrome specific proxy setting.

Tomorrow I will be taking all my bookmarks and move them to FF. It's not that I'm mad, that's not the point. It is just not practical for me to sue Chrome anymore.

It's a shame, I love the browser, but I will not indulge this nonsense with PACS or such. Too messy.

I'll consider using Chrome again in the future but only if this proxy industry-common feature is available.

Google, you're loosing developers in your audience.
This is absolutely brain-dead. The behaviour is so odd that it defies logic. Why should I have to be presented with, and change, Proxy settings which are ostensibly for Internet Explorer when all I want to do is change Chrome's proxy settings? Moreover, the look and feel is all wrong. It looks as if it was tacked on as an afterthought.

Comment 221 by, Oct 22 2010

Chrome has the code to support chrome-specific proxy settings, and the feature is available in linux. The request is not extension fodder as the functionality is already there, just not in the windows build.
If you developers are not actively opposed to this feature (which many people feel strongly about), I suggest it be re-opened and (at worst from an end-user point of view) assigned a low priority.
All in all, this issue was closed without proper investigation and forethought, and the only way to rectify that is by re-opening the issue and giving it the due attention that is being requested.

Comment 222 by, Oct 23 2010

I fear this will not happen. It's been 2 years, read this Issue from the beginning and you'll see.

Is this a big issue? Well it is an identity threat. When people start associating a product with odd behavior, the product identity suffers, and many awesome products have gone down the toiled because of this.

This situation is just making Firefox's efforts more easy. Have you looked at FF 4 Beta? Out of frustration form this Chrome's issue I just did. Get my point?

I had developed several small applications over the years, and all I can say is that when I love my product, I really listen to what the audience who will use it have to say. Otherwise, my products would have been nice academical endeavors without any real world significance.

Comment 223 Deleted

I also want know why?
it's easy to do

Comment 225 by, Nov 12 2010

There is an experimental Proxy API

I *think* the values submitted to the useCustomProxySettings function are currently not used anywhere (need to check) but I am working on this.

Does anybody feel like implementing a simple extension with a configuration page as the dialog presented in comment #143 (lets start simple) that does the following:
- Provide the input fields
- Assemble a useCustomProxySettings call submit it
If you want to go fancy, you could have some mechanism that stores different presets in the extension's local storage.

I will focus on the backend stuff and verify correctness by unit tests. If somebody wants to work on a GUI that would be nice. Just be aware that the Proxy API is subject to change.
Please remember that many of us are using (or attempting to use) Chrome on enterprise PCs without admin rights, where corporate intranet pages are designed specifically for IE, and IT-configured Windows proxy settings use an IE-specific configuration script.  Without built-in/native support in Chrome for an alternate proxy (PAC), Chrome cannot become our preferred and default browser for the internet, because an extension such as Proxy Switchy means we cannot multitask with IE on the corporate intranet at the same time.  Imagine the power of a Fortune 50 company, with over 200,000 employees, with the ability to create a groundswell of support for Chrome and Google.  But Chrome needs its own proxy settings first.  Otherwise, that groundswell will continue to go to Firefox.
Won't fix? Fine by me. Won't use. 

I'm sure you don't care, but then neither do I. By far the worst Browser out there anyway.

Comment 228 by Deleted ...@, Dec 9 2010

simple if this is not supported I am not using was making the move to chrome but will not proceed because of this issue. Back to firefox.

Comment 229 by Deleted ...@, Dec 13 2010

We are developing our own proxy tool for Chrome, similar to proxy tool for Firefox. We are not using Google's API - as we are developing our own custom libraries to deal with proxy services.

Please see to view Proxy Tool for Firefox for details, which we expect to have the working proxy tool extension for Chrome by the end of Dec 2010.
this is an absolute must have feature for me to switch from firefox

please add this (already developed and brain dead simple) feature

Please add this feature. 

Comment 232 by, Jan 7 2011

We (and by "we" I mean "someone interested in building an extension for this") should work with the extensions team to design an API to allow proxy settings to be overridden. There are numerous extensiony uses for this. I am not against the feature - just not mainstream enough to be a focus for Core Chrome at this time. Please consider this an encouragement and not a rejection :-) how do we get in contact with the right people?  I'd be willing to take a shot at this...

Comment 234 by, Jan 7 2011

A command line option for a socks proxy:

This has worked for me with a portable apps version of Chrome 8.0.552.224
Unfortunately I cannot remember where I found this online, so I'm unable to give proper credit.
@ben See Proxy Switchy! it has thousands of users. Except that in Linux, it would modify GNOME configuration, which is precisely why you would want such an extension; so that you don't need to change the local configuration.
Hi, I'm the guy from AutoProxy which is one of the must have extension for users from mainland China.

I'm tired of answering why not porting AutoProxy to Google Chrome. ...It's just simply impossible.

I do excited at first about chrome.experimental.proxy API, and indeed tried to make a prototype extension. However, unfortunately I found this is an impossible task:
 * Chrome lacks of something similiay to nsIProtocolProxyService.registerFilter available in gecko;
 * In the meanwhile, the chrome.experimental.webRequest.onBeforeRequest event is asynchronous which means Chrome doesn't wait a millisecond for extension to change proxy settings according to specified URL.

IMHO, this is the most important issue for us to made a practical proxy extension for Google Chrome. Please don't misunderstand, this issue isn't only blocking AutoProxy, the same to FoxyProxy.

I'm still looking forward to port AutoProxy to Chrome, and I don't mind which one approach as pointed above is implemented, but we do need some help from core API. Without that, you keep blocking the top 2 (FoxyProxy, AutoProxy) proxy management add-on of Firefox and their users away from Google Chrome.

@jondick: I am one of "the right people". My current goal is to implement a useful Proxy API. 

The current state of trunk is that an extension can define proxy settings that take precedence over the windows (or whatever system) proxy settings. As uppsju mentions, you can also specify proxy servers on the command line (see the man page on Linux, Peter Beverloo has an even more comprehensive list: But the extension API with an extension will be more userfriendly to the majority of users.

I am currently working on separate proxy settings for incognito windows. Then you can have two different proxy settings in Chrome. The goal is of course to become even more flexible.

@lovelywcm: Thanks for the technical input. Would you consider it feasible if an extension provides a custom PAC script? This might be a faster approach for the proxy resolution: Extensions are executed in a single JavaScript VM whereas we offer several PAC threads.
My question is: why can't Chrome have the following proxy settings?
1. No settings
2. System settings
3. Custom settings

Firefox has the above approach to configuring proxies and in my opinion that is the best. (see attachment)

In Chrome, when a plug-in is used to manually configure proxy; they change system settings and make Chrome use the modified system settings. This is the wrong approach as far as the user experience is concerned.
6.9 KB View Download

Comment 239 by, Jan 10 2011

In Chrome we have exactly the same (no settings, system settings, custom settings). BUT: No settings and custom settings are only exposed via the command line and the proxy API.

In other words: the default is "use the system settings". If you are not happy with using the system settings, you need to use an extension. I have a very crappy extension that proves that the mechanism works. However, it is so crappy that I asked whether anybody would be willing to implement a nice one.

There is one caveat: The Proxy API is currently experimental. I.e. Chrome needs to be started with --enable-experimental-extension-apis.
True, pac works. For example:

  pacScript: {
    url: ""

But wait..., all browsers support pac, then why do we need a proxy extension, what's the benefit? According to my experience, dynamically change pac file from one to another isn't so useful.

The reason why pac is not so welcomed:
 * pac isn't conveniently programable compare to well designed API;
 * data in pac isn't persistent, it will reload the file and reinitialize the whole logic every time (am I right?).

Attachment is a pratical pac file. There are 2700+ regexp tests every time (worst case), it is deadly waste. In gecko, we initialize the main logic only once, and later use a super fast algorithm for matching.
187 KB View Download
This is my current thinking (and I might be wrong):

I see three different ways of implementing this:

1. Use a JavaScript hook that intercepts each HTTP request.
2. Use a JavaScript to generate a PAC file.
3. Implement a more complex Proxy API.

ad 1: I believe that currently each extension has one (and only) JavaScript VM. I don't know whether this will change in the future. This means that if we use JavaScript hooks, every HTTP request is channeled through a single thread, which makes concurrent HTTP lookups very slow.

ad 2: Instead of using a JavaScript hook, a proxy extension might offer a nice GUI that generates a PAC script that is then presented to the proxy implementation in the network stack. The PAC implementation has several VM threads, each with one copy of the PAC script and therefore allows concurrency. The performance of this approach is of course affected by the implementation of the PAC script. (Long sequence of RegEx vs. Tries for pre-filtering or something like that)

Therefore, my idea is: The proxy extension should assemble a string that is passed as a PAC script into the proxy implementation. This is performed once on startup and every time the proxy settings are changed.

ad 3: Implementing a dedicated filtering mechanism is also an option. It would probably be more complex and less flexible. But it might be faster. I will have a look at the Gecko API and discuss it with the authors of our network stack.

Thanks for your input.

Comment 242 by, Jan 10 2011

Sounds like #2 is the way to go.  I guess, why reinvent the wheel, this is in a sense, what PAC scripts were designed for.

I could see making an extension that mimics something like foxyproxy, where you can define multiple proxies, rules for each (for white or blacklisting patterns), and having it generate the PAC script each time the configuration changes (storing the config in a flat file or something).  

The only slightly annoying part here is that any time the user changes any settings on the extension, a whole new PAC script must be generated and loaded.  For example, if I have 3 proxies, each with rules, in foxyproxy I can either use the rules, or I can select a specific proxy to use for all requests, disregarding the rules.  Switching between these modes would have to require the regeneration of the PAC script.  I'm not sure how big of a deal this is, but it obviously isn't terribly efficient.

A more complex proxy api might be faster, but I can't see it being as flexible.  
@jondick the performance shortcoming of PAC isn't that generate the PAC, but execute it.
@battre the problem is how can we "Tries for pre-filtering or something like that" without knowing what URL is being requesting. :-)
I would also suggest to take a look at libproxy API.

I'm the author of FoxyProxy.

@bat: I'm not clear on the difference between #1 and #3. Can you elaborate? In the case of #1, are the VMs re-entrant? If so, how would this serialize all requests to a single thread?

#2 is really a bad choice; performance will suffer greatly. Moreover, you will restrict capabilities of extensions. I can give examples if you like.

Eric Jung
I guess there are two use cases: (a) edit basic proxy settings without having to change system proxy settings or resort to command line flags and (b) have fancy, case by case proxy settings

The first is going to be adressed by the proxy settings API, the latter is probably something the web request api should address.
@jochen: yes, but (a) is a subset of (b). You can solve both use-cases with a single API. Why two?
Invoking an extension requires IPC communication and cannot be easily parallelized. The proxy extension API will already adress lots of the use cases (basically what this bug is about) while not impacting chrome's performance.

Comment 250 by, Jan 11 2011

@grimholtz does that mean you're thinking of bringing foxyproxy to chrome?  I think in this case your comments should be heard, as you've had quite a bit of experience with firefox and how it handles things.  Your experience would be beneficial to bringing chrome up to speed in this area.

Comment 251 by, Jan 11 2011

So from what I've been reading so far I can only think of a poor design that eventually lead to a problematic implementation of a custom UI driven proxy switcher.

It happens to every body, even Google I guess.
@jondick: Absolutely want to bring FoxyProxy to chrome. I've been waiting a long time for the API to make it possible. Dominic Battre reached out to me via email today, and I'm composing a a reply now. I don't know your email address, otherwise I'd cc: you.

Whatever happened to Eric Roman and Nick Baum? They were working on an API for this back in August 2009. Here's a discussion of his proposal along with my counter-proposal:

if it's dead and not being considered any longer, I won't lose any sleep over it :)
Still Won't Fix? Still won't use. It's incredible that in 2011, and a 'browser' doesn't have an independent proxy settings.

Command line? puh-leeze. Isn't there a way to make it more cumbersome?

For what is worth, I'm not moving from Firefox. Yes, FF may be a memory hog, lacks the eye-candy (not anymore in FF4) but it has been, and still is a FULL FEATURED browser.

Between the Privacy issues, the increasing spam results in Google Search, and this excuse for a browser, Google certainly is losing followers. I used to be a tremendous Google Zealot, and made family and friends convert to Google and their products, now I'm utterly disappointed, and starting to look elsewhere.

Thanks Google for ignoring your users.

Comment 254 by Deleted ...@, Jan 27 2011

I need a way for Chrome to NOT use the global windows proxy settings. For instance, There are some web apps at $WORK that only behave correctly in IE. So when I am doing work stuff, I can point IE to my ssh-tunneled socks5 proxy. The problem with this is, now Chrome (which I always have open on my secondary monitor) starts using this proxy as well, and I don't want all my non-work related stuff going through my work proxy/network.

In Firefox this is not a problem, as it has it's own independent proxy settings, not to mention the awesome FoxyProxy extension which lets you define which proxies (or non-proxy) to use based on the URL and such.

I would LOVE for Chrome to have a FoxyProxy-like extension, and would be almost as pleased if it just had the ability to define it's own proxy settings, so that it is not using the global proxy setting.
Labels: -Mstone-X Mstone-11
Status: Started
Chrome trunk has a Proxy Settings API that allows configuring different proxy settings than what the operating system provides. You need to enable "Experimental Extension APIs" in about:flags - and you need an extension that uses this Proxy Settings API. There is currently no such extension I am aware of, but we are working on that.

We are also working on an API that allows FoxyProxy-like extensions. There is no need to further emphasize the urgency of this feature request for your particular situation. ;-)

Comment 256 by Deleted ...@, Feb 8 2011

Build 9.0.597.84, at least in XP, will no longer honor command switch --proxy-server=  leaving it blank to turn off proxy. This exacerbates this issue of tying Chrome to the IE proxy. 
Please use --no-proxy-server. We are aware of the issue: 
The --no-proxy-server flag does not work for me. When attempting to load webpages, I receive the following error:

Error 102 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED):  Unknown error.

I'm certain I'm invoking the chrome command switch correctly. I have a valid Internet connection. I'm running Google Chrome 8.0.552.224 on Windows XP SP3.
Status: Fixed
The Proxy Settings API is pretty much finalized. Be aware that the feature will now go through the release process, so it will take some time to show up in the release builds.

For the brave ones living on trunk, Mohamed has created an extension to set the proxy settings (thanks!!!):
Thanks. Now chrome is a real browser!!!
The extension above requires the Dev Channel not necessarily trunk :) To install it, just click on "Downloads" section on GitHub and click on the crx (that was packaged)

I will be integrating the new features that Dominic implemented in the API this weekend (such as PAC, and restricted urls).

- Mohamed Mansour

Comment 262 by Deleted ...@, Mar 10 2011

I cant install the package as it is giving me error "This extension requires google chrome version 11 or greater"

Comment 263 Deleted

Comment 264 by Deleted ...@, Mar 18 2011

Today, using the package of Google Chrome 11.0.696.14 Dev, I installed Chrome and tried to install the proxy-anywhere-extension.  It wouldn't install on the first try, but the error message said to start Chrome with the command line option --enable-experimental-extension-apis.   

Once I did that, the extension installed.  It took me a couple of tries to get the options right (Socks4, Localhost, 8080, autostart).  Also, once I clicked SAVE button, I thought it would just start proxying, but I had to shut down and restart Chrome and THEN it worked.

The extension works nicely now for me and just needs a good bit of polish. I hope to see new features soon!  Also for the API to be included in the release  builds!
Amazing. Thread since 2008 and chrome did not have separate proxy settings.
Thanks for the link and good news it will be included in future builds. Nice job Mohamed - thank you! :)

Comment 267 by, Mar 30 2011

Which style is more expected by a regular user?

Firefox: Use system proxy setting by default, but when user manually changes the proxy setting in Firefox options, the setting becomes independent and affects Firefox only.

Chrome: Use system proxy setting by default, but when user manually changes the proxy settings thru Chrome options, the setting changes the proxy setting of THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

I think it doesn't take much to see which way is more intuitive.
Mohamed extension is really nice.
I had previously downloaded proxy settings experimental extension from the samples trunk page,
and it was also working good. But this one is more complete and nicer.

Now I only hope more features will be added such as switching proxy based on site pattern.

Comment 269 by, Apr 11 2011

This is a significantly absent feature in Chrome and a huge pain. I too would like to see built in proxy in chrome that would also support DNS forwarding over a socks proxy. (i.e. like Firefox)

Comment 270 by, Apr 12 2011

When will we actually see the new proxy API in a stable public release? any timeframe?
I will not be switching from Firefox to Chrome until a separate proxy configuration dialog/window/whatever becomes part of the default Chrome package.  Regardless of how meaningless the team thinks this request is, I'm just throwing it out there as one small datapoint from someone who cares enough to actually write something about it.
Yes, Mohamed extension solved my challenge.
I wanted to switch off temporarely the corporate proxy.
Steps are simple:
* about:flags
* enable "Experimental Extension APIs"
* restart chrome
* download and install
* restart chrome
* configure proxy server to any proxy\port
* add exclusion "*" and save config

Now every time I push the button I use "my phone internet" instead of corporate one.

Comment 273 by Deleted ...@, May 11 2011

+1, separated browser specific proxy settings are needed
+1, this does not allow me to use chrome at my workplace.
This is very essential issue. Since it overrides global settings its affecting other program's settings. Like I cannot use chrome and chromium with different proxies. etc etc many issues.
+1, I can't throw firfox away because of this :)
Whats the advantage that chrome get using/modifying environment proxy settings ?

I uses a separate proxy on my firefox to IE.  I would prefer to have the ability to use my own setting and not IE.  Put the box in there Chrome please!
3 years to put in proxy settings?  Seriously?!
Mac system pac file is: socks XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:XXXX,But Google Chrome pac file is:socks5 XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:XXXX,I can't use this for system or Chrome,plz help me!!!
chris: Please file a separate bug report and provide more details.
Is this gonna be solved some day?
Why is the status fixed and closed from March 1? When are we gonna be able to see this working?
The proxy settings API is available in the current beta (M13) and extensions exist to configure your proxy settings using it. E.g. Proxy Anywhere and Proxy SwitchyPlus
to be more precise .. 3 years and still available as an experimental extension only

Comment 287 by Deleted ...@, Aug 10 2011

I am trying do deploy chrome on Windows Terminal Server, i´d like to be able to disable internet explorer by setting it´s proxy to localhost or something.

Adding --proxy to the commandline won´t help, because i can´t be sure this is how users will open their browser via the edited shortcut, maybe they just clicked on a link somwhere - default browser gets opened by the system, ignoring my commandline switches.

I would really like to be able to switch my Users over to Chrome, but until there is a method for me to deploy proxy-settings on a large scale while retaining the ability to block Internet Explorer via it´s proxy settings i just can´t. Please fix this.
Note that it's also possible to configure proxy settings just for chrome through group policy. See here for more details:

Comment 289 by, Aug 10 2011

This will never be done. This is the Google way, it is why Google+ is likely to fail as well, because when Google decides something is good, people's opinions and real needs don't matter. Don't believe me, look for my comments in this same thread from 1 YEAR AGO!! Still nothing!!.

Shame on you.
Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
The proxy extension API moved into stable with Chrome 13, which launched last week.

As Dominic noted above, there are now a few extensions in the web store that use it offer the ability to configure Chrome's proxy settings: Proxy Anywhere and Proxy SwitchyPlus for example.

If there are issues with the API we've provided, or that functionality fails to meet your needs, please open a new request via
Project Member

Comment 291 by, Mar 10 2013

Blocking: -chromium:24577 -chromium:25769 -chromium:60099 chromium:24577 chromium:25769 chromium:60099
Labels: -Mstone-11 -Area-Internals M-11 Cr-Internals
Project Member

Comment 292 by, Mar 13 2013

Labels: -Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit Restrict-AddIssueComment-EditIssue
Showing comments 193 - 292 of 292 Older

Sign in to add a comment