Hope its back soon. Its a scary internet without NoScript. The add-on is so popular because it allows users to blacklist scripts JavaScript files and active content Java, Flash, Silverlight based on a per-domain basis. The new WebExtensions version of the NoScript add-on v The differences compared to the old NoScript version 5.
The new NoScript add-on uses a new UI and users might need a few days to get used to using the new version, which relies on buttons instead of the familiar text-based drop-down menu. Development is ongoing on the new version and most of the old features will be ported to the new version in time.
It's well-known that the new WebExtensions API is inferior to the old Add-ons SDK when it comes to supported features, and it will remain so, as Mozilla engineers want to limit the core browser functions add-ons can access on purpose, for security reasons. Nonetheless, NoScript doesn't seem to be particularly impacted by the new API in a severe way, as it's still able to do its job just fine. Despite putting out a NoScript version that is without a doubt inferior to the old 5.
Thank you so much your patience, your understanding and your support! The safest option, even for these few days, is FirefoxESR , with all the security patches.
Firefox improves advertising tracker blocking in private browsing. Malicious 'Safepal Wallet' Firefox add-on stole cryptocurrency. Mozilla Firefox, the first Chromium alternative in the Windows Store.
Mozilla blocks malicious add-ons installed by K Firefox users. Firefox now shows ads as sponsored address bar suggestions. I tried out the new NoScript on a machine today, messy interface at present lacks a lot of the crucial features, I hope Mr Maone manages to restore the web extensions version to having all the functionality that NoScript had before the firefox quantum engine got developed. Firefox 57 itself is also a big ugly, I didn't try FF 57 on anything until I knew there was a version of NoScript ready for it.
And with NoScript missing, I was even about to dump Firefox altogether or stay on old version. That still doesn't explain why NoScript needs to be able to modify the browser's history. Or, then again, maybe it does. A little exposition goes a long way. I initially feared the NoS Can't wait for the new FlashGot Ciao ;. Thanks for working on this! The UI is something any long time user would spend time trying out before complaining.
I was adaptable but only stuck trying to find "temporarily allow site". Your "nutshell" article clarified it and I appreciate that! The net technology is always moving fast, and its awesome that you're willing to keep chasing it, in the name of privacy and security. Thanks again. Plus, many of us just update periodically, and I personally had no advance knowledge about FFX 57, and so I took them both at once, losing other extensions completely, and I suspect other people did this too. Too much confusion trying to digest all at once.
Just as a question, what has happened to the "audio feedback when scripts are blocked" option in NoScript 10? It can be a really useful reminder to let one know when tabs are trying to reload themselves and things. NoScript is not a lost cause! The new version has problems, especially wth the changes to the interface where have all those options from NS 5 gone , but they can be overcomeAs for permissions, it comes down to trusting NoScript with them or trusting the javascript, iframes and who knows what else from countless sites including ad networks which sell space on popular pages to other ad networks who then re-sell that space to shady drive-by download virus authors.
Don't uninstall, it would erase your preferences -- it's a new WebExtensions "rule" : ". Please make redesign versions and we will vote. NoScript stops syncing when there are too many sites allowed. Please don't let the haters get you down, Giorgio. You are performing an extremely valuable service, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I don't think the proper solution is to have "incognito: true" to browser. Especially without root rights and with proper user capabilities set. Ok, I got it, allowing downloads is required, but What about "edit download history"? So it is not an extra permission. Kuromi : Whatever the user of the browser could, the extensions could. Not that I was bothered about that, they were substantially better than most applications people install: they came as JavaScript source code, instead of opaque binaries, and each of them was reviewed by an editorial staff of human experts as today, BTW.
Alex : Unfortunately that's just one permission for all the download manager API. Certainly not my choice. For me rc2 did it so far! Maybe thanks to the new icon set. Icons are larger and I personally like it. Everything runs smoothly as it should! The main question that nobody is asking. What data or information, if any, is getting sent to the noscript devs or to any other location or web site during web browser use? NOT talking about known options such as post-update install release notes or similar.
Is NoScript phoning home at all without the users knowledge? FLaura : Nope. NoScript Privacy Policy. I would agree. On the other hand, i just deleted my previous settings to default and set all trusted to untrusted and wanted to build up a new more complete settingsstructure. My problem now is this " Domain" - how the hell i could find out "who" requested "what"?
I see that red filled areas are actual those "what" issues, but how can i configure these without seeing "who"? Adding to my last post, there should be a temporary history per tab or window, resetting automaticly when closed or doing manually.
As i understand the problem, if a website is loaded but does't get rights to do stuff, loads other site, but noscript just forgot about what the initial "stuff" request were. As example try to get gmx. Just a little glitch that will be fixed very soon, I'm sure. I love the new NoScript even more than the old one! Thank you so much for your tireless and excellent work, Giorgio!
Markus yes I see. Maybe I was not clear enough. It is just the linebreaks were not there in the. It seems to me that the horizontal scrollbars are missing now. Another Point is that all 20 shown entries for this site are wrapped. No matter if long or not. Export problems are not nice but do not bother me at the moment. Do not want export something ;- regards Oliver. Giorgio, Baulking at any explicit permissions - or any other of the changes mozco's introduced so carefully and transparently - not ; - to its NS users isn't a sign that your user base lacks trust in you.
It's a sign that they lack trust in mozco's new code. I believe you yourself will be doing a lot of double duty with these initial truly beta Firefoxes - establishing trust more in mozco than in our beloved NS.
It's going to take a little longer for many to come to appreciate just how much less access to browser function the new Firefox is prepared to give to anyone. Binary choice now: Trust mozco. Don't trust mosco. All those scary looking long permissions lists are basically what Gecko did mostly under the hood anyway. This is fallacious reasoning. See the debate about motorcycle helmets for more on this effect. I strongly disagree. I see uBO in easy mode as essential for the average user to protect against web based threats.
With uBO attack surface is reduced greatly. Afaik uBO has protected users right from the beginning against coin mining. The risk of encountering a coin-miner without using a Content-Blocker is still very small, and the process is stopped when closing the browser.
The highest risk for actual infection is for uneducated mobile Android users as the risk for infection is higher with shady android apps. Lasting Coin miners affect mostly hosted servers in countries like Taiwan, India and Russia, where a lack of security best practices make it possible to combine coin-mining with system vulnerabilities and create botnets.
Everything else mentioned by Symantec — Targeted Attacks, Ransomware, Supply chain attacks are targeting vulnerabilities in old operating systems, mostly in corporate environments. These are not related to web-browsing. Android infection is a combination of uneducated users, old versions, and failure by Google to guard the App Store. Practical web threats for average users are imho mostly phishing mails, in combination with a willingness to give away personal data or download unknown software from these mails.
And no, I switched to uMatrix long before FF It is more powerfull, you can block block on a much finer domain level, you can use filter list and much more. The missing functionality is what makes it far more usable for a beginner. It is this time!
Also, this extra layer of security, should I consider using it, would be far more precisely handled with uMatrix, IMO corroborated by what I read a bit everywhere. So no thanks, no NoScript for me at this time. But I do praise the quality of the project and the number of users is there to prove it I guess.
Those functions are rarely used for anything legitimate. And if an element breaks you could use something like shift-click to temporarily whitelist it. And they rushed Electrolysis, because they were bleeding users at mind-boggling rates prior to the release of that. If the trend had continued like it did before Electrolysis, Firefox would have negative user numbers by now. Indeed, it is practical and very useful.
I may very well once again reinstall it. Certainly a most valuable extension. I until a few years ago was using NoScript. However, uBlock Origin and uMatrix replace it. With uMatrix, Requests can be visualized and complete control is possible. NoScript is inadequate. In addition, it has a combination of the following addons as a complementary function. I agree with many of the posters before me, saying NoScript is, or at least feels like, a waste of time.
But still I really like the idea of having NoScript, I think browsers should have it built-in. With a slight usability standpoint twist though: It should allow everything by default, no blocking by default.
With it installed, you can inspect where stuff, which still runs as usual, comes from — something, that for some unknown reason, is absolutely impossible without it. At least by far not as efficient. So sometimes it might benefit to block some objects you suspect to slow stuff down. NoScripts defaults are preventing it from widespread adoption. Adding something, but having less comfort afterwards — when computers are the epitome of comfort.
I wish people would realize this. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Please click on the following link to open the newsletter signup page: Ghacks Newsletter Sign up. Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers. Search for:.
A complete NoScript Security suite extension guide for the Firefox web browser version 57 and newer. Martin Brinkmann. Related content Mozilla bans the FVD Speed Dial extension and removes it from Firefox; but users are furious after losing their bookmarks. Mozilla launches Firefox Relay Premium. Firefox may soon paint all sites in dark or light mode, if you want. Firefox Create custom Firefox installations with Firefox Profilemaker.
Previous Post: « Local Sheriff reveals if sites leak personal information with third-parties Next Post: « Mozilla recommended privacy extension had "phone-home" feature. Comments John said on August 13, at am. Deo-et-Patriae said on August 13, at pm. John Fenderson said on August 13, at pm. I love the old NoScript.
0コメント