Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

[pirlouy]

Waouh... I've just read Wladimir post blog and what it has led to...

I deplore Wladimir aggressiveness and I just wanted to say I know you're a great guy Giorgio and not the one described by Wladimir (malware author, only concerned by money,etc.).

I hope you won't be hurt by all stupid and aggressive posts.

[Guest]

Yep, I'm another guest.

I think Tom has a good point overall, but so do the indignant among us who suddenly had ad domains whitelisted without our consent.

When I learned of this issue I came here, someone locked the thread trying to imply one or just a tiny few people with a problem was just doing multiple posts (see the review number at the addon site to see this was obviously NOT the case). Someone may have been cloning opinions, but I wanted to vent, dammit. Anyway, the forum here didn't want me to air my grievance so I had to take it somewhere, so I did a one star detailed review at mozilla. Many others did the same thing which kicked the addon from 5 to 4 stars in hours. So, locking the thread was not really the best way to address a pissed off community.

That being said, NoScript has always been a great extension except for one incredibly <insert profanity here> decision. Why did I and so many others decide to kick and scream about this? .. because we wanted something we knew and loved to mend its evil ways.

The author fixed the problem, there were never two sides to the story either (it's transparent why one forces users to see ads on their page), but as far as I am concerned it's over and done. My trust in NoScript has seriously waned, but its usefulness is still as important as ever. So I have to overall agree with Tom (although the pay version would never fly over well since people use firefox because of everything it stands for). The reason behind me and probably the majority of angered people going public was for one thing ... to help 'persuade' the author to undo the malicious change, and, well, he did just that.

I won't pretend all is fine and dandy now or that this will die down anytime soon. What I can say is the result I (and many others) sought worked .. and in the end that was what we wanted, an extension that doesn't undermine our choices. So, to conclude this "venting" I would like to say although I have no idea what you were thinking, Giorgio Maone, I do immensely appreciate your decision to return NoScript to its pure form, something that helps secure browsing without needing to sacrifice luxuries (or be a geek like most of us are) to use it.

The angry mob still has their pitchforks out and I empathize with their cause, but now it's my time to remove myself from this mob and just sign off by saying THANK YOU to Giorgio Maone for making the right decision eventually, and thanks for an incredibly useful extension. I hope that in time I will be able to blindly trust your work again, but for now there is still a bit of healing to do.

[Alan Baxter]

If other people perceive that title as sounding "desperate", I'm certainly open to editing the title. What would you suggest?

Since you asked...

Remove the caps, be more specific, and sound less like "the sky is falling". A reasonably prudent web surfer usually doesn't have any problems that are preventable by NoScript. Browsing the Internet with Firefox is pretty safe for most users. NoScript just makes browsing with Firefox even safer.
Perhaps something like:
Fixed in NS 1.9.2.6: Removing NoScript isn't necessary.

Or leave the title the way it is. It's your topic after all. I'm waiting for a full explanation from Giorgio on his blog before I comment about Wladimir's apparently slanderous blog.

[Guest]

What's next? No-Script, BotNet version 2.0 ????

There is... so much wrong with that sentence. Overstatement. Dropping the oh-so-cliched "2.0" term. Four question marks. Gah! Sadly, it's fairly representative of about half the posts in this thread.

There's a lot of over-reaction going on here...
So, there was a bit of a bitch-fight between NS and EasyList. In the heat of the moment, Maone did something he really shouldn't have. He soon backpedaled and undid said thing. Some questions were raised, some answers given, and some excitable 13-year-olds posted FUD about NS suddenly being OMGSOEVIL.

On the contrary, Maone has shown that he is willing to listen to his users and reverse ethically unsound decisions regarding NoScript's code-base, almost certainly losing significant ad revenue in the process. No "malware author" would remove the offending code so promptly, nor would they have spent years previously developing an awesome Firefox-hardening extension free for all to use. Yes, some trust has been lost, but it's nothing irreparable. Aforementioned 13-year-olds should take a few deep breaths before hopping on their high horses and oh-so-righteously disavowing NoScript and raining crud on Maone.


So thank you Giorgio for all your work on NoScript until now and thank you for ultimately choosing to remove the white-list. You have my support.

[Mc]

Thank you Giorgio for NoScript, I need it
I never needed AB+ though

[mik33mik]

In Giorgio Maone we trust!

Thanks for this great addon, and thanks for working for our security!

Un caloroso saluto

[artfuldodga]

i've been following this since the issue began, there is no real excuse for what the dev has done which was manipulate ABP to its advantage, yeah sure cat-and-mouse games were played on both sides but only because the noscript site had tried to avoid being blocked by ABP for so long

noscript has its purpose and ABP has theirs, and thats to block ads, yes even noscripts ads... thats the breaks, you don't mess with their addon behind the scenes, without user consent, manipulating code and breaking things in the process

sure, NOW a day later things are fixed but any person with morals would have said to themselves before hand, is this the right move? the obvious answer is no, i point that out because apparently the admin/dev hadn't known any better and likely needs it pointed out

one addon cannot screw with another, without user consent, period, end of story

we dont need a 'paid' version of an addon, that is retarded, if the admin is that hard up for cash maybe he shouldn't rely on an addon to make his living and provide for his family, something like noscript should be a hobby of his not somebodys financial backbone *shakes head

noscript is a great little addion to the browser but the author made a really stupid mistake and took things too far, i'm not leaving this in the hands of NoScript or ABP, i wont be redirected to this site each and every update (which i didn't really mind before),a lesson needs to be taught here, a hard one

[Rob Leland]

I donated $100 US to NoScript because I know how thankless OSS software is (is N.S. truely OSS ?).
Anyway NoScript should have never touched another plugins settings here are the options:
First Remove the offending code it shouldn't never touch anothers plugins settings ever it shouldn't .
a) Change for NoScript
b) Have NoScript refuse to operate(allow all scripts) if AdBocker is also installed and active.
c) Stop development of NoScript if you feel you cant justify the time or money spent.


-Rob

[PeterSP]

This leads me to wonder. While really this wasn't about ads but about EasyList interfering with Giorgio's sites beyond the call of duty, and Giorgio interfering with ABP in retaliation, the ads question is still an interesting one.

How much in the way of donations would it take to get Giorgio to remove ads from the noscript.net site entirely?

[capacityjunting]

How long until NoScript, in an effort to raise revenue, silently changes URLs to use their Amazon and other affiliates when purchases are made with NoScript installed?

I've totally removed my Firefox installation and recreated it from scratch without the NoScript malware. I suggest others do the same. Once bitten etc..

[PeterSP]

How long until NoScript, in an effort to raise revenue, silently changes URLs to use their Amazon and other affiliates when purchases are made with NoScript installed?

I've totally removed my Firefox installation and recreated it from scratch without the NoScript malware. I suggest others do the same. Once bitten etc..

I think you're blowing this a tiny bit out of proportion. I agree that Giorgio should not have made the default nagless ABP whitelist and certainly not the anti-ABP code, but I don't believe his actions were malicious, or even primarily about ads. I believe Noscript never has and I hope never will modify any site's content in any way other than disabling active content. That would be completely inexcusable-- unlike this faux-pas.

To call NoScript malware is disingenuous. The only thing you could call it, briefly, is adware-- and in a very minor way that was corrected within hours.

[guest]

/Uninstall
Learn !!

Yes , yes, because we know each opinion counts and what you do with your software is actually important.
As if one thread wasn't enough (99% of those guys were just like tl;dr anyway)

When I learned of this issue I came here, someone locked the thread... had to take it somewhere, so I did a one star detailed review at mozilla....
.. because we wanted something we knew and loved to mend its evil ways...
... there were never two sides to the story...
...to help 'persuade' the author to undo the malicious change...
... I have no idea what you were thinking...
...mob still has their pitchforks out and I empathize with their cause, but now it's my time to remove myself ...

Yes, yes, you won the internet, ex-best-NS-supporters, ex-angry-mob. There were never two sides to the story, obviously. Your method of persuasion was very successful. I won't even ask if you really read through everything, seeing as that would be an insult to your intelligence. I do encourage you to read a bit though /runs

sure, NOW a day later things are fixed but any person with morals would have said to themselves before hand, is this the right move? the obvious answer is no, i point that out because apparently the admin/dev hadn't known any better and likely needs it pointed out

one addon cannot screw with another, without user consent, period, end of story

we dont need a 'paid' version of an addon, that is retarded, if the admin is that hard up for cash maybe he shouldn't rely on an addon to make his living and provide for his family, something like noscript should be a hobby of his not somebodys financial backbone *shakes head

I hope you're feeling a little smart right now.
Newsflash: everything about your post is original and relevant to the discussion.

Someone once told me that he didn't want people to know about NoScript, or be able to use it. I thought he was just being elitist at the time, but I'm starting to get his idea. This is one aspect of the FOSS world that I truly didn't want to see.
Free software (not just firefox) users, most of them don't even care about the developers, but they will claim to have every holy right and make all kinds of unimaginable demands. That, I've known for a long time. Today I've learned something new, and even more detestable, about them. You already know the details.

I still don't understand why we should have 2 separate threads for this kind of posts. Seeing as this thread is just for the announcement anyway.

[Another guest]

i have read alot of this in different forums and blogs. i love noscript and i dont want so see it has to pay when u use

there are lot of comments and i kinda agree with some, it was very bad call to put stuff in whitelist without notifying it or giving option to choose and for that reason most gets angry(me included) but despite all that, every1 has to agree that noscript has done lots of good.

if ppls use adp they prolly dont wanna see any ads!

and if u needed monetary support via ads, u could ask. if u were askd i would say yes.

some has donated to u and some just cant afford to donate(like me..)

i think trust is partially gone, but i will never uninstall noscript as its very useful and important, if u need to add in whitelist ask and im sure most of us say yes and allows to add in whitelist like me.

thx for opportunity to asnwer here without registering.

hope everything turns out good and trust is gained back(what is gone regarding to some writings)

[capacityjunting]

It silently and without my authorization or knowledge sabotaged another piece of code running on my computer for the sole purpose of financial gain. I don't know what your definition of malware is but that's just about spot on. Calling this willful act of sabotage a "faux pas" is absurd. I certainly won't let NoScript or any other piece of InformAction software anywhere near my computer again. Trust, once lost, is rarely regained.

[prettycoolguy]

Just uninstalled.
I'm switching to opera.
Dev=Douche