InformAction Forums

from what i've read the option to keep xpinstall.signatures.required to false is not recommended right, due to security issues? No, you're not opening yourself up to security issues. The original rationale for requiring signing was something about reducing "greyware/crapware". But if you'...

barbaz wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:55 pm Probably you were using an outdated NoScript version, from before Mozilla stopped signing legacy extensions.

Ah, damn.Right, so what choice/choices do i have? I mean ,from what i've read the option to keep xpinstall.signatures.required to false is not recommended right, due to security issues?

From - https://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25557 I should clarify that i had to install via the about:config > xpinstall.signatures.required to false NoScript Classic is not signed. This setting is required. I'm a noob,so how did this work before? I mean before the add-ons got br...

okay just to add: I removed NoScript and did the install again.I should clarify that i had to install via the about:config > xpinstall.signatures.required to false But as soon as i set the value back to 'true', NoScript gets disabled. WTF??? I don't understand how the same version of NS was working ...

Hi.One of my older systems is on Vista and FF ESR 52.9.0. With the recent trouble with add-ons being disabled, i wanted to ask if there is an easy solution for those of us whom, even after installing the fix that FF released are for some reason unable to get NoScript 5.1.9 to work. https://addons.mo...