Back to Firefox 56

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
m_nimal
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by m_nimal » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:12 pm

I couldn't agree more. The WE version is so limited compared to NoScript 5.x, it's barely a shadow of its former self.

Almost all the functionality seems to be gone, including the most basic function of all: viewing and editing the whitelist. Nevermind everything else, like the "Recently blocked sites" and "Blocked objects" lists, the options to block second level domains or full addresses, and more.

Please note I am not complaining about NoScript itself in any way. The blame is 100% with Mozilla. This forced WebExtensions change has got to be the absolute worst update to any software I have ever used.

Staying with FF56 is a really bad idea, by the way. There have already been several serious security vulnerabilities released, and there are sure to be more to come. You should use the ESR version, 52.0.5. It lacks the performance improvements made in the last year or so, so it is slower. At least it's not completely useless, like FF57, though. And unlike FF56, it will receive security updates until June 2018.

Beyond that, it looks like the only option will be to investigate one of the Firefox forks, e.g. Waterfox. I haven't tried it, but they say they will continue supporting XUL addons indefinitely.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Pansa » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:31 pm

First: which version of noscript are you actually running? because most of those points aren't true for anything past 10.1.2
m_nimal wrote:I couldn't agree more. The WE version is so limited compared to NoScript 5.x, it's barely a shadow of its former self.
Except for the parts where it is already providing functionality that wasn't in 5.x
ALso part of what is missing is missing from FF in the API, so it is hard to implement features that aren't supported by the browser yet (like ABE)
Almost all the functionality seems to be gone, including the most basic function of all: viewing and editing the whitelist. Nevermind everything else, like the "Recently blocked sites" and "Blocked objects" lists, the options to block second level domains or full addresses, and more.
applying rules whole domains is achieved by setting [...page]rules, applying fine grained specific urls blocking with setting the rules being shown as full URLS.

If you look in the debug log for confirmation, you will find rules of the "§:page" or "page" variety, or rules describing specific addresses including second level like "http(s)://sub.page.dom
If editing the list in the options (which, granted does mix white and blacklist), editing in the debug log allows plain text interaction.

I think the "recently blocked" functionality is somehow integrated in the colouring of the background of the checkboxes in the settings for a given rule in the UI (they sometimes appear red and sometimes the normal beige, I think to imply that something of that type was matched, but don't hold me to that)
Please note I am not complaining about NoScript itself in any way. The blame is 100% with Mozilla. This forced WebExtensions change has got to be the absolute worst update to any software I have ever used.

Staying with FF56 is a really bad idea, by the way. There have already been several serious security vulnerabilities released, and there are sure to be more to come. You should use the ESR version, 52.0.5. It lacks the performance improvements made in the last year or so, so it is slower. At least it's not completely useless, like FF57, though. And unlike FF56, it will receive security updates until June 2018.

Beyond that, it looks like the only option will be to investigate one of the Firefox forks, e.g. Waterfox. I haven't tried it, but they say they will continue supporting XUL addons indefinitely.
the issue in general is that the user base is fragmented between all those versions, and so are OTHER addons which sometimes have no support for the ESR, or other derivates.
For me at the moment Noscript works mostly as I wanted, and apart from some more clicks provides a lot more fine grain and specifically individualised decisions due to the way it splits up specific permissions per rule that was not implemented in ns5 at all.

There are still a lot of smaller issues and bigger features to bring back, but overall both predominantly whitelist focused users as well as pure blacklisters have settings to deal with their needs, and while I agree that it isn't an easy transition UI wise, If you understood what you where actually doing in ns5, doing the same for ns10 past 1.3 is similar. (except for the part that is still missing because of API's or this version being slightly over 2 weeks old.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:57 pm

Pansa wrote: Except for the parts where it is already providing functionality that wasn't in 5.x
And the parts where it isn't providing functionality that was in 5.x?

I felt your post effectively admitted how convoluted NoScript 10 is. In other words, "To be able to do [x,y and z], you have to jump through these hoops over here." NoScript 5 was clean, simple and readily understood, with minimal bugs or issues of any kind. NoScript 10, as can be evidenced by the plethora of individual complaints spanning a wide range of problems, does not share that same identity.

As the poster before you stated, this isn't entirely the fault of NoScript; Mozilla unleashed a mess and now all the 3rd party developers are being forced to try to clean it up. But as much as I love NoScript and appreciate the work that has gone into it, I don't think it's out of place to question the efficacy of where the program has now headed. I think it's a step backwards. And I think that's unfortunate.

The only advantage to NoScript 10 that I've encountered is the individualized scripting options for each site (as you stated). That's a nice feature but it's not enough to replace NoScript 5 for me.

Also, to the previous poster in regards to Firefox 56's security issues, I'll take it under consideration. I hadn't read up much on Firefox's vulnerabilities.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9282
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:05 pm

m_nimal wrote:Staying with FF56 is a really bad idea, by the way. There have already been several serious security vulnerabilities released, and there are sure to be more to come.
guillotrined wrote:Also, to the previous poster in regards to Firefox 56's security issues, I'll take it under consideration. I hadn't read up much on Firefox's vulnerabilities.
Every old major release has serious security vulnerabilities. But NoScript makes most of them moot. Just be careful what you allow and you'll be fine.

I would advise using a content blocker such as uBlock Origin alongside NoScript, it would be prudent especially when running an outdated browser.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Pansa » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:45 pm

guillotrined wrote:
Pansa wrote: Except for the parts where it is already providing functionality that wasn't in 5.x
And the parts where it isn't providing functionality that was in 5.x?
Pansa wrote: ALso part of what is missing is missing from FF in the API, so it is hard to implement features that aren't supported by the browser yet (like ABE)
This is to me, the biggest part of why it seems convoluted. Not paying attention to what is on the screen.
Like you posed a question that I specifically already responded to directly after the part you quoted. It IS a bit frustrating, and you can't proof an interface against that.
I felt your post effectively admitted how convoluted NoScript 10 is. In other words, "To be able to do [x,y and z], you have to jump through these hoops over here."
Except that a huge part of it was describing the redundancies to avoid user error caused by bugs in versions they may or may not have used. It basically describes the three ways the interface communicates what the addon is doing.
Each of them parallel to each other communicating the same thing, but in different ways to make sure everybody can see it.
It is redundant whether you look at the coloured lock, look at the colour of the rule's text, or look in the log to verify. Each works, but my description is made in a way to show how they say the same thing (unless like in 10.1.1 or 10.1.2 things get messed up and need fixing)
NoScript 5 was clean, simple and readily understood, with minimal bugs or issues of any kind.
And this I call "not true at all". the options for No script were a lot of pages with checkmarks that did mean very little for the layman, and if you wanted too really see what it was doing, that was at the very least as convoluted, and was even missing a lot of fine grain control that it now has in an interface that once understood is pretty slick (except the performance issues for having loads and loads of rules).
Don't confuse simple and readily understood with "I didn't use half of it" or "I got used to it and can't remember how much try and error was involved".
The new one even fixes some phrasings that for all intents and purposes were plain "wrong" before (like "allow gobal" meaning "except untrusted". now it actually means !global! and when you want what used to be global allow, it is now correctly called "default" behaviour.)
NoScript 10, as can be evidenced by the plethora of individual complaints spanning a wide range of problems, does not share that same identity.
And as someone trying to help fix those complaints, and thus has read almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of them for 2weeks+, a lot of it has to do with not reading mouseovers, not even testing conjectures out, and a general "I don't want to read it, this is new, thus bad". To the point of not even trying what is helpfully advised but insisting on a wrong intuition.
As the poster before you stated, this isn't entirely the fault of NoScript; Mozilla unleashed a mess and now all the 3rd party developers are being forced to try to clean it up. But as much as I love NoScript and appreciate the work that has gone into it, I don't think it's out of place to question the efficacy of where the program has now headed. I think it's a step backwards. And I think that's unfortunate.

The only advantage to NoScript 10 that I've encountered is the individualized scripting options for each site (as you stated). That's a nice feature but it's not enough to replace NoScript 5 for me.

Also, to the previous poster in regards to Firefox 56's security issues, I'll take it under consideration. I hadn't read up much on Firefox's vulnerabilities.
And personal taste I can't or will ever disagree with. Just pointing out that a lot of the dismay comes from people never having considered the implications of HTTP and HTTPS, and how you need to adapt choices (specifically in regards to "liking" the finegrain, which directly implies that just "default untrust" + trust aren't enough choices any more.

The new one is immensely compact. which forces a lot of interaction with the concepts on people who ever clicked "allow all on this page" (which was basically the first flooded demand when 10.1.1 hit), but the new interface is actually pretty good in compressing choices that were scattered in ns5. Although I will agree that the newer "app" look over the cleaner boring grey +text is not my favourite either.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

guillotrined
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by guillotrined » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:16 pm

Pansa wrote:This is to me, the biggest part of why it seems convoluted. Not paying attention to what is on the screen.
Like you posed a question that I specifically already responded to directly after the part you quoted. It IS a bit frustrating, and you can't proof an interface against that.
I hate to debase myself by arguing against passive aggressive snide comments, so I'll refrain and state only that you actually didn't answer my point at all. You just made an excuse for it.
Pansa wrote:And this I call "not true at all". the options for No script were a lot of pages with checkmarks that did mean very little for the layman, and if you wanted too really see what it was doing, that was at the very least as convoluted, and was even missing a lot of fine grain control that it now has in an interface that once understood is pretty slick (except the performance issues for having loads and loads of rules).
Don't confuse simple and readily understood with "I didn't use half of it" or "I got used to it and can't remember how much try and error was involved".
You're missing the point again. For most people, for the majority of users of NoScript, the "fine grain control" that you're describing was meaningless. They appreciated the fact that it worked, that it was simple and that it did what it was supposed to on a very user friendly UI. That's all. Feel free to talk all day about the wonders of nuances but you will be preaching to the small minority who would take advantage of it.
Pansa wrote:And as someone trying to help fix those complaints, and thus has read almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of them for 2weeks+, a lot of it has to do with not reading mouseovers, not even testing conjectures out, and a general "I don't want to read it, this is new, thus bad". To the point of not even trying what is helpfully advised but insisting on a wrong intuition.
You're complaining that people are complaining? When people complain, there's often a reason why. As I stated when I began this thread, the only reason I even bothered to sign up was to express my frustrations in hopes that it may join the chorus of others and be listened to as feedback. Are you suggesting that if feedback is not what someone wants to hear then it shouldn't be heard at all? We should all accept whatever is thrown our way with smiles? The entire point of providing negative feedback is not to wound the recipient, but to encourage them to acknowledge the issues with their creation.
Pansa wrote:The new one is immensely compact. which forces a lot of interaction with the concepts on people who ever clicked "allow all on this page" (which was basically the first flooded demand when 10.1.1 hit), but the new interface is actually pretty good in compressing choices that were scattered in ns5. Although I will agree that the newer "app" look over the cleaner boring grey +text is not my favourite either.
I am patient and will wait for NoScript to smooth out its problems. In the meantime, I'm still using NoScript, just an earlier version. Clearly I love NoScript or I wouldn't have bothered to post on this forum.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.2.2 Waterfox/55.2.2

Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Pansa » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:53 pm

guillotrined wrote:
Pansa wrote:This is to me, the biggest part of why it seems convoluted. Not paying attention to what is on the screen.
Like you posed a question that I specifically already responded to directly after the part you quoted. It IS a bit frustrating, and you can't proof an interface against that.
I hate to debase myself by arguing against passive aggressive snide comments, so I'll refrain and state only that you actually didn't answer my point at all. You just made an excuse for it.
I feel like I did in the part I quoted, and I also feel like that question directly contradicts the other stance about users not caring for all those complicated features, which made NS5 more intuitive.

To me it is a bit either or. The features that "just users" were using are there (what I would call core functionality) and some extensive additional features that were unintuitive are back too, and some are missing from the API, thus can't be implemented.
You're missing the point again. For most people, for the majority of users of NoScript, the "fine grain control" that you're describing was meaningless. They appreciated the fact that it worked, that it was simple and that it did what it was supposed to on a very user friendly UI. That's all. Feel free to talk all day about the wonders of nuances but you will be preaching to the small minority who would take advantage of it.
but in the current version these core functionalities are back in an equally "intuitive" way, unless you define "intuitive" as "exactly the same way".
You click on trusted, for an entry that people think they might need, and on the clock if they want it permanent.
Core functionality restored. The buttons have mouse-over. That is what I meant with compact.
You're complaining that people are complaining? When people complain, there's often a reason why. As I stated when I began this thread, the only reason I even bothered to sign up was to express my frustrations in hopes that it may join the chorus of others and be listened to as feedback. Are you suggesting that if feedback is not what someone wants to hear then it shouldn't be heard at all? We should all accept whatever is thrown our way with smiles? The entire point of providing negative feedback is not to wound the recipient, but to encourage them to acknowledge the issues with their creation.
No, I am complaining about HOW some people complain, and what the specific complaints imply about the level of observation. To the point that the term "intuitive" loses it's meaning, when people actually sometimes seem to have neither intuition, nor want to pay attention to the screen at all, and just want to shout "this is different, how am I ever going to cope".
I am suggesting that if help has to take the form of writing "press default for default and trusted for trusted" that something is problematic on the user side.
What I was trying to point out is that some complaints of "lacking intuitiveness" can boil down to "I never really read what I clicked, but it worked. Now that is gone, and I don't want to look, so it is bad"
Which is not really feedback that one can work with. Combine that with the "state" from which some people complain is one of seriously shot settings (some due to unobservant clicking without undoing an some completely complain worthy due to bugs), a complaint about the addon and design rather than asking what is wrong in the first place is also losing value.

Included but not limited to about 25 separate threads in 36 hours about 10.1.3 resetting maximising a FF window when you click the icon.
I am not saying "scan the first 30 forum pages" or search excessively. But if the collection thread is in the top 3 of the posts, maybe finding it is not TOO much to ask before opening a new thread?
Yes , valid negative feedback is a boon to adjusting anything. I am merely reacting to you pointing at the number of feedbacks, and pointing out the quality of some of it. Some of it is caused by pure knee-jerking to change, and the form that takes is showing it.
Pansa wrote:The new one is immensely compact. which forces a lot of interaction with the concepts on people who ever clicked "allow all on this page" (which was basically the first flooded demand when 10.1.1 hit), but the new interface is actually pretty good in compressing choices that were scattered in ns5. Although I will agree that the newer "app" look over the cleaner boring grey +text is not my favourite either.
I am patient and will wait for NoScript to smooth out its problems. In the meantime, I'm still using NoScript, just an earlier version. Clearly I love NoScript or I wouldn't have bothered to post on this forum.[/quote]

And again, I am not trying to attack you in person, or discard everything you say by being contrarian. The part I was a bit snide about was just a perfect example of just skipping over the part that specifically addressed the thing that came back as a question. Which is kind of frustrating for the guy answering.

edit: to cut all that shorter. There is trying to understand and failing, and there is looking at it an complaining. (not specifically targeted at you)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

wint
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by wint » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:58 pm

Didn't read all that what other ppl say but for me himself i can say few things to the new noScript for FF 57:
- i missed the old and clear menue,where I could immediately see which url had access to the visited page
# now i have much less options to block or accept in my view
- old NoScript show me how much url i can block and get me a option for each url
' now i can look at one url but NoScript say there are more (four for example)but cant see it in the first view and dont know how i can look to the other 3 ,which likes hidden for me

i'm not happy with the new menue and dont have the time to make a try for each site,the old menue was so simple-minded for me . . allow,temporarily allow,forbidden
simple and clever!!
I could see what which url was doing when i tested these options . . but now,nothing to do :(
Thats sad,hopefully we get it back in the next step,if not . . well,a good tool are gone then.

Greeting wint
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

Justin9020
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Justin9020 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:19 pm

KT66 wrote:I've never been moved to register for a tech forum, but I see I'm not alone in being disappointed with NoScript 10. I've used NoScript for years and wouldn't want to be without it, but this latest version is hopeless. It doesn't save permissions, the interface is appalling and I'm forever closing XSS pop ups. It's driving me up the wall.
Same here.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

Pansa
Senior Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by Pansa » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:33 pm

Justin9020 wrote:
KT66 wrote:I've never been moved to register for a tech forum, but I see I'm not alone in being disappointed with NoScript 10. I've used NoScript for years and wouldn't want to be without it, but this latest version is hopeless. It doesn't save permissions, the interface is appalling and I'm forever closing XSS pop ups. It's driving me up the wall.
Same here.
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23974
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

barbaz
Senior Member
Posts: 9282
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Back to Firefox 56

Post by barbaz » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:33 pm

Pansa wrote:
Justin9020 wrote:
KT66 wrote:I've never been moved to register for a tech forum, but I see I'm not alone in being disappointed with NoScript 10. I've used NoScript for years and wouldn't want to be without it, but this latest version is hopeless. It doesn't save permissions, the interface is appalling and I'm forever closing XSS pop ups. It's driving me up the wall.
Same here.
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=23974
https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =8&t=24218
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-

Post Reply