[RESOLVED] sevenforums.com/Fx 5.0/ NS 2.1.2rc2

[daledoc1]

Hello:

New to this forum.

Having been using NS for a very long time.

Today, I have 2 new problems:

1. Google search pages for searches run from the search box within the following web site will not load: http://www.sevenforums.com under Win7/64 running Fx 5.0 and NS 2.1.2rc2.

AND

2. When I open the NS options > whitelist, the "allow" radio button is greyed out, so I cannot manually add a URL for ajax.googleapis.com to the whitelist, as was suggested by the sevenforums.com moderator.

Notes:

• This is a new problem since recently upgrading to Fx 5 and NS 2.1.2rc2.
• The links just don't even load -- no spinner, no 404, no error message, no redirect -- just plain nothing happens.
• Manually selecting "temporarily allow all this page" has no effect.
• Fx "safe mode" works fine, but disabling all other extensions has no effect.
• IE9 works fine at the same site.
• Google searches themselves are fine.
• I have no trouble at any other forum or website.
• The only other privacy extension I am running is ABP, and disabling it has no effect.
• Starting FF from "run as admin" from the desktop shortcut does not enable the whitelist button, either.
• I never had problems with these searches under earlier builds of FF and NS.
• I am not infected.

So, I've pretty much narrowed it down to something "one off" at this particular website, Google searches and NS.

Questions:
1. Is there a way to get this to work, short of disabling NS when I visit this webpage?
2. Why is the "allow" button disabled, so that I cannot add any website to the whitelist?

Thank you very much in advance!

daledoc1

[Giorgio Maone]

Please check latest development build

[daledoc1]

Hi, Giorgio:

Thanks for quick reply.

Oddly, some NS users were given 2.1.2RC a few weeks ago via AMO ("check for updates" from within Fx).
There was some chatter at the Mzine forums about it, but it seemed to be causing no problems.
(I never got the 2.1.2 RC on my other computer, b/c it seems you had reverted back to 2.1.1 after a day or so.)
"Check for updates" even now on this computer tells me I am up to date.

So, this is some sort of bug with the 2.1.2RC?


Should I uninstall 2.1.2rc2 and then install 2.1.2rc3?
Or should I roll back to 2.1.1, or whatever the last stable build was?

I'm sorry, but I need a bit of specific instructions....

Thanks,

daledoc1

[Alan Baxter]

1. Google search pages for searches run from the search box within the following web site will not load: http://www.sevenforums.com under Win7/64 running Fx 5.0 and NS 2.1.2rc2.

Works for me with NoScript's default settings if I Allow sevenforums.com.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
NoScript 2.1.2rc3

2. When I open the NS options > whitelist, the "allow" radio button is greyed out, so I cannot manually add a URL for ajax.googleapis.com to the whitelist, as was suggested by the sevenforums.com moderator.

That's because googleapis.com is already in the whitelist by default. You can't add a subdomain if the base domain is already whitelisted. Since googleapis.com is already whitelisted, ajax.googleapis is already allowed.

[Alan Baxter]

Should I uninstall 2.1.2rc2 and then install 2.1.2rc3?

Install 2.1.2rc3. You don't need to uninstall 2.1.2rc2 first.

[daledoc1]

Hello, Alan Baxter:

Nice to see you here (I recognize you from the MZforums).

OK, so, I just installed RC3 via Fx check for updates (which must have just been released some time today, since I had already done my "check for updates" early this AM).

And, I'm happy to report, it seems to be working fine now.

I just ran an "internal" search at sevenforums.com for the same topic as before, it pulled up the Google list, and the links now load!!!!

I guess it was a bug????

THANKS to you and to Giorgio!!!

This was driving me NUTSO!!!!!

I will post back at sevenforums to let Brink know.

VERY MUCH OBLIGED.

daledoc1

PS I guess I shouldn't bother to ask -- how is it that some of us are getting "RC" builds via AMO, anyway?????

[Alan Baxter]

That's part of the AMO service. Now that you've installed an RC build, you'll be updated to each development (RC) build as it becomes available. You can opt out of receiving them by installing 2.1.1.2 from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/, but I recommend you stick with the development builds. They get bug fixes quicker.

BTW, nice to see you over here. I recognized you too.

[daledoc1]

That's part of the AMO service. Now that you've installed an RC build, you'll be updated to each development (RC) build as it becomes available. You can opt out of receiving them by installing 2.1.1.2 from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /versions/, but I recommend you stick with the development builds. They get bug fixes quicker.

Hi, Alan:

Yes, that makes sense.
Thanks.

And I guess I'm not very good with the lingo, but.......

I didn't opt to install the RC builds.
They were pushed out a week or 2 ago as part of a regular update (at least for a day or so).
I don't usually install betas or even RCs, so I was surprised when I saw it listed as an update.
But I pulled the trigger without really giving it much thought.

Then I recall seeing a thread (which I cannot find) at the MZ forum about it.
The next day, when I updated my extensions on my other rig, it wasn't even offered.
It was as if the 2.1.2RCs were pulled from AMO updater?

So, even though I am "up to date" on both rigs, 1 is getting the 2.1.2RC builds, and the other is still running 2.1.1.2.

Anyway, I still need to power up the laptop (also Fx 5 with same extensions, but a different NS version) and see what happens.

Anyway, I was just wonderin', as most of this technical stuff is way over my gray head.
I just know when something quits working, as happened with the Google loader.

Things seem OK now, so I will sit tight with 2.1.2rc3.
I back up my profile often, so this should be OK.

Thanks very much for your help & for taking the time to explain things!

Cheers,

daledoc1

[Alan Baxter]

You're welcome.

I didn't opt to install the RC builds.
They were pushed out a week or 2 ago as part of a regular update (at least for a day or so).
I don't usually install betas or even RCs, so I was surprised when I saw it listed as an update.
But I pulled the trigger without really giving it much thought.

Then I recall seeing a thread (which I cannot find) at the MZ forum about it.
The next day, when I updated my extensions on my other rig, it wasn't even offered.
It was as if the 2.1.2RCs were pulled from AMO updater?

AMO had a temporary bug where it served up the RC instead of the release version. It's been fixed. There's a topic or two here in the forums discussing it, but it's just history now.

[RCUser]

Perhaps Alan Baxter could explain why NoScript isn't calling the RC the latest official anyway?
After all, the whinges of those who don't like getting updated frequently can always be silenced by recommending they opt out of the maximum security benefit this affords, by configuring their own update cycle - foolish as this may be.

[Alan Baxter]

Perhaps Alan Baxter could explain why NoScript isn't calling the RC the latest official anyway?

I'm afraid I couldn't, but it may be a good idea.

Edit: I see AMO hasn't finished reviewing 2.1.1.2, the current release version. Maybe Giorgio is waiting for that to be done first. I'm grateful the RC channel doesn't get clogged up awaiting reviews. Since Fx 5.0 supports automatic extension updates, keeping up with the latest NoScript build is no sweat.

[RCUser]

Once AMO has become involved in RC distribution, it does seem to me that reviewing becomes academic - AMO is backing the trustworthiness and conscientiousness of the developer - and the next logical step would be to explain the development cycle of NoScript to users better - many would right now be expecting that a vital security application would be getting the fastest possible reviewing from AMO, when often it isn't, and would be surprised to find that the RC is a more useful and "stable" version in some cases.
Just thoughts, because it does appear to be a situation that may be leaving those who aren't either able or knowledgeable enough about bug reporting out to dry when a Latest is buggy.
Mozilla is after all pushing a vision of rapid browser development, no prisoners taken, and it would be very helpful if AMO could be supported by them to do more than cheer on the sidelines.
Thanks for your response.

[Alan Baxter]

You're welcome. You may want to make that suggestion in the Add-ons forum.
https://forums.mozilla.org/addons/

[RCUser]

Your suggestion understood, Alan Baxter, but it seems to me that the developer, in this particular case of a security addon, would have to initiate any change to the current Beta distribution model from within the Firefox/Mozilla Addons developer community. Any urging from a lone user could appear to be nutty, and even worse, sock-puppetry. Besides, the AMO setup doesn't appear to be much motivated around doing more than using the existing framework to get developers started, to get them money, and to attempt to keep up with their auditing role. NoScript is beyond their code reviewing capacity, I would kindly suggest, so the developer would have to make the move to call every RC (perhaps not for every platform, but for those with most users) the Latest Stable himself. It is a paradigm change to the software distribution model in general, but *is* a logical step given the leading edge nature of web security, and beyond the scope of AMO, except that AMO has signalled trust in NoScript by admitting it to the AMO Beta channel.

Which is why I'm speaking up in the developer's forum itself. Anyway, thanks for letting me do that and I hope the developer reads this suggestion without prejudice. NoScript is *the* vital component of secure web browsing, without a doubt, and those users who've decided to trust it deserve the same service as we with Beta chops.