Is noscript virus..?

[Mark]

Do not change the setting of AdblockPlus without permission and explanation.

[Giorgio Maone]

Mark, sorry you took it this way.
It's been a tough decision dictated by a tough situation, and it's absolutely not meant to be sneaky.
The change has been carefully crafted to be easily reversed in two clicks, and explanation has been given in many strategic places, as you can read here.
I'm really interested in how you missed this information, to improve its delivery.
Thanks.

[Eric]

Why do you attempt to insult our intelligence? It is obvious why you did it, and it crosses lines. *Especially* with you attempting to blame it on an "attack" from EasyList.

I've uninstalled your plugin and seeing as you have no plans on coming clean, I have no plans on reinstalling.

[Giorgio Maone]

@Eric:
please check 1.9.2.5 first.
I've been up until now (6.45 AM) to update it with a retroactive nagging prompt asking you just once if you want to keep/install or remove forever the filterset.
Many thanks.

[Tom T.]

Why do you attempt to insult our intelligence? It is obvious why you did it, and it crosses lines. *Especially* with you attempting to blame it on an "attack" from EasyList.

I've uninstalled your plugin and seeing as you have no plans on coming clean, I have no plans on reinstalling.

You're punishing yourself, not Giorgio, regardless of whether he is "right" or "wrong". Good luck running around the Net without proper screening of executable content -- perhaps you will use IE too? G/L.

[bambusta]

If your intentions are so noble why didn't you ask the user if it agrees to allow your ''Development Supported'' websites instead of injecting them in the AdBlock?
That would have been different so whoever wants to support you could opt to do so.

I'm afraid it's the beginning of the end for NoScript

Shame on you!

[Tom T.]

If your intentions are so noble why didn't you ask the user if it agrees to allow your ''Development Supported'' websites instead of injecting them in the AdBlock?
That would have been different so whoever wants to support you could opt to do so.

I'm afraid it's the beginning of the end for NoScript

Shame on you!

Please see this post and Giorgio's response. Thank you.

[Rooker]

I read the blurb on Slashdot, then the blog at Adblock.org, then the bug thread currently a few lines down in this forum. I have to say, after reading through everything, I'm pretty thoroughly disgusted. With the Adblock people that is.

This all seemed to have been worked out amicably, with each side removing the things to which the other side objected. Then that blog from Adblock come out, which only just barely stops short of calling NoScript a malicious virus, which mysteriously appears on Slashdot shortly thereafter. It looked to me like everything had settled down peacefully, yet from reading that blog post that came afterward, you'd think that Giorgio had tried to set fire to somebody's house over at Adblock HQ or something.

Let's not forget that this all started when an Adblock dev couldn't figure out how to fix a flaw in the extension that allowed people to circumvent it, took it personally that Giorgio kept running around the filters and then went on a two-week jihad that ended up breaking nearly everything on the web sites in question.

The point of the extension is to block ads without breaking anything else. This one developer let himself forget that in his frustration and look where it ended up. If he had just worked on fixing the flaw, it wouldn't have got to this point.

That doesn't excuse Giorgio from monkeying with Adblock's operations, of course. That was pretty stupid. He should have used the whitelisting method to begin with, by way of a prompt.

From the point of view of someone entirely neutral and not emotionally involved in this, you both acted like idiots and decided to get into a pissing contest at the expense of your users. Feud amongst yourselves all you want, but leave us users out of it.

But at least these guys at NoScript did not then publish a blog smearing what the people over at Adblock did. That FAQ entry you're so worried about seems perfectly reasonable and accurate considering what went on.

This Wladimir person ought to be ashamed of himself for writing that blog post with such inflammatory language and misleading information, especially since this has already been resolved anyway. That is just throwing gas on a fire that calmer and more rational people were already putting out and it was completely unnecessary.

You've just put an unecessary and unwarranted black mark on NoScript's reputation and I think you need to go back and rewrite that blog post while it's still on the front page of Slashdot.

Either way, I sure as hell won't be using Adblock after this. I install extensions into Firefox to fix problems, not to create them.

[zurk]

noscript is at fault you fracking idiot.
NO extension should touch another extension. PERIOD. no arguments.

[GµårÐïåñ]

noscript is at fault you fracking idiot.
NO extension should touch another extension. PERIOD. no arguments.

Watch alot of battlestar galactica do we? How old are you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean the previous poster actually gave a reason where as you just showed exactly how immature of an anonymous coward you are. If you have nothing constructive or concrete to add, I ask that you just troll elsewhere.

[Lundholm]

I'm afraid it's the beginning of the end for NoScript

Not so fast. Nobody with security in mind would want to surf the net without NoScript, and we need ABP as well.

I just checked out the new version 1.9.2.5, which was a positive experience, just like 1.9.2 should have been.

Let's consider this yet another May Day incident.

[Guest]

noscript is at fault you fracking idiot.
NO extension should touch another extension. PERIOD. no arguments.

Watch alot of battlestar galactica do we? How old are you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean the previous poster actually gave a reason where as you just showed exactly how immature of an anonymous coward you are. If you have nothing constructive or concrete to add, I ask that you just troll elsewhere.

Fine. Heres something constructive :

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

The noscript author created malware and intentionally damaged my machine. Now will you be paying the $5000 fine or will the author of noscript ?

[NoScript User]

Either way, I sure as hell won't be using Adblock after this. I install extensions into Firefox to fix problems, not to create them.

Why dont u install IE 6 too....Would be really helpful for ur spyware friends....

[John the Jew]

I read the blurb on Slashdot, then the blog at Adblock.org, then the bug thread currently a few lines down in this forum. I have to say, after reading through everything, I'm pretty thoroughly disgusted. With the Adblock people that is.

This all seemed to have been worked out amicably, with each side removing the things to which the other side objected. Then that blog from Adblock come out, which only just barely stops short of calling NoScript a malicious virus, which mysteriously appears on Slashdot shortly thereafter. It looked to me like everything had settled down peacefully, yet from reading that blog post that came afterward, you'd think that Giorgio had tried to set fire to somebody's house over at Adblock HQ or something.

Let's not forget that this all started when an Adblock dev couldn't figure out how to fix a flaw in the extension that allowed people to circumvent it, took it personally that Giorgio kept running around the filters and then went on a two-week jihad that ended up breaking nearly everything on the web sites in question.

The point of the extension is to block ads without breaking anything else. This one developer let himself forget that in his frustration and look where it ended up. If he had just worked on fixing the flaw, it wouldn't have got to this point.

That doesn't excuse Giorgio from monkeying with Adblock's operations, of course. That was pretty stupid. He should have used the whitelisting method to begin with, by way of a prompt.

From the point of view of someone entirely neutral and not emotionally involved in this, you both acted like idiots and decided to get into a pissing contest at the expense of your users. Feud amongst yourselves all you want, but leave us users out of it.

But at least these guys at NoScript did not then publish a blog smearing what the people over at Adblock did. That FAQ entry you're so worried about seems perfectly reasonable and accurate considering what went on.

This Wladimir person ought to be ashamed of himself for writing that blog post with such inflammatory language and misleading information, especially since this has already been resolved anyway. That is just throwing gas on a fire that calmer and more rational people were already putting out and it was completely unnecessary.

You've just put an unecessary and unwarranted black mark on NoScript's reputation and I think you need to go back and rewrite that blog post while it's still on the front page of Slashdot.

Either way, I sure as hell won't be using Adblock after this. I install extensions into Firefox to fix problems, not to create them.

It is a real shame that most people are too dense to grasp this. Unfortunately the dirty Italian and NoScript are going to be horribly tarnished forever due tot his. But hey: I guess it is one way for ABP to strangle NoScript. Which from my point of view is the obvious goal here.

[Guest]

noscript is at fault you fracking idiot.
NO extension should touch another extension. PERIOD. no arguments.

Watch alot of battlestar galactica do we? How old are you? How did you come to that conclusion? I mean the previous poster actually gave a reason where as you just showed exactly how immature of an anonymous coward you are. If you have nothing constructive or concrete to add, I ask that you just troll elsewhere.

Fine. Heres something constructive :

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

The noscript author created malware and intentionally damaged my machine. Now will you be paying the $5000 fine or will the author of noscript ?

Nice libel you've got going on there.