NS acts strangely on some sites

[Sam77]

Issues with NS access button behaving differently.

Recently have started to see strange behavior of NoScript wirh my PaleMoon browser. On some sites, NS does not show all the JS items required or requested by the site. Thus making it impossible to use the site by allowing specific JS items. That leaves the only recourse to be "allow All this page". Which is also a dangerous thing to do.

Also NS apparently fails to detect all JS that the site wants which means I can't get the site to work even if I "allow all this page"..
And sometimes, I get no list of items to temporarily allow = just the option to allow "all this page"

Am not sure why this has started to occur. it might be that third party JS sites are managing to "hide themselves" better.
NewRelic seems to be part of this, but is not the only problem.

And even if I do "allow all this page" the site will many times not open/display/work right. Going over to FireFox will let me get to the page. FF also shows more of the third party JS requests.

Any ideas what has gotten messed up?

System = antique XP SP3, PM 26.5, NS 2.9.0.14 (last NS for older PM versions, I believe)
With a bit of irony, the FF version which I am using is 38.3 esr, which is even older than the PM 26.5

Help will be appreciated. Can't afford to buy new hardware. So am stuck with XP which forces me to stay with PM 26.5.

thanks,
Sam

[barbaz]

On some sites, NS

Can you please share some example links where it works and links where it doesn't work?

[Sam77]

On some sites, NS

Can you please share some example links where it works and links where it doesn't work?

Ok. Will get those up this evening. Rest of the day is tied up with meetings etc.

Thanks for your reply
Sam77

[Sam77]

Barbaz,

Unfortunately, I did not save a list of sites with this strange NS behavior. So I have been going back thru some recent bookmarks and have a couple of examples.

But I will need to attach photos to show what the NS is showing me for sites that work and some that do not work right. Can I attach images? Or do I have to put them onto a web page and refer to them with a link?

example-1 site that works fine = https://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
images "NS-ok-2-pic-a all jpg.jpg" & "NS-ok-2-pic-a extract jpg.jpg"
example-2 site that works fine = https://syslogwatcher.com/cmd-tools/
images "NS-ok-1-pic-a all.jpg" & "NS-ok-1-pic-a extract jpg.jpg"

Site that does NOT work
example-1 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r269833 ... eplacement
images "NS-pblm-1-pic-a extract.jpg" & "NS-pblm-1-pic-b.jpg" & "NS-pblm-1-pic-b-extract.jpg"

Also I have noticed that NS seems to maintain a list of "untrusted sites", but I can not find how to see what is in that list.
Apparently AdobeTM is in that list.

I'll set up a web page for the images if that is what is needed to let you see what I am getting from NS.

thanks
Sam77

Sam77

[barbaz]

Or do I have to put them onto a web page and refer to them with a link?

This. The images would be helpful, thanks. I'll take a look when you get them up.

Also I have noticed that NS seems to maintain a list of "untrusted sites", but I can not find how to see what is in that list.

about:config > noscript.untrusted

[Sam77]

Barbaz,

Sorry for the delay. It's taking longer to get the screen shots of example issues and get a web page up to show them than I had expected it would take.

I will post the link when I get that page created.

thanks,
Sam77

btw I did take a look at the NS untrusted items list. Not sure how to interpret it, though. I did note that it has both domain names and http links for the domain names. Is that to be expected?

Tried to include the list copied from the about:config >>NoScript.untrusted; BUT this forum rejected the post. Btw that action blew away my post input & thus am reentering the whole thing.

[barbaz]

btw I did take a look at the NS untrusted items list. Not sure how to interpret it, though.

It's basically just a space-separated list of sites.

I did note that it has both domain names and http links for the domain names. Is that to be expected?

Yep. I think that's a leftover from the days when NoScript used CAPS for script blocking, where the http and https links were required to get expected behavior.

this forum rejected the post. Btw that action blew away my post input & thus am reentering the whole thing.

I use Form History Control to deal with that. I've never tried to use it with Pale Moon though. But it was recommended to me by a Pale Moon user, so I would guess that it likely works in Pale Moon.

[Sam77]

Barbaz & others,

Finally have the screen shots up on a web page.

For examples, I tried a number of sites and settled on 5 that seemed to show the behavior (2 with no problems & 3 showing the problem). Wish I'd saved links to each site that has caused the issues. The link here takes you to a web page with screen shots of my current tests. Clicking on any of the thumbnails gets you a larger image and then you can step thru all the images. Hope the image names are descriptive enough. The last 2 sites probably show the best examples of the problem.

http://barrods.com/B/PM-1/

1) DSLreports.com = shows no "temp allows" at all in PM.
2) Slashdot.org = has no problems (though I never use JS there unless I'm posting to it)
3) SyslogWatcher.com =no problems
4) http://deweydrive.com/photos/index.php/ ... -a-Beanbag = problem on PM, but none on FF
5) 6abc.com = major problems on PM, but no unexpected problems on FF

To summarize: The issue is that PM 26.5 with NoScript has started to fail to show the "temporarily allow" for all the third party JS that some sites want/require. Which means that I am unable to get the site to work right when I might be willing to do some "temp allows". Now I expect some to break if you don't give them everything. And there are many 3rd party sites for which I will not click even the "temp allow". Those sites I expect may break. those sites I consider to be badly constructed and thus undesirable for visiting. And those we choose not to use, reference, or suggest, etc.

BUT this problem is that I do not even see all the sites for which JS is requested/required. Not sure when this started. I only recently (3-4 weeks ago) noticed it and it is now happening often.

What's even more frustrating is that I can go over to my FireFox (antique version 38.7.1 esr) and get the NS expected behavior. That is PM does not work but FF does. I see the 3rd party JS's with options to allow. I may decide not to use them, but I can see them.

Addons PM 26.5 = NS 2.9.0.14; ABL 3.0.3.1; CookieCuller 1.4.1; FxIF 0.4.91;

Addons FF 38.7.1 = NS 2.9.0.11; ABP 2.7.3; CookieCuller 1.4.1; Ghostery 6.3.1;

Previously I had Ghostery on PM dropped it off when they got bought. I did try adding Ublock to replace Ghopstery with PM, but I found Ublock was a bit cumbersome to figure out and removed it. (Ublock appeared to expect me to either allow or reject everything per site. Though I understand it has an advanced mode that gives some granularity.) I removed it from PM. I believe, This problem was happening before I tried UBlock.

Btw I started using PM because of its better privacy vs FF with all it's calling home junk. Hopefully that is still true?

thanks for this help,
Sam

[barbaz]

Not seeing those issues here with Pale Moon 26.5.0. Try exporting your entire NS config from Fx (NoScript Options > Export - the one *on the very bottom* of Options), and importing that into Pale Moon.

Btw I started using PM because of its better privacy vs FF with all it's calling home junk. Hopefully that is still true?

Yep, as far as I know Firefox hasn't stopped bundling 3rd party services.

[Sam77]

Barbaz,

Tried your suggestion of putting the FF NS overall settings into my PaleMoon. And it looks to have made a difference. I've only ha a chance to test the 6abc site so far. But I am seeing a real difference and that site is behaving more like FF did there.

Thanks for the suggestion !! Wonder what messed it up?

I do very much appreciate your help.

Sam

[barbaz]

You're welcome!

Wonder what messed it up?

Not sure. Probably your NoScript settings were corrupted somehow.