Page 2 of 2
Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:46 am
by hopsage
As with CincyJP's post. I set NoScript to allow "about:blank", and this did the trick. Using the v1.9.9.11 build, by the way.
Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:25 pm
by ACSanchez
Allowing about:blank just worked for me as well. Very strange.
Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:42 pm
by jmckenna
I am using v1.9.9.11 and I notice when on Facebook the No-Script icon is half shaded. Facebook only works for me if I un-install No-Script.
With NS installed my FB home page will only load sparatically, the icon is shaded, the status box does not ever load and no "buttons" work.
I have tried ctrl+F5, cleared cache, forbid FB and "about:blank" and then allow them again, can't think of anything else to do. This just started to happen with the newer version of NS, but now happens to me with any of the older versions as well.

Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:45 pm
by Giorgio Maone
"half shaded" means that you marked something as untrusted.
Is there anything allowable in the "Untrusted" submenu?
Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01 (now 1.9.9.15)
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:51 am
by treblemaker
I too had the problem (still even with 1.9.9.15). Whitelisting "about:blank" seems to have solved it for me. However, while trying to debug the problem I noticed after I saved and reset my noscript settings that several "about:" pages were whitelisted by default, but "about:blank" was not among them. Is there a reason for this? Is there some more general vulnerability exposed by always allowing "about:blank"?
Thanks and Best Regards,
-- T.
Re: Facebook issue v1.9.9.01 (now 1.9.9.15)
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:55 am
by Giorgio Maone
treblemaker wrote: several "about:" pages were whitelisted by default, but "about:blank" was not among them. Is there a reason for this?
Yes, the other ones are internal Firefox resources which wouldn't work if not allowed.
about:blank is usually unneeded.
treblemaker wrote:Is there some more general vulnerability exposed by always allowing "about:blank"?
No, there's not.