InformAction Forums

therube wrote:> I have not had any hint of where that list of archived versions might be found

You missed it, a number of posts up, by dhouwn, http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... 229#p38229.
(I glossed over it too, originally. Then I realized it was already posted so thought you saw it too. Otherwise I would have posted similar.)

Yes he was kind enough to provide it but you search using "rss feeds" or just "feeds" and in the first page alone, you have tons of links to it and discussions on it.

Sonofasonofasonofa SeaCaptain

Just installed the 2.3.2 (March 2012) NoScript and the features are now functioning!
(I also get almost normal function on Charter.net with this older FFox 3.5 machine, just not nearly as good as the other charter.com choice.
Goofy, huh?)


At least I know that other things are not an issue now, don't I?

Much appreciated and I do have these pages bookmarked in Firefox.

http://noscript.net/feed?c=200&t=a

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/addons/722/

I tried twice to roll back the other machine (FFox 9) by a few versions, too, but it still fails to show the zip code box etc. on charter.com, so that still is out of service, even though Charter.net works better on that machine than the other machine.
I do have the yellow NoScript bar now, though, so at least some pages have functionality.
Maybe Charter needs better talent assembling their pages, considering I can use the charter.net very well, but charter.com similar page is defunct for the newer machine.


In conclusion, rolling back NS on the older machine restored service on the page in question, and rolling back the NoScript a bit restored the yellow bar on the newer machine - that had been absent with the newest update of NS.

Things are obviously not perfected, but are improved in these setups vs. what I had unfortunately made them into with the "innocent" action of updating NoScript.


Thanks again.

Kirby
aka
kirbythegunsmith

Kirby wrote: Just installed the 2.3.2 (March 2012) NoScript and the features are now functioning!
<snip>
In conclusion, rolling back NS on the older machine restored service on the page in question, and rolling back the NoScript a bit restored the yellow bar on the newer machine - that had been absent with the newest update of NS.

OK, so we need to look at the changelog between 2.3.2 and latest stable (2.3.9). Which is a fair bit, but not much that would add aggressiveness; mostly it's adding compatibility and reducing false positives. The only candidates I see are:

2.3.9
x Fixed NOSCRIPT META refreshes blocking not working when scripts are globally allowed (thanks and Ken and Tom T. for reporting)
2.3.8
x Fixed redirections in legacy frames not being blocked (thanks "utente" for reporting)
2.3.3
+ [ClearClick] Protection against partial obscuration via Flash objects with OS-native wmode values (thanks David Lin-Shung Huang for reporting)
x [XSS] Further sensitivity tweaks

And maybe:
2.3.6
x Fixed origin URL detection flawed when certain wrapped URIs are loaded (thanks Masato Kinugawa for reporting)

Kirby, if you're willing to help out with investigating this, can you try out the different versions between 2.3.2 and 2.3.9, trying to narrow down which one introduced your issue?

Kirby wrote: Of all the responses so far, I have not had any hint of where that list of archived versions might be found or even how to locate those 2 famous batches mentioned.

Actually, my very first reply pointed you to the 'Version Information' section on NoScript's Addon page.

I just loaded the NoScript 2.3.8 off the legacy list and the functionality is OK on that page in question (charter.com version) with the FFox 3.5 machine.
The charter.net page works with minor glitches that don't much matter.

How's that for a start?

what else is prudent to test?

Are the more recent versions like beta of 2.4?

Kirby

@ Kirby: (disregarding everything in between my last post and this):

The diagnostic information needed is whether you allowed all the cookies needed. One can accidentally change those permissions and not realize it.

I did not get an error as you did, on three separate browsers, two of them no longer supported.
Fx 2 had the highest version of NoScript that it supports, which is 1.10.
Fx 3.6.x is still supported by all new releases of NoScript, but probably not for too much longer.
I don't know which versions of NoScript are supported by Fx 3.5.12.

Download older versions of NoScript
See which is the latest that will work.

The other possibilities include profile corruption and extension conflicts. We don't have direct access to your machine, which is why we ask you to create a clean profile, per the directions at that link, then install *only* NoScript, in its most recent release, and see if the problem still exists.

Then let us know. If this fixes the problem, then we start diagnosing the extension conflict. Or if the old profile became corrupt (it happens), adding everything back might be fine.

I did not intend my remark to GµårÐïåñ to be a direct shot at you. Many users post vague issues without specifics. I only replied to G's request for a standard report format.

We'd rather fix the issue than have you use an out-of-date NoScript that lacks the protections and tweaks in later versions.
But if you find an older version that works and are not going any farther than that, no one will force you. Just understand the risks.

- Tom

Edit: The notification link took me to a previous page. I missed a lot of the above. Disregard what doesn't apply, and use what does.
Sorry, a hazard of long threads with many people posting in them. Still, my bad.

Kirby wrote:Kirby
aka
kirbythegunsmith

Glad you got it working.

Guardian
aka
Major Mike the Marine Sniper

Kirby wrote:Are the more recent versions like beta of 2.4?

latest development build 2.4rc6

For version change, I just opened a new tab for the link and checked the "download/install" type option header bar box.
Then it asks to restart Firefox, and I click to verify. Bing Bang Boom.
I don't think I could do less input to change a program extension if I tried.

That is the extent of what I did to change versions.

I may not be that capable to start with a "clean install" since I let my computer buddy do that stuff. He has some savvy i.e. is a phone computer consultant working for a nationwide-reaching service company.
He says he is a guy that tells field techs how to do what they lack the expertise to accomplish themselves.
This is his culmination after doing new cable system installs for a Charter contractor, then as a service tech also responsible for server room service and tape backups for another company and their clients, field service for a couple of companies doing warranty outside computer service for BestBuy etc., BancTec, and other similar experiences of on-site service including commercial office printers etc., as I recollect.

Recently he got married and is distracted with ...
I haven't seen or heard from him much in months. When I'm really desperate, I'll call and ask for a little phone advice, mainly.
At least he bitched at me when I told him I bought a used Dell that was faster than the older machine as a fallback machine, JIC.

I think I need to get some thick steaks and invite myself for a BBQ and computer upgrade at his place one weekend soon.

Kirby


PS
I understand that it says latest development build, but I was just wondering why the latest upgrade at Mozilla is 2.3.9, since I thought that might just be the most current stable version, and maybe the 2.4rc~ stuff was BETA. I'm not deliberately trying to be thick, but may come across as an almost rank beginner because I want to verify certain details. Sorry if it seems estupido from an otherwise smart guy.

Kirby wrote:...I may not be that capable to start with a "clean install" since I let my computer buddy do that stuff....

Not talking about a "clean install", talking about a clean profile for your existing install of Firefox. Please read the linked article.
If after reading it, you still need help, let us know, but it's pretty step-by-step. I'll make it even more so if necessary.

PS
I understand that it says latest development build, but I was just wondering why the latest upgrade at Mozilla is 2.3.9, since I thought that might just be the most current stable version, and maybe the 2.4rc~ stuff was BETA.

NoScript uses "development build" rather than "beta".
You'd have to ask Giorgio himself for the exact reason, but i think the implication is that "beta", as in Windows or Firefox, implies stuff that is still experimental, may cause problems, and should only be used by advanced users. Most NS dev builds are small, incremental changes, which Giorgio has tested, rather than radical things. Many non-tech users use them.

Every once in a while, a slight regression creeps in. (The new dev build breaks something.) Rapid reporting by the many users ensures that these are quickly fixed. You can always go back to the previous version if you can't wait for the fix. It doesn't happen very often.

I'm not deliberately trying to be thick, but may come across as an almost rank beginner because I want to verify certain details. Sorry if it seems estupido from an otherwise smart guy.

There are no stupid questions; only stupid people who are unwilling to ask them and to learn something new.

None of us was born knowing any of this; I'm still learning every day. Otherwise, I'm stuck at this level of ignorance for the rest of my life.

Tom T. wrote:We'd rather fix the issue than have you use an out-of-date NoScript that lacks the protections and tweaks in later versions.

Give it up, he's on a unsupported Firefox version, so it seems like he doesn't care much about such "details".
Ain't I right, Kirby?

Does the comment of "unsupported" also pertain to the other computer being mentioned (with issues, too) running at least 9.0.1 Firefox?


The 3.5+ Firefox machine is an older Dell and has limited memory/chip size and will probably be relegated to second line use soon.

I always appreciate cogent comments, but sometimes SWAG's just don't seem so cheery.

Thanks again.

Kirby

Currently there is only stable version Mozilla Firefox targeted to home users on Windows that is supported and that's Firefox 12.
Prior versions have or might have known vulnerabilities. The hardware requirements have not really much changed.
I wouldn't touch your computer with a ten foot pole.

Kirby, working for Charter or such for no matter how many years, doesn't make them savvy. I have neighbors and friends who have Charter service and the techs, both on the phone, in the field and even senior ones with 10+ years under their belts have been 99% clueless to the technical specs of the lines and how to configure the routers and modems and such. To the point, that _I_ had to be present, at their request, to explain to the techs what they are doing wrong, use THEIR OWN tools to show them what they are doing wrong and how to properly do it and fixed the issue, after they followed what I suggested, in that visit, which had taken in one case 7 visits by them prior with no resolution and in another 4 visits by them and still not working. Most of them are so arrogant they don't acknowledge they don't know squat, but the two techs that I encountered at least had the appreciation to say, thanks man, they didn't teach us any of this shit and now I get it and in fact what you told me is going to help me fix 3 other service calls that I wasn't able to figure out and I am going back to fix them now that I know. One manager even called me to ask me if I would work for them, I said you can't afford me. So being in the in the field and working for a major company and being titled an IT tech or whatever, doesn't equal knowing what the hell they are doing, thought that needed to be said. A common misconception that ooh they are knowledgeable because they do this for a living. Like a secretary that uses the database wizard to setup a database and says, so what's the big deal about being a database designer, I just built one myself - like that's the same thing.

Kirby wrote:Does the comment of "unsupported" also pertain to the other computer being mentioned (with issues, too) running at least 9.0.1 Firefox?
The 3.5+ Firefox machine is an older Dell and has limited memory/chip size and will probably be relegated to second line use soon.

I'm on a machine from 2005, low-end laptop. Firefox 4+ was a memory hog, but they've been working on that, and it's gotten better over the years.
If you can run Fx 9, you can run Fx 12, including the portable version I pointed to. Try that out, because there's no "installation" required.

Do you happen to know the amount of RAM and the speed of the chip?
Here's a quick way to find out.
Find the "Windows" key, the one with the wavy-flag Microsoft Windows logo.
Push that and the "Pause/Break" key simultaneously. ***

On the General tab, In the lower right should be the amount of RAM. (I'll post a pic)
On that box, ("System Properties"), click the Hardware tab.
Then click "Device Manager"
Click the + sign next to "Processors"
It should list the brand, model, and speed of your processor, e. g. "Intel Super-Cool 1.2 GHz".

Yes, Fx 9 is unsupported. Supported means that the vendor still fixes flaws, including any security flaws discovered or reported.
This is the issue with "unsupported" -- that there may be known security flaws, or "vulnerabilities', as they say, that will not be patched in that version -- *ever*.

So there is some risk.

Try F12, portable or otherwise. Any questions, just ask.
But in any case, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to get that site working perfectly.

I always appreciate cogent comments, but sometimes SWAG's just don't seem so cheery.

How's this:
Cheers,
Tom

*** Three other ways to get to the same place:
1) Start > Control Panel (or Start > Settings > Control Panel, depending on your setup) and double-click "System".
2) Right-click "My Computer" icon and click Properties.
3)Start > Run and in the run box, type:
sysdm.cpl and click OK or Enter.

There are others. But the keyboard shortcut is awesomely cool.

Here's the System Properties box: