InformAction Forums

I'm running Ghostery and AdBlock in addition to NoScript, and in the new FF Quantum, NoScript is working very strangely.

Frequently I'll see NS showing a number in it's icon, which I presume is the number of Javascripts it's encountered on a given site. But when I open NS, I often find far fewer scripts displayed. I've seen the number in the low thirties, but less than a dozen Javascripts displayed for me to potentially block or allow. What's going on here?

Another VERY annoying issue is when I click on a particular Javascript to allow it, typically temporarily, and then reload the page I find NS has reset my choice back to 'block'. I've redone this several times, on several sites, and NS simply refuses to allow me to temporarily allow certain Javascripts. What am I doing wrong?

Also, what does the green 'lock' icon and the red 'unlock icon mean on each displayed Javascript line?

For the record, the old NS interface seemed much simpler and more user-friendly. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about these things, although I try to learn, but the new system seems to require me to know more than I needed to operate the previous version. Life always seems to get more complicated, I get it. And I suppose in the fullness of time I'll get as used to this new version as I was with the old one. I just wish this new version of NoScript could be as simple to use as the old one. *sigh* Poor poor pitiful me.

Yelnik Igwawa wrote: Frequently I'll see NS showing a number in it's icon, which I presume is the number of Javascripts it's encountered on a given site. But when I open NS, I often find far fewer scripts displayed. I've seen the number in the low thirties, but less than a dozen Javascripts displayed for me to potentially block or allow. What's going on here?

The number represents the number of scripts.
The list shows the sources of those scripts.
One source can run several scripts, hence the discrepancy.

Another VERY annoying issue is when I click on a particular Javascript to allow it, typically temporarily, and then reload the page I find NS has reset my choice back to 'block'. I've redone this several times, on several sites, and NS simply refuses to allow me to temporarily allow certain Javascripts. What am I doing wrong?

Also, what does the green 'lock' icon and the red 'unlock icon mean on each displayed Javascript line?

This is can have different reasons, depending on the specific version of noscript.

one of which is connected to red and green lock, but that also has been fixed to occur less often.
greenlock means "https only" and red lock means either "both https and http" (when concerning a domainwide rule, the ones that start with ...page) or plain http (when url specific rules are concerned, starting with http://page)
If you create a rule for https, but the source is actually http, you will create a rule, but on the reload it looks for a http rule, and if it doesn't find one applies the default.

The other reason was a flaw in how rules were saved in one specific version, where only "custom" worked consistently.

Thanks for the response. I understood some of it. But unfortunately, your answer is also a good example of what I meant by NoScript getting harder and harder for old-school semi-nerds like myself to make good use of. I didn't seem to have this issue in my previous version of it. And please understand, I mean no condemnation of the good people at NoScript; life continues to get more complicated, and I understand that. But I look forward to the day when blocking scripts is easy enough that people like me can manage it without having to learn a new skill set.

While writing this reply I updated to the version released last Friday (11/24/17); previously I was running the most current version prior to this. I'll let you know if this changes anything.

I have not written any rules in the 2-3 weeks that I've been using Quantum and the new NS, because I'm unfamiliar with rules, how to write them, and conversely how to avoid writing them poorly. Is there a tutorial page to which you can point me, if rule-writing is necessary to use NS properly?

Thanks again for the help.

I joined this forum to comment on the new NoScript...and I totally agree with the author of this thread.

I didnt make a new thread, as I would say there have already been plenty of them, and negative comments.

I am having major problems downloading any of the regular stuff that Ive been downloading successfully for years with the old NoScript.

I very much appreciate the hard work that has gone Into Noscript and I consider It an esential addon In Firefox, but since the latest Firefox Update and the addition of the new NoScript, my browsing has been Hell itself

I am unable to simply temporarily allow sites so as they load basic functionality, for downloads and I certainly have not had so many popups and trouble simply downloading In years..

Many Pages are simply broken, and no amount of clicking temporaraily allow or Revoke seems to work.

And all the sites that show up In the list...how am I supposed to know what to allow, simply to make a page work with basic functionality?

The whole thing Is totally confusing, and If a page suddeny works, It appears to be more from luck Itself, rather than good management of the NoScript Addon.

Seriously, this should go down In History as one of teh biggest Faux Pas ever

I am BEGGING for NoScript to be fixed...this Is totally Ridiculous, but having relied on It for security reasons for a number of years, and had It previously work very well, It is very hard to go without It, and there is no real suitable alternative.

Frankly, NoScript functionality should be a permanant part of Firefox Itself..

If this Is not sorted sooner rather than later, I will have no alternative than to search for an alternative browsing solution as It is making my Browsing life hell, simply to get a download working..Once again...I am BEGGING for NoScript to be fixed

Thats all I have to say on the matter...apart from the fact that this forum and site seem to work perfectly without even having to click the NoScript Icon...but no others do.

Cheers

Guest wrote:Thanks for the response. I understood some of it. But unfortunately, your answer is also a good example of what I meant by NoScript getting harder and harder for old-school semi-nerds like myself to make good use of. I didn't seem to have this issue in my previous version of it. And please understand, I mean no condemnation of the good people at NoScript; life continues to get more complicated, and I understand that. But I look forward to the day when blocking scripts is easy enough that people like me can manage it without having to learn a new skill set.

While writing this reply I updated to the version released last Friday (11/24/17); previously I was running the most current version prior to this. I'll let you know if this changes anything.

I have not written any rules in the 2-3 weeks that I've been using Quantum and the new NS, because I'm unfamiliar with rules, how to write them, and conversely how to avoid writing them poorly. Is there a tutorial page to which you can point me, if rule-writing is necessary to use NS properly?

Thanks again for the help.

For one it helps if you post the version number when reporting issues, because each version had it's own quirks and issues.

The core functionality in the current version 10.1.3 if you want to emulate the old NS
set everything in the default preset to "allow nothing" (remove checkmarks)
same for untrusted
allow everything in trusted.

When you go to a page you set either domain wide rules (...page) or domain specific rules ( http(s)://page ) to trusted or temp trusted (this is the same as allow and temp allow in the old NS)
If you make a domain wide rule you can decide whether it should apply ONLY to https or http AND https (no script by standard tries to guess and show you which is reasonable. Black print means https only, red lines mean http too.

And while you need to recheck which specific permissions are set for the default,untrusted and trusted groups from time to time, for "emulating the old NS" fine-tuning those is not important.
If you only want "old NS" behaviour, the new interface isn't that much more complicated, it just looks that way.