[RESOLVED] about:credits on the whitelist
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:39 am
about:credits loads https://www.mozilla.org/credits/ and it doesn't use any scripts. Is there any reason for having it on the default whitelist?
NoScripters and WebSec nerds of all lands, unite!
https://forums.informaction.com/
Removing it doesn't seem to break anything -- so far. It's listed in the about:config preferencecypherpunks wrote:about:credits loads https://www.mozilla.org/credits/ and it doesn't use any scripts. Is there any reason for having it on the default whitelist?
It sounds like a good reason, but it's a plain HTML, so the names would be listed regardless of the whitelist entryTom T. wrote:Perhaps Giorgio kept this in the Default Whitelist because he felt that the many people who donated their time to contribute to Firefox should at least have their names listed, even in some obscure place that few will see?
Tor Browser spoofs the user agent string for better anonymity, actually my browser is up-to-date.Tom T. wrote:Your useragent shows Firefox 5.0.
Kind of what I was suggesting in noting that even after removing it, the credits still ran. So yes, no script permission required.cypherpunks wrote:It sounds like a good reason, but it's a plain HTML, so the names would be listed regardless of the whitelist entryTom T. wrote:Perhaps Giorgio kept this in the Default Whitelist because he felt that the many people who donated their time to contribute to Firefox should at least have their names listed, even in some obscure place that few will see?Perhaps the site used to contain scripts, but it does not anymore.
This and about:blank are the only ones that appear removable to me. The rest are grayed out.Or more likely, all about: pages were whitelisted without a deeper scrutiny, simply to be on the safe side.
Code: Select all
chrome: blob: about: about:addons about:blocked about:crashes about:home about:config about:neterror about:certerror about:memory about:plugins about:privatebrowsing about:sessionrestore about:support resource:
Presumably, graying out most while allowing :blank and :credits to be user-deleted means that the rest do in fact serve a need. And that by not graying out :credits, there's an implication that it's OK to remove. Note the warning that in some cases, :blank *is* needed.# chrome:
It's the only "permanent" one. It can't be removed because it is the privileged pseudo-protocol used by Firefox internal scripts: disabling it would prevent the browser itself from working.
# about:xyz
A bunch of about: internal pseudo URLs. You'd better keep them there because they help your browser to work as expected.
No argument here, unless Giorgio has one unknown to this user.Now that about:credits redirects to a page in the scary world of internetz, it would make sense to reconsider the need for this whitelist entry if it's not required for anything - even if the site in question is in a relatively safe harbor of Mozilla servers.
Thanks -- will add that to my knowledge base.Tor Browser spoofs the user agent string for better anonymity, actually my browser is up-to-date.Tom T. wrote:Your useragent shows Firefox 5.0.
I confirm that on both Fx 3.6.28 and Fx 11.0, with about:credits removed from the whitelist, Firefox Help > About and the link mentioned above do indeed produce a static text page listing contributors. The NoScript > About still has the scrollable list of credits.Giorgio Maone wrote:If it's confirmed that the behavior is the same (a scriptless redirection) since Firefox 3.0, it can be indeed removed.
I don't know if it has been removed from fresh installs of NoScript (i. e., to new users). I'll check that on a clean profile, and report back in a few minutes.cypherpunks wrote:Is any action planned here? With about:credits (https://www.mozilla.org/credits/) confirmed by Tom T. to be scriptless across multiple versions, it can be safely removed.
No, with a fresh install of NS 2.3.7 on Fx 3.6.28 with a clean profile, about:credits is still in default whitelist.Tom T. wrote:I don't know if it has been removed from fresh installs of NoScript (i. e., to new users). I'll check that on a clean profile, and report back in a few minutes.cypherpunks wrote:Is any action planned here? With about:credits (https://www.mozilla.org/credits/) confirmed by Tom T. to be scriptless across multiple versions, it can be safely removed.
Sure. My case is a bit specific, because I start with a clean profile every time I extract Tor Browser. I remove some other stuff from the whitelist anyway, so about:credits being there doesn't bother me or make any big difference (takes less time to delete it a hundred times than to write this post), but I figured that I might save someone else's time spent figuring out if the entry can be deleted if I report it and the obsolete URI is removed upstream.Tom T. wrote:I do know that if you remove it from the whitelist manually, as I did several weeks ago (and never put it back), NoScript updates, both stable and dev builds, will honor your choice, and will not re-add it to the whitelist.
Absolutely. I support the suggestion wholeheartedly, because even if not dangerous, useless or obsolete stuff should be removed on general principle.cypherpunks wrote:.... My case is a bit specific, because I start with a clean profile every time I extract Tor Browser. I remove some other stuff from the whitelist anyway, so about:credits being there doesn't bother me or make any big difference (takes less time to delete it a hundred times than to write this post), but I figured that I might save someone else's time spent figuring out if the entry can be deleted if I report it and the obsolete URI is removed upstream.
... but your clean profile won't have the user.js, and if you import/copy it after starting, it's too late, apparently.It only stores changes made to the defaults, after they are written back to disk. This normally occurs when you exit the Mozilla-based application.
....
The user.js file is optional. If you have one whenever the application is started it will overwrite any settings in prefs.js with the corresponding settings from user.js.
Yes, many thanks to Giorgio for prompt response. Will mark as Resolved, and thanks to you for following up on the request.cypherpunks wrote:Verified fixed in 2.3.9rc1, thanks.