NoScript disabled by force.

Add-ons for Pale Moon and other applications
General discussion, compatibility, contributed extensions, themes, plugins, and more.

Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof

User avatar
Wandering_Smoke
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2024-03-05, 15:18

NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Wandering_Smoke » 2024-03-05, 15:37

I notice that NoScript has now been disabled by force. I just want to say that I have used it for many years on Palemoon and never had any problems. The popup that you placed telling me that Noscript was not supported, was annoying but at least it didn't force the issue. ... So, thanks for forcing it *sarcasm*

I would have posted this in the official thread about NoScript but it has been locked.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35602
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-03-05, 15:44

NoScript causes crashes in Pale Moon v33 when performing basic operations. We had no option but to block it at this point.

See also the info link in the add-on manager and this thread.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Goodydino
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 827
Joined: 2017-10-10, 21:20

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Goodydino » 2024-03-05, 18:20

Instead of NoScript you could use ScriptBlock. It makes a blacklist rather than a whitelist, however.

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 463
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Mæstro » 2024-03-05, 18:33

I had suffered this also. If you would like to continue using NoScript notwithstanding the fact that official support is denied in this case, I like I do, then going to Security under Settings and setting the setting the security level for extensions to none will restore NoScript. Of course, doing so means that the browser will not hinder installation of malicious extensions, beside the denial of support already noted. Speaking only of my own usage, it is more important to keep NoScript, which works for me and is familiar for me, than to have this security feature which I never use.
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

stux2000
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 23
Joined: 2013-09-20, 08:02
Location: United States

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by stux2000 » 2024-03-05, 21:40

Moonchild wrote:
2024-03-05, 15:44
NoScript causes crashes in Pale Moon v33 when performing basic operations. We had no option but to block it at this point.

See also the info link in the add-on manager and this thread.
I'm wondering: wouldn't it be better to identify the cause of the crash? If noscript can crash the system, then so can any add-on that performs a similar operation that's causing the crash. I'd be interested in knowing which part of the code is causing the instability.

User avatar
ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2856
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by ron_1 » 2024-03-05, 21:48

stux2000 wrote:
2024-03-05, 21:40
I'm wondering: wouldn't it be better to identify the cause of the crash? If noscript can crash the system, then so can any add-on that performs a similar operation that's causing the crash. I'd be interested in knowing which part of the code is causing the instability.
That would be up to the add on developer (I don't know why this isn't more well-known). . . and since the last usable NoScript version for Pale Moon has been abandoned, well . . . .

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35602
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-03-05, 22:00

stux2000 wrote:
2024-03-05, 21:40
wouldn't it be better to identify the cause of the crash?
Be my guest. It'd be the first step to fixing it.
stux2000 wrote:
2024-03-05, 21:40
so can any add-on that performs a similar operation that's causing the crash
Absolutely correct. With great power comes great responsibility. Anyone can write an extension that hangs or crashes the browser by doing Bad Things™. It's up to the add-on developer(s) to make sure their code behaves properly and doesn't do anything that destabilizes the browser.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4980
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-03-06, 09:16

Moonchild wrote:
2024-03-05, 22:00
Anyone can write an extension that hangs or crashes the browser by doing Bad Things™. It's up to the add-on developer(s) to make sure their code behaves properly and doesn't do anything that destabilizes the browser.
It's amazing how often this bears repeating, and how often people show up here asking about you fixing Pale Moon to work with NoScript* instead of petitioning that extension's developer :roll:

* - Because of course it's Pale Moon's fault that an extension is broken whose last supported Firefox version dates to 2018 and hasn't been updated since.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

Blacklab
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1080
Joined: 2012-06-08, 12:14

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Blacklab » 2024-03-06, 14:23

@Mæstro: Many thanks for the timely reminder Re: 'howto' restore NoScript. :thumbup: :angel: :D
Mæstro wrote:If you would like to continue using NoScript notwithstanding the fact that official support is denied in this case, like I do, then going to Security under Settings and setting the security level for extensions to none will restore NoScript.
Like you, NoScript is a huge part of how I have used the internet for over a decade... and therefore, likewise, it is more important for me to keep NoScript, which works for me, and is familiar to me, than to have an Add-on security feature I don't use.

(FWIW - I always test install new or old Add-ons (e.g. from Classic Add-ons Archive or WayBackMachine) onto a clean new profile before adding anything to my default profile.)

In a perfect world I would have either the funds or the coding brains to update the legacy 'Classic' NoScript versions for both Pale Moon and Basilisk... sadly, neither option is likely to come to pass. :thumbdown: :(

No problems seen running NoScript with Pale Moon 33.0.1 on Win10 or Win7 so far. :thumbup: Will just have to suck it and see. :)

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 463
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Mæstro » 2024-03-06, 22:26

It has been a pleasure to help a fellow NoScript user! :D
We must watch out for one another. :think:
Blacklab wrote:
2024-03-06, 14:23
@Mæstro: Many thanks for the timely reminder Re: 'howto' restore NoScript. :thumbup: :angel: :D
Like you, NoScript is a huge part of how I have used the internet for over a decade... and therefore, likewise, it is more important for me to keep NoScript, which works for me, and is familiar to me, than to have an Add-on security feature I don't use.
Years ago, when I was using Discord in Pale Moon, my friends had got so used to hearing me say ‘Jesse ate your GIF’ whenever NoScript blocked an embedded frame that the NoScript icon started showing up in his dreams. :lol:
I have tried both ηMatrix and µBlock₀’s advanced mode for a time to block scripts, but NoScript’s traditional interface appeals much more to me, and such auxiliary features as ABE and cross-site request filtering and sanitising, which no other extension does as far as I am aware, protect me rather often, given my unusual browsing habits.
(FWIW - I always test install new or old Add-ons (e.g. from Classic Add-ons Archive or WayBackMachine) onto a clean new profile before adding anything to my default profile.)
Likewise, whenever I encounter some glitch, I try to reproduce the problem in a clean profile before reporting it here. If the problem is somewhere in my baker’s dozen extensions, I discuss the problem with my friend, who is studying applied informatics now, and we tend to be able to solve the problem. I report on any findings here. For an example, see below. ;)
In a perfect world I would have either the funds or the coding brains to update the legacy 'Classic' NoScript versions for both Pale Moon and Basilisk... sadly, neither option is likely to come to pass. :thumbdown: :(
My fantasy has been that we, the devoted NoScript users who are active here, could someday pool our resources and hire an XUL developer to update NoScript such that the PM developers will rehabilitate it. The friend mentioned above is willing to help in principle, but he is in his first year of formal training and will need learn XUL before setting sight on this project.
No problems seen running NoScript with Pale Moon 33.0.1 on Win10 or Win7 so far. :thumbup: Will just have to suck it and see. :)
Your comments had led me to discover the real cause of the only reported NoScript error novel to v33. Like before, I suspect that this regression should affect others beside NoScript users, and we daredevils are the canary in the mine.
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35602
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-03-06, 22:44

Mæstro wrote:
2024-03-06, 22:26
I suspect that this regression should affect others beside NoScript users
I suspect you are mistaken. Other in the other thread have tried pretty hard to recreate the same situation without NoScript and have failed to cause the crash.

But if you can reproduce it outside of the NoScript environment, I'm all ears.
It has been a pleasure to help a fellow NoScript user! :D
We must watch out for one another. :think:
You know there is no reason to generate this sort of rebellion or tribalism. We've been reasonable to a fault dealing with NoScript users; repayment in kind would be appreciated.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
geraldh
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 17
Joined: 2022-06-18, 16:19
Location: Citizen of Europe

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by geraldh » 2024-03-06, 22:52

I'm afraid that I'm another Noscript user and I've been using it alongside Palemoon since the early days of the browser, although I've only joined the forum more recently. I can appreciate that for the Palemoon devs, Noscript must cause no end of problems especially with inexperienced users, but for me it's almost essential in shutting out all the junk associated with many webpages these days. It also speeds things up, which makes a big difference on older machines.

I've had a quick look at the alternative eMatrix addon, but I'm not sure that it is quite as effective and the interface is particularly unfriendly. I've not had any issues on Linux Mint 20 and 21 with PM 33.x and Noscript so far. I'm wondering whether it is the use of some of Noscripts more advanced features that are causing the trouble? Perhaps if we just use the basic script blocking and turn the rest off, it might play more nicely with future versions of Palemoon?

User avatar
Mæstro
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 463
Joined: 2019-08-13, 00:30
Location: Casumia

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Mæstro » 2024-03-06, 23:03

Moonchild wrote:
2024-03-06, 22:44
You know there is no reason to generate this sort of rebellion or tribalism. We've been reasonable to a fault dealing with NoScript users; repayment in kind would be appreciated.
I offer you my sincere apology, for no rebellious spirit had been intended in my statement. Rather, I had meant to express in a lighthearted way that, whenever NoScript users (we) do suffer technical problems surrounding NoScript, NoScript users should assume the responsibility involved in helping one another out in solving these technical problems in a way which is compatible with our desire to keep using NoScript. The bugs are the enemy, not you, and I am sorry if my jest had suggested otherwise. I agree you have been reasonable, most of all in how you have mended similar incompatibilities between Pale Moon and NoScript in the past. We respect your decision to withhold official support to NoScript users; I believe NoScript users should complement this by offering support of their own on this board. It is this tolerant, coöperative spirit I have sought to spread.
I suspect you are mistaken. Other in the other thread have tried pretty hard to recreate the same situation without NoScript and have failed to cause the crash. But if you can reproduce it outside of the NoScript environment, I'm all ears.
The relevant issue in the repository has been able to explain the apparent causes. I surmise that this crash workaround has either been somehow disrupted in v33, or else that something like it has emerged again elsewhere. I have no Windows machine and do not know what a call stack is or how to generate it for a crash, but if I could, I would happily supply this to provide further diagnostic information. I have hoped that this, like past attempts to diagnose why NoScript is failing (as best as my limited ability allows) and furnish this information to those who can make better sense of it, can cultivate this mutual tolerance and coöperation also.
Browser: Pale Moon (Pusser’s repository for Debian)
Operating System: Linux Mint Debian Edition 4 (amd64)
※Receiving Debian 10 LTS security upgrades
Hardware: HP Pavilion DV6-7010 (1400 MHz, 6 GB)
Formerly user TheRealMaestro: æsc is the best letter.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4980
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-03-07, 06:43

geraldh wrote:
2024-03-06, 22:52
I'm wondering whether it is the use of some of Noscripts more advanced features that are causing the trouble?
Just the fact that it has been abandoned by its developers for six years and counting while the browser that it originally targeted no longer exists. The extension that you are all so insistent on using was designed for Firefox 58, which released in Jan 2018. Let alone Firefox, Pale Moon itself has drastically changed over the last 6 years and the deep hooks that NoScript employs are the problem.eMatrix does everything that this does without breaking browser internals and acts like a whitelist; it blocks everything everywhere unless explicitly permitted - once you set it up for each frequently visited site, you don't have to bother with it. Or set it to default allow certain common services such as Google captchas that are everywhere, or Disqus/Discord comments.

When NoScript's own developer has washed their hands off this ancient version, what kind of chutzpah do people have to make it Pale Moon developers' problem? It is a huge waste of time when someone asks about a broken site, then a short while later announces that they are using NoScript. No one here is going to install NoScript to reproduce the problem and jeopardize their own browser profiles so essentially the NoScript user is wasting theirs and everyone else's time.

If it works great for you and you insist on using it, bully for you - disable the blacklist as per instructions described elsewhere and fix any resulting problems yourself.

Speaking as a former NoScript user myself, last used in the mid 2000s when Firefox was actually an awesome browser.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
Lexx Diamond
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 74
Joined: 2017-02-16, 18:26

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Lexx Diamond » 2024-03-30, 21:42

moonbat wrote:
2024-03-07, 06:43
geraldh wrote:
2024-03-06, 22:52
I'm wondering whether it is the use of some of Noscripts more advanced features that are causing the trouble?
Just the fact that it has been abandoned by its developers for six years and counting while the browser that it originally targeted no longer exists. The extension that you are all so insistent on using was designed for Firefox 58, which released in Jan 2018. Let alone Firefox, Pale Moon itself has drastically changed over the last 6 years and the deep hooks that NoScript employs are the problem.eMatrix does everything that this does without breaking browser internals and acts like a whitelist; it blocks everything everywhere unless explicitly permitted - once you set it up for each frequently visited site, you don't have to bother with it. Or set it to default allow certain common services such as Google captchas that are everywhere, or Disqus/Discord comments.

When NoScript's own developer has washed their hands off this ancient version, what kind of chutzpah do people have to make it Pale Moon developers' problem? It is a huge waste of time when someone asks about a broken site, then a short while later announces that they are using NoScript. No one here is going to install NoScript to reproduce the problem and jeopardize their own browser profiles so essentially the NoScript user is wasting theirs and everyone else's time.

If it works great for you and you insist on using it, bully for you - disable the blacklist as per instructions described elsewhere and fix any resulting problems yourself.

Speaking as a former NoScript user myself, last used in the mid 2000s when Firefox was actually an awesome browser.
Thanks for the feedback. I am going to give eMatrix a try.
Image

User avatar
gepus
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 943
Joined: 2017-12-14, 12:59

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by gepus » 2024-03-30, 23:21

geraldh wrote:
2024-03-06, 22:52
Perhaps if we just use the basic script blocking and turn the rest off, it might play more nicely with future versions of Palemoon?
If you only want to toggle JavaScript ON/OFF there are much better and easy to handle alternatives for NoScript, you can use with Pale Moon.

User avatar
Lexx Diamond
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 74
Joined: 2017-02-16, 18:26

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by Lexx Diamond » 2024-04-02, 15:41

So far eMatrix has been great. As I'm dead serious about not allowing certain scripts to run while I am on certain sites.
Image

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4980
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-04-02, 22:22

Lexx Diamond wrote:
2024-04-02, 15:41
So far eMatrix has been great. As I'm dead serious about not allowing certain scripts to run while I am on certain sites.
Good that you've been able to move on to it :)
As you'll see it's not just scripts but 3rd party background requests, CSS,images, media and frames that are blocked by default.
One more unique feature it has is blocking previously set cookies from being read on third party sites. So you may have allowed Facebook or Google to set cookies so that you can sign in - but it won't let these sites read their own cookies on other sites unless you allow it.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
cartel
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 477
Joined: 2014-03-16, 21:57
Location: Chilliwack, BC

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by cartel » 2024-04-17, 06:59

can ns whitelist be imported by umatrix?
ImageImage

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4980
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: NoScript disabled by force.

Unread post by moonbat » 2024-04-17, 07:29

cartel wrote:
2024-04-17, 06:59
can ns whitelist be imported by umatrix?
Why would you expect it to? It's like asking if GNOME can run on Windows.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

Post Reply