- by Firefox user 12416561, 4 years agoRated 3 out of 5I understand it can be difficult to migrate to a new framework, which is why I am slightly sympathetic. However, the people have spoken. The new UI is garbage, and much of the functionality has been altered in a negative way since the Web Extensions framework updates. I'll go back to 5 stars pending UI and usage fixes! In spite of all this, thank you for the work you've done on the extension.
- by Firefox user 13516526, 4 years agoRated 3 out of 5Why did you change a simple UI to this "new" style. You already had the issue with late support for the new firefox, and then you came across with this ugly and popups spamming addon ? Umatrix welcome
- by Firefox user 13505654, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5There is a bug related to XSS blocking in recent updates:
Opening new tabs from Firfox's blank page is extremely slow and showing a dialog "XSS attack from [...] to ".
- by JP, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5Was having a lot of trouble with it at first. The noscript button was working for a bit, then stopped working which may have been due to a FF update as far as I could tell on the noscript site? Restarting the browser fixed that particular issue but other things weren't working.
I removed noscript from the add-ons and then went to https://noscript.net/getit and installed from there and it seems to have fixed a majority of the problems as well as cleaned up the UI a bit. I suggest everyone give that a try as well. Just seems there's still bugs to work out and I'm glad to continue to stick with it.
- by Firefox user 13509796, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5I understood the previous version of NoScript.
I do not understand this version. It is not clear what is going on, or what the icon colours mean. Red versus green seems to be disconnected from permitted and not permitted.
I need documentation. The alternative in the latest version of FireFox is uMatrix, which I have on one machine. It is Very Complicated, but I did find complete documentation for it.
To use NoScript 10.1.1 or later I must have documentation.
- by Firefox user 13509040, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 53 stars becauze of new Quantum firefox UI, before it it was just perfect, now it is just pure-brainfuck. I will welcome that weed which was smoked while making this nature-fatal-error UI. oh, and TOR still keeps old-fashined perfect UI <3
- by photografx, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5Thank you very much for your effort to make this work with "Quantum (57+)".
But please give us back some oft the ofunctionality and ease of use of the old version.
e.g. temporary allowing scripts
- by Firefox user 13446037, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5WebExtension is a big change, so former NoScript is dead and NoScript 10 is just a new extension.
Hopefully the developer will probably recover some advanced features of the XUL version, but it will take time we must be patient.
As today, there is no alternative on Firefox 57.
It seems that developer of the excellent ScriipSafe on Chrome Webstore doesn't want to port it on Firefox.
He could have done this for Microsoft Edge since a long time, and nothing has been done.
And surfing without a script controller is I M P O S S I B L E
This is not acceptable, THIS IS A VERY BIG FAULT from Mozilla.
The main issue I could address now to the developer is :
1) no possibility to grant authorization to a full domain (this is a big difference with ScripSafe which lets the choice to the user)
Example : I want to authorize domain and all subdomain of the CDN provider Akamai, This si possible with scripsafe by using the "trust" option instead of "allow", it is not possible here
I want to authorize all Akamai because due to load balancing process the CDN server may change a lot, and so you still need to allow various subdomain. Maybe the developer could implement very quickly a joker system allowing to enter domains like :
In first case we allow every subdomain of akamai.net
In the second case we limit to every subdomain of hd.akamai.net
2) No synchornization option
Ideally, NoScript should store the users data in cloud through the Firefox account as ScripSafe does in the Google Account.
But maybe it is not possible according to the Firefox account policy, so the workaround should be to be able to synchronize data to/from a local path on the computer.
One just have to create this path in a OneDrive or Google Drive synchronized directory...and this should be done.
I have several computer, each computer has several users session, this is just annoying to set up NosSript for each repeating always the same process. And when I set up a new computer, I must restart from the beginning.
With ScripSafe, this is very easy... the extension automatically download and upload to Google Accounts (one must activate such option).
If ScripSafe is ever ported to Firefox with the same functionalities, I drop NoScript
3) Slow GUI
As today, the NoScript GUI is I N C R E D I B L Y slow.
As a comparison ScripSafe is incredibly fast to display the distant hosts list
But this version is a kind of quick done dirty version, let's be patient, this will be probably fixed in the future, but developer must know that the situation is as today not acceptable. I also suspect that NoScript 10 slows down the browser
4) Inefficient filtering mechanism
In the former XUL extension, the filtering engine of NoScript was crappy as it was oftenly forgetting a lot of distant host.
So one needed sometimes to switch to "allow all scripts" to see these hosts, and go back to "forbide all scripts", and so we could set rules for theses invisible hosts.
As compared, ScripSafe was far better as there was not such issues.
Finally.... XUL NoScript is dead and this is a very good thing because the filtering engine of NoScript was outdated and the author didn't want to admit that.
Let's see now if this brand new Web Extension addresses such issues, I can't say at this moment.
- by Firefox user 13504819, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5First of all thank you for all the effort you put into the new Quantum-enabled version of NoScript. I can imagine, it took a lot of time to rewrite this extension, which had been developed for years, completely from scratch.
It is noticable that the new version has been written in a big hurry. The UI is not fully developed and looks like it was made for newbies than for experienced computer users. I know, the UI cannot be changed back. We all will have to accept that XUL is gone. I don't think, the new UI is bad in general. It is just not finished yet.
Sadly, some very important features are still missing. For me personally, giving temporary permissions to a website is a must-have feature. I think this is such a key component that I wonder why it has not been implemented yet. How am I supposed to test a website? Giving it permanent permissions and later revoking them again is not a very effective way.
There are still a lot of things to be done. However, I think a huge step was made already. The basic functionality is now implemented as a WebExtension with more functionality to follow. Keep up the good work. I am sure, the comments and ratings of NoScript will become better soon.
- by Firefox user 10919506, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5"To all the people complaining about the new UI (not that I expect any of them to see this): Giorgio can't revert back to the old UI because that kind of UI is no longer supported on Firefox 57 and above. Nice things like native drop-down menus and dialog boxes are no longer allowed. Those were part of XUL addons. Now we only have WebExtensions add-ons à la Chrome, and if you know Chrome, you know that its add-on interface situation is the same. "Nice" UIs have been prohibited by Mozilla, on purpose, so your gripe is with them, not with Giorgio, the developer of this add-on.
I do agree that the UI could use some work anyway, though, in terms of understandability, ease of use, and looks. But this is still an early version which had to be released in a rush, so give it a while.
I'll still deduct one star from my previous rating because too much comfort functionality is missing at the moment. Temporary exceptions, selective and site-wide, were one of my most-used features of NoScript, and they're not in yet. Also, the options screen is severely lacking, a lot of the behaviour I used to customise can't be changed right now. I assume that all of these things are still possible, and just haven't been implemented yet. Part of that blame, once again, can be put on Mozilla for their hasty and clumsy shutdown of XUL extensions and the rushed und grossly unfinished transition to WebExtensions, which is making life hard for all add-on developers."
- by Langenscheiss, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5Hey.
You realize that you also interfere with content scripts of other web extensions?
On Chrome and Opera, xmlhttp requests can be sent from background pages. On Firefox quantum, this is disallowed by same origin policy (it was allowed before). So the only way to make http requests is to use content scripts. This, however, does not work with no script on!
I don't think this is good behavior. Content scripts from other webextensions are privileged by definition, so NoScript should not disallow them!
- by Firefox user 13504159, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5I hate that Firefox 57 has completely gutted what addon developers are allowed to do. Reading a few homepages of my favorite addons is a sad state of affairs. Couple developers gave up and left to do other things due to firefox deciding to close the doors and use this quantum e10 crap as excuse to close doors to developers making addons that we could use to do whatever we wished.
we had a rating system so we self policed the bad addons as it was. But Mozilla is destroying firefox
now im reading in future they want to monetize addons and charge money for addons using the firefox web store to buy extensions and buy themes.
wtf they think they are apple now?
The old UI worked. It was intuitive. I hate being forced to a seperate tab to control anything. Stop opening tabs!!!! give me a hover based UI.
- by TGHI, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5New UI is a bit clunky, but I want to thank you for continued development in the wake of the WebExtension fiasco.
It's missing individual script blocking though, which is kind of a bummer. I hope there is a way around it that you can implement for the future.
- by Firefox user 13500564, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5Compared with old version, new version miss "temporary allow all scripts in current page" function. So I have to (1). allow each site one by one (2). click "options" to enable "Scripts Global Allowed" for all pages instead of "current one".
Except this one, new GUI is good.
- by Cisco-1, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5I really appreciate the update, but I am so confused with the new gui. I do understand that you were under a lot of pressure to release the new update for Firefox Quantum. Please, do your best if possible, and give us back the old features.
Allow all, or partially allow all this page.
- by George Hazard, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5It's a good add-on but needs work. I can't find a way to hide the number that appears with the add-on at the top of the browser and I feel it's unnecessary. The options doesn't seem to offer a way to hide it.
- by Moony, 5 years agoRated 3 out of 5yes - thx for update - still needs lots of work though. not possible to enable "allow temporary" by one click anymore - also the icons are distorted etc. / waiting patiently - keep up the good work and thank you again <3