To try the thousands of add-ons available here, download Mozilla Firefox, a fast, free way to surf the Web!Close
Choose from thousands of extra features and styles to make Firefox your own.Close
|User since||August 24, 2012|
|Number of add-ons developed||0 add-ons|
|Average rating of developer's add-ons||Not yet rated|
tl;dr: While the add-on itself doesn't have any inherent flaws (aside from a couple features that are on peoples' wish-lists), there are some inherent flaws in Firefox that cause me to keep using NoScript. There is only one real issue with the add-on, and that's just a simple oversight in the concept.
First off, I recommend this add-on if you want some much-needed security without having a complete lock-down like NoScript does. (although I personally prefer NoScript). I just feel the need to point out a couple flaws that make this add-on less effective. Sadly, most of these flaws are inherent to the browser itself, rather than the add-on. Also, please donate to the developer, Jason Barnabie. He did his work, and he deserves the support.
As a staunch advocate of Firefox, even I'll admit that it's fallen way behind other browsers in security (even IE in at least one case). For example, Firefox doesn't use the modern Windows feature called "low integrity mode" or "protected mode" to run the browser process(es) with as few user permissions as possible. Basically, what the Protected Mode does is that it makes anyone who finds a vulnerability in Chrome or IE also have to find a way to get out of the security sandbox and gain access to the rest of the system (as a lazy coder, that would deter me automatically). The feature has been around since Windows Vista. Mozilla's still working on "low-rights Firefox" mode, and there's no indication of whether anyone is working on implementing sandboxing for the desktop version of Firefox.
In short, if a site happens to be missed by the blacklist used by this add-on, Firefox is somewhat more vulnerable than the other popular browsers. Someone who finds a vulnerability in Firefox doesn't need to find an additional vulnerability in Windows, as they would with Chrome and IE.
There's also the issue of someone hijacking a trusted site and injecting malicious code into specific pages (such as a log-in or signup form, the landing page, or other forms). While whitelisting also has this vulnerability for any whitelisted site, blacklisting has it by default for any non-blacklisted site. In addition, blacklisting might not always keep up with the current malicious sites, while whitelisting will at least offer a first layer of protection against new threats. NoScript also supports temporarily whitelisting a site, which is what I primarily use unless it's a site I use all the time (and even then, only if they use https). This is really the only major flaw in the add-on (and it's really only just an oversight that's easy to make).
From a basic user standpoint, this is a really good add-on if you're careful on the web. However, as a software security guy who occasionally has to venture into the unknown, I will continue to use NoScript.
This is something I've always wanted to have. It helps me figure out where I am, and I can remember which tabs have the content I'm looking for just by attaching a number. Often times, I'll have multiple tabs open in the same page, so remembering by icon doesn't always work. This provided a nice solution for me to navigate the many tabs I may have open at any time.It's also a very simple tool. I'm surprised there hasn't been one like it. I'm sure there are others that *have* this feature, but they also come with other whistles and bells that I don't necessarily need. This provides a stripped-down add-on that gives the one feature I want.
However, it might be worth noting that this add-on also counts app tabs in the index. In addition, it indexes the tabs based on the order in which they were opened. While this is probably more or less unavoidable, if a solution could be found, I would rate this at 5 stars. As an example (bug reports always need documentation), my 4 app tabs are tabs 1-4 (which I hope means that it prioritizes those above the others when indexing the tabs), then the rest of my tabs are 5-34. Tabs 5-11 are in order. Great.. However, I have two additional tab groups, and tabs 12-16 are in those groups, then the tabs continue again in group one from 17-34. If there's some way to get around this, that would be great. Could you look for a solution? Please let me know if this message isn't clear enough, by the way.
I never thought something so simple would be so amazing. It's just one little bit of added functionality to the browser! And yet I love it! It makes displaying images on a blog or personally owned website so much easier. I can now just paste in the image source and have the image there on my page, without having to host the actual image file or the alt-text that sometimes comes with it. Now, this is all dependent on the existence of the source from which you took the image, so I always recommend getting a backup of the image and pasting the image source text into a file (I do this when indexing xkcd's alt-text).
Well played, Andrew. Well played indeed.