Slashdot Mirror


NoScript Adds Subscriptions To Adblock Plus

hahiss writes "Apparently, NoScript has taken to adding its own whitelist updates to Adblock Plus — so that the ads on the NoScript page show up — without notifying users. (It is described on the NoScript addon page, however.) This was a part of the last update to NoScript. Wladimir Palant, the main developer of Adblock Plus, describes the situation in an informative blog post." Update — 5/02 at 12:30 GMT by SS: Reader spyrochaete notes that "InformAction, makers of the NoScript extension for Firefox, have removed the recently introduced AdBlock exceptions which unblocked the revenue-producing ads on the NoScript homepage with little or no warning to the user. According to the changelog, InformAction pushed out an update specifically addressing this controversial decision 'permanently and with no questions asked.'"

8 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Links are helpful by derfy · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, noscript added code that disabled adblock plus if EasyList was used. Then, noscript auto-adds (no user prompting) an abp subscription whitelisting his sites. You cannot delete it (it readds upon FF restart), only disable it.

  2. Re:Timeline of events by derfy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recall in an earlier version of noscript that had Giorgio's sites whitelisted, and you couldn't remove them from the UI. You had to edit the plugin files themselves. This isn't new behavior for him.

  3. Re:Really Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    NoScript is not primarily an ad blocker. It manipulates AdBlock to allow ads on NoScript domains.

    What happened: NoScript blocks scripts (which also catches some typical ad delivery scripts). NoScript exempts the domain of the NoScript authors from script blocking (bad). An AdBlock subscription list recently added entries to block ads on the NoScript domain. NoScript tried to evade that measure by manipulating the way AdBlock works. Now NoScript has changed again and only ads a visible exception subscription to the list of AdBlock subscriptions. This exception can not be removed, only deactivated, as it's added back in whenever Firefox starts.

    As an extension author, I can sympathize with the NoScript authors: Firefox users are really stingy. Unless an extension is inherently intertwined with a business opportunity and not just a convenient stand-alone feature, working on a Firefox extension is a losing proposition, at least financially. However, an author should either accept that and find other motivations for continuing the work, try a transparent commercial approach or cut the extension loose. The dark side is big enough without Firefox extension authors joining it.

  4. Re:I Would Have Allowed It by ahsile · · Score: 5, Informative

    Currently you can't actually delete the list, only disable it. If you delete the list, it will come back the next time you load firefox. I have actually tried this myself and it is very obnoxious.

    I was looking on the noscript forums, and I did find this:

    On the other hand, I guess I'll have to work overnight to release 1.9.2.5 immediately: it prompts users beforehand (something I announced 10 minutes after 1.9.2.4's release), and also fixes the bug which allows the filterset only to be disabled, rather than removed. That's a genuine bug, but is being nonetheless singled out as a malicious behavior by Wladimir...

    While I don't know if I believe this or not, it's at least the way it should have been from the start.

  5. Re:Disabling NoScript Update Notificaions by Drafell · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the Firefox address bar, type : about:config

    Scroll down to: noscript.firstRunRedirection

    Right click this value, and 'toggle' it to false.

    Due credit goes to posts at http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

  6. Re:Links are helpful by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    about:config
    set noscript.firstRunRedirection to false

  7. A word from a NoScript Forum Moderator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, I'm not an anonymous coward, I'm Tom T., a Moderator at the NoScript Support forum. Just didn't need one more U/P login as probably a
    one-time poster here. Having read only the top pages, just wanted to make sure that these points were covered:

    1) Giorgio Maone himself has pointed out repeatedly, including at the thread in question, that anyone can disable his pages' ads with NoScript just by blocking the Google-Syndication scripts. NoScript itself cannot be circumvented in this blocking, even by NoScript. :)

    2) For those who think the updates are a revenue-(ad-viewing)-generator, aside from the fact that the NS FAQ includes simple instructions for turning off the home-page redirect for each update (try reading the FAQ before criticizing), please look at the complete history and at how many times some new attack, e. g., XSS etc., has surfaced, and Giorgio has dropped everything -- wife, new baby -- and rushed to protect NS users with an update. Some of these updates turned out to prevent future attacks that weren't even known at the time of the update. Go to the Changelog, see the number of feature requests/bug reports, and tell us which ones were unnecessary. Go to the blog of world-class hakker Sirdarckhat, http://sirdarckcat.blogspot.com/2008/06/hacking-noscript.html, who has responsibly and privately reported his discovered vulnerabilities, and note his comment on Giorgio's response to such reports:

    "Is important to say, that Giorgio fixes stuff in "hours", (or minutes in some cases), and he has done some crazy stuff, just so NoScript users can be safe, so if you dont use it, go get it."

    Straight from the hakker's mouth there, peeps.

    3) As a personal opinion only, and not speaking for Mr. Maone, NoScript, or the NS Support Forum, I have repeatedly recommended AdBlock Original, in which only I can set blocks or permissions, no one else, and with which I can affect or hose only my own machine, not anyone's else, nor can I affect anyone's web site. That is why NS does not offer "blacklists", despite repeated requests from users who don't want to be bothered with making their own decisions (the whole point of NS), and why, despite my great respect for Wladimir Palant and his product, I don't use ABPlus. True, I don't "have" to subscribe; I just don't want to open that door. The only exception would be the Hosts file, offered by http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm ,which has *specific criteria*: a site must drop tracking cookies or drive-by adware, spyware, or other malware; and the file is plain-text readable and editable by any user to remove any block-entry that they feel is unnecessary. I never have. They're all there for a good reason and are sites I don't want to allow my browser to connect to.

    4) Anyone who thinks that scripting or other web executables are without danger and require no user attention probably shouldn't be using a computer, or is already pwned. Do some research. "If you aren't worried, you just don't understand the situation." Cheers!

  8. NoScript 1.9.2.6 fixes it by pmontra · · Score: 5, Informative

    Giorgio released version 1.9.2.6 which disables the filter. I quote from http://noscript.net/?ver=1.9.2.6&prev=1.9.2.5

    Why such a tight release schedule? Version 1.9.2.6 automatically and permanently removes the cotroversial NoScript Development Support Filterset deployed with NoScript 1.9.2.4. I sincerely apologize with those ABP users who missed the information about it given on the AMO install page, on this site's install page, on this very release note page and in the FAQ. Not including a prompt asking for permission beforehand from the start has been a very bad omission, and I want all the ABP users who felt betrayed to know how much I'm sorry for that. As a sign of good will, current NoScript 1.9.2.6 completely removes the filterset itself, if found there, on startup with no questions asked. Thanks for your patience.
    -- Giorgio

    It seems that he eventually got it right.