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.'"
This highlights a security problem: if addons can affect/patch each other, how can you ensure the integrity of the browser?
Example: a malicious addon is released, and it takes some time before the malicious behaviour is discovered, and people delete the addon. But has it injected malicious code into other addons on the system? Now you have to remove all addons to be sure.
Is this outlandish or possible? Has Mozilla implemented any security against such an attack?
Why does noscript need to be updated that often, if ever? What happens in these updates anyway? I honestly cannot tell the difference in functionality in noscript now and when I first downloaded it a few years ago. Someone should fork it, strip out the crap, and then never update it again (except security fixes, etc.)
The author of the article says this is a problem he predicted would happen if we didn't "give extension developers a way to make money".
Now it's our job to "give" developers a way to make money?
It amuses me when someone decides to use the "free" model of software development, making an application and then not charging for it, and then gets offended because he's not making money.
Dude, if you're smart enough to come up with a useful app, I bet you can figure out a way to monetize it.
I hear the same thing from artists who post all their work for free and then complain about being poor. Job 1 is survival, no matter how creative you are. You have to keep body and soul together if you're going to make a contribution. Same with guys who fix all their friends' computers and then get mad because they're fixing all their friends' computers. All passive-aggressive wearing "Don't Ask Me To Fix Your Computer" t-shirts. Grow some minerals and say "I'll have to charge you". You'd be surprised how reasonable people are when you're not a dick.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I always thought the incremental updates to NoScript were too frequent to be entirely for the benefit of its users.
1) Involuntary web page visits after an update
2) serve ads
3) no step 3
4) profit
He probably looks for any typo that he can fix to get the next update out on time. At some point he needs to just call it adware, and I think we'd all agree that point has been reached. I'm now going find a way to avoid going to his page after an update, that way it won't matter if his ads were blocked or not.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
It's not actually illegal. It is, however, apparently against the Mozilla Addon ToU (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/policy) - that was the original terms under which the ABP author asked the NS author to remove the code in NS that intentionally harmed ABP's operation.