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.'"
I only visit the site to update software, software they provide me free of charge, I'm not going to complain.
AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
Start a project that blocks ads that is funded by advertising on their website and donations.
Sounds real smart.
They have 3 AdSense ad units (the max) on their home page, a couple of small buttons and a set of sponsored links. The sponsored links also don't use the rel="nofollow" tag but I guess google doesn't penalize everyone for that or nobody has reported them.
Seriously, this is a business model that shoots itself in the foot.
Dual Opteron < $600
Little Snitch on the Mac, which helps you identify when apps 'phone home, itself 'phones home, and you can't block it using Little Snitch itself.
I like to call this the Communism trait, for the Party elite always manage to make themselves more equal than others.
(Moderators: this isn't an anti-communism or pro-capitalism post. An important part of growing up is knowing that ideals are merely the primary colours, and life requires a mixture.)
When the Easylist filter was made for Adblock Plus, it generically blocked ads for many websites, with some specific rules for other sites. Giorgio Maone (creator of NoScript) relies to a certain extent on ad revenue on his websites, without which he may spend less time working on the extension. He made a workaround on the ad blocking, and though the filter could have been updated to counter this, no attempt was made to update it.
When Rick Petnel died, they needed a new maintainer for the filter. Ares2 continued where Rick left off. He decided to fix the workaround made on Giorgio's sites.
What then followed was a game of cat-and-mouse. Giorgio would attempt a new workariound, and Ares2 would attempt to block the ads. It reached the stage where large parts of Giorgio's sites weren't working due to false positives.
Here, it seems clear that Ares2 has gone too far, and a compromise should have been reached. ABP and NoScript are a good pair when working together, though the people behind them have different philosophies. Unfortunately, things start to take a turn for the worse.
In an attempt to defend his site and ad revenue, he makes an update of NoScript to version 1.9.2. This version contains a file called MRD.js, which adds a CSS stylesheet rule to his websites that overrides the filter, by adding -moz-binding: none after the filter has loaded, which the filter depends upon. Furthermore, the file is obfuscated to hide what it does. No warning is given to Firefox users of what the extension has added in this tit-for-tat battle.
When this addition started breaking users ABP installations, version 1.9.2.3 instead adds his websites to the ABP whitelist, calling it a "NoScript development support filterset". The user isn't informed of what this is, and isn't given a choice on whether to accept it.
At present, the filter has removed its false positives, though leaves the ad blocking in place. The NoScript behaviour still remains in the latest version.
Ares2 was overzealous in attempting to block ads, and shouldn't have made Giorgio have to make excessive changes to his site. But the larger concern is that while Easylist is a filterset, which can be removed and updated by the user, NoScript went further and started to modify existing extensions, executing code without user's consent or awareness, and acting in a way that resembled malware, to display ads on his websites.
Extensions can be great for giving people freedom to control how they view the web. But creators of extensions need to be careful in what they do with them, especially with those with a large user-base like Adblock Plus and NoScript. If not handled correctly, Firefox extensions could become the next vector of malware, and that would be a shame for all.
It is a useful tool, it shouldn't be too hard to strip out all the dodgy code and host it on another site.
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.
It's somehow okay now that an extension goes behind the users back and circumvents other plug-ins? Especially a plug-in that most users use presumably to protect themselves against malware and intrusive JavaScript driven ads?
I sure hope the community will step up and create a new open source plug-in that goes "back to the basics" (disable JavaScript per site + whitelist) and people ditch NoScript faster than you can say "WTF!"....
Apparently the NoScript developers (which is btw. the most obnoxious plug-in I currently have installed; re: updates...) heads have gotten a bit to big for their own good.
I can't wait to see the fallout from this one. Hopefully at the end NoScript in it's current form won't exist anymore!
Like many Slashdot users, I run both NoScript and AdBlock Plus.
Had NoScript asked me if I wanted to whitelist adds on their site (in my AdBlock preferences) to support NoScript development, I would have happily clicked "Yes."
As it is, I've left the NoScript whitelist intact in my AdBlock preferences, because I do want to support their development (NoScript leaves a comment in the AdBlock preferences indicating that this whitelist can be disabled easily). That said, I would have been much happier had my permission been asked!
It's a stupid trick, but the whitelist can be disabled easily. Go to Adblock preferences and disable the "NoScript Development Support" filter. It doesn't seem to re-enable the whitelist on restart. It may when it updates.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If I have ad blocking software installed, that means I don't want to see ads (unless I explicitly approve them).
If I have script blocking software installed, that means I don't want to run scripts (unless I explicitly approve them).
How difficult is that to understand?
I don't care if the Noscript developer relies on ads for revenue. If I have ad blocking software installed, I don't want to see ads, period.. that doesn't mean "except on noscript's site, of course!". If the Noscript developer doesn't like that, it's too fucking bad.
This behaviour is disgraceful, and Noscript should be blocked by Mozilla (is this possible? Or, at least, not hosted on their site..) because at this point, it's clearly malware.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
NoScript will no longer be permitted on any of my computers, period. This is unacceptable behavior. If I'd payed for the addon, I'd be demanding a refund. As it is, all I can do is try to take back the favorable word-of-mouth I've been giving the author, and try to find a version without the invasive behavior.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
For some time now, I have been getting more and more annoyed with the regularity of NoScript updates, especially as it would ALWAYS open the home page after every update, this is after the nuisance of me already having been asked to restart Firefox for the addon update.
Now it makes sense, they clearly artificially make this happen just for adrevenue. The addon probably doesn't even need that many updates.
Anyway, even though I know I can change the option to not go to the homepage after each update, I am tired of having to restart Firefox once a week for software which is for the most part adware. I barely use noscript, except on 1 site, I'll wait for someone else to make an addon which doesn't piss me off, or simply tolerate the minor annoyance of that one site.
As for the real world security benefits of noscript, they are questionable at best. If a website codes itself so it needs javascript, one would likely turn on noscript, and then the website could run malicious code.
Sure you may not be bothered by some ads on their site, but it's a slippery slope they should avoid. Users place their trust in add-ons like AdPlus and NoScript when they allow a third party to filter content. They proved they're willing to cross the line for a few dollars in ad revenue. What would they do for a significant amount of money?
This is an exact example of why it's so important for source code to be freely viewed. The OSS model works - this demonstrates why and how. When developers are motivated by the wrong sources and use unethical means for obtaining their ends, users can be made aware of their digressions. Good work by the Adblock team.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Parent is correct; NoScript is EVIL. It will install malware, upload \My Pictures\ to a russian server and molest your children. The frequent updates the parent complains of are required to keep the NoScript's keylogger signature ahead of the anti-virus databases. NoScript was funded by Scientologists and developed by Sony. Users of NoScript are providing bandwidth to global botnets and have copies of all IM and email forwarded to the NSA.
STAY AWAY
(which is btw. the most obnoxious plug-in I currently have installed; re: updates...)
Set noscript.firstRunRedirection to False and it won't open the homepage after every update.
I find it incredibly ironic that two ad blockers are at war with each other over blocking ads that support their service. I hope this isn't a preview of what's to come if the use of ad blocking software becomes widespread.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
"I must admit I don't have much expertise in this area. I've never used either Adblock or Noscript."
You should have stopped right there.
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?
"(If I recall correctly)"
"Of course that's just how I remember the whole thing. I never visit the AdBlock Plus page and I am deliberately blind to most ads anyway."
So, your entire post was based on a guess? You don't have any direct experience with AdBlock either? Are you kidding me? Why are you posting again?
If NoScript screws with AdBlock any more, I'm just deleting it, AdBlock is the more valuable of the addons to me. I definitely don't like a developer screwing with someone else's addon, and then when it can't be deleted claims it's a "bug". No way it's a bug, just an undocumented feature.
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
Create a new filter with a copy of the NoScript developer filter, add it below the pre-installed one and make sure both are disabled. Hopefully then if it's re-enabled by an update your manual copy will still be disabled, nullifying the effect....assuming it's read like CSS from top to bottom.
Alternatively, look for another script control addon. Personally I've been getting rather pissed at the opening of new tabs on each update for a while now; not just NoScript either. Depending on whether my thinking will keep the block in place and how much longer I'm willing to accept the tab opening shit, I am close to removing it myself. There is YesScript and Controle De Scripts on the addon pages but I've not yet tried them.
It may help to let the NoScripts people know why their usage numbers are going down on their Mozilla addon feedback page. Perhaps if they see enough people are pissed off, it may change things.
Just remove noscript.net and his other domains from NoScripts allow list and his own addon stops his Google adbars.
I am sure he will hard code around this in his next patch, that will be the point where I start adding firewall rules.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
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
I am not sure, but this has just set a precedent. Because of NoScript dev's moronic attitude (It is perfectly fine to protect revenue, but DO NOT mess with another program, and a well-reputed one, on the way), may others might have learned of that clever trick...regulations to avoid this will have to be ensured by Mozilla so no extension will fight with another negatively by blocking functionalities like this.
Expect more on this line in the future for sure. It's a really bad idea to make this kind of nasty trick public, others might learn and instead of a black egg in the basket we will have many. It's like idiots ramming demolition balls on their crotch just because they saw it on Jackass.
And precisely extensions are what make Firefox a winner, I won't like the idea of having to fear them like one of those IE toolbars.
Of course it's a worst case scenario, hopefully things will stay like this, and I hope they do.
If not because I need noscript to block JS files to make Internet usable with my slow dial-up, I'd have ditched it long ago. I have some kind of feeling it's blocking something in Ubiquity's last version, it stopped working right after a noscript upgrade for me.
Since NoScript recently put up a forum I figured I would go over to see what people on there had to say. Here's a thread which starts with a discussion of noscript breaking adblock and then turns into a discussion of the specific issue: http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=877
Here's a post where the NoScript guy asserts his reasoning for it: http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?p=2777#p2777 basically he says that the update to the filterset broke noscript.net making things like the menus unusable.
In this post http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=877&start=90#p3162 he claims that the inability to remove the noscript filterset is a bug and that the next update to noscript will fix that and prompt users beforehand.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
How's that going to stop nefarious scripts running?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Until 1 minute ago I had NoScript installed.
All the guy had to do was ask: "Do you want to whitelist the noscript webpage in adblock? I depend on these ads for revenue." I'd have damn well clicked yes.
It's unfortunate how the sleazy way out seemed appropriate to someone who's supposed to be developing software against malware...
about:config
set noscript.firstRunRedirection to false
It isn't a "stupid trick." I installed NoScript specifically to help prevent things running in FF that would screw with my system behind my back. This behavior, screwing with ABP's configuration WITHOUT ASKING ME FIRST is EXACTLY THE SORT OF SHIT I installed it to PREVENT. This has nothing to do with how "trivial" said screwing is, or how much money the author does or doesn't make from the damn plugin. It's a matter of trust and what the damn plugin was built to do. The author just used his plugin to do exactly what we all installed it to PREVENT. I (and apparently a lot of others) no longer feel that we can trust the author or his software since he's now stooped to the tactics used by the people and software his plugin was designed to prevent.
I would expect most /. users would be smart enough to actually see what's being changed before updating something.
Except that the Update Add-ons dialog doesn't have a link to the Changes page for each add-on that's about to be updated (Mozilla is talking about adding that feature, by the way, not just because of this particular incident).
I doubt most NoScript users would bother to check the Changes page even if the link was there - it's already running on their browser and has probably earned the rank of Trusted Add-on in their minds. I'm not convinced that NoScript-using /. readers would be much different.
There's an extension called requestPolicy that seems to be a viable alternative to those who are no longer willing to use NoScript: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9727/ As the addons page says, it's still experimental/not publicly vetted, so "take this with a grain of salt," "caveat emptor," etc...
but the Mozilla Add-on Policy requires them to inform you in some detail of what is being changed by an update. Since you're in a browser, a web page seems the logical way to do it.
Maybe you shouldn't update them all at the same time?
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
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!
This was one of the reasons I just uninstalled NoScript a few hours ago, but the main reason I did it is because this story made me check the NoScript source code, and it is a mess.
I decided to look for a replacement and found YesScript (it works as a sites blacklist), after looking the code I found that it uses Mozilla Configurable Security Policies. Too bad CSPs only allow or disallow javascripts by site, and the sameOrigin policy does not works for "*.javascript.enabled"
v 1.9.2.6
+ NoScript now automatically removes the controversial "NoScript Development Support Filterset" deployed with NoScript 1.9.2.3 and above on startup, permanently and with no questions asked.
v 1.9.2.5
+ One-time startup prompt to ask users if they wants to install/keep the AdBlock Plus "NoScript Development Support Filterset" deployed with NoScript 1.9.2.3 and above
While I'll most likely check the changelog before applying new NoScript version, I doubt I'll stop using it. I have mixed feelings about this situation but at least author warned us about what he was doing and broke nothing. Some of you may remember what happened with Fast Dial - it added some spam links, which completely broke user bookmarks. While its author also informed about this change in changelog, he forgot to mention that it will totally break your bookmarks.
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
It seems that he eventually got it right.
IANAL but in Australia we have laws which among other things makes it a crime to alter data without the owner's consent. There's a similar crime in Britain. I don't know the specific European Laws he'd be prosecuted under, but altering data without consent is one of the first things that cybercrime laws legislated against. Shop around, but this Giorgio Maone is treading on some shaky ground here and he did it with clear forethought. Unlikely Maone will be prosecuted - few people ever are, but if I were him I'd be apologising profusely now and promising never to do it again. Instead he's been pretty obnoxious over the whole affair and pretty much killed the NoScript brandname. He's also violated Mozilla's T&Cs.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/htcb/htcb006.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/htcb/htcb005.html
http://www.saflii.org/za/other/zalc/dp/99/99-CHAPTER-3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noscript#NoScript_exceptions_and_AdBlock_Plus
> MattHawk (215818): It's not actually illegal.
Well, yes it is. Either state IAAL and/or give links to support what you are saying.
it desperately asks for an answer
So, begs the answer surely?
By using sunshine. No. Privoxy can block scripts, or manipulate incoming traffic any way you like.
This seems like a dirty game that noscript is playing. They are intentionally subverting the intention of the AdBlock plugin. Blocking ads is the intention of the user because the user installed the plugin. Therefore the noscript authors are subverting the intention of the user. Users (some) will put up with this for a while, however if it gets to bad a new "noscript" will be created. It will be a fork noscript is open source or it will be a complete rewrite. There only way this can end well for no script is to not "go too far with it" that it really pisses off users/developers. What "too far" is, is what is under debate. Since what is being blocked is mostly ads from ad servers, can it be claimed it is "part of the content of the page" as some here have described. With snail mail some companies place ads in with your bill. IMHO that does not make the ads part of the bill. However I think this can be a security risk, as ads servers can be a vector for attack. I was listening to a respectable internet radio station that required that I run IE (I know, I have to live in the dark side once in a while). I came back later and found avg saying it found a virus. After some investigation I noticed an ad on the internet radio page had the url, file://c:/windows/system32/. And when I visited that "url" exactly avg popped up again. Now I always block ads when I can (and try not to use IE) because the author of the page has not authorized each ad to be "part of the content". I would hate to live in a world where it was "part of the content" and sites where responsible for the ads that got served. Then again, maybe there would be less ads that way. Anyway, just my 0.02 cents