nickie on 12/11/2017 at 09:56
I was having a look at uBlock Origin and came across (
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/17/ublock_origin_csp_reports/) this article. I don't really understand a word of it but the last paragraph reads:
Quote:
In short, if you use uBlock Origin, for now, your browser can't warn websites when they and their users are under attack from account and session hijackers.
Is this something for me to be concerned about? I'd rather like to try it out.
Nameless Voice on 12/11/2017 at 11:29
As far as I can understand that, it is a system to allow browsers to report to a site that they've blocked a potential hacking attempt using cross-site scripting, to let the website host know that people are trying to hack it?
If I've read that right, it means that blocking it doesn't affect users at all - their browser has still blocked the attempt - but it just can't inform the website about it.
nickie on 12/11/2017 at 11:48
OK. Thank you.
Wouldn't it be better to inform the website? Or maybe the site has other means to detect attempts at hacking.
Nameless Voice on 12/11/2017 at 13:39
I guess it would be, but shouldn't be a reason not to use the extension. There'll always be someone else not running it who can report the attempt.
On the bright side, uBlock Origin is fully compatible with Firefox Quantum.
I didn't even know that feature existed before now.
Azaran on 12/11/2017 at 14:39
I have U Block too but some sites detect it and block me when it's active
Nameless Voice on 12/11/2017 at 16:11
Make sure that you have "AAK-Cont Filters For uBlock Origin" ticked in the filter list, that will try to remove adblock detectors too.
It can't avoid all of them, though. You will get sites that you can't access while running one (though the same would apply to ABP too).
Azaran on 13/11/2017 at 22:07
Another serious issue I'm having with Chrome vs Firefox, unrelated to extensions, is in Firefox characters from non Latin alphabets display perfectly, but in Chrome only partially or not at all. I thought this was governed by the Unicode fonts in Windows, but apparently it's a browser issue. I use the more updated Chrome Canary too, and same issue.
Inline Image:
https://s8.postimg.org/i0f2c2up1/Untitled.png
Red_Breast on 14/11/2017 at 19:37
From the NoScript website -
2017-11-14: We're working hard to make NoScript for Quantum available to you as soon as possible, even later today if we're lucky enough.
heywood on 20/11/2017 at 15:31
I reverted back to 56 for now. In addition to the add-on breakage, I don't like the new start page, or the way Quantum forces new tabs into the foreground, or the fact that new tabs are always added to the end. I also don't like the dark appearance of background tabs and other UI changes. Maybe it will all be addressed in time, but right now Quantum seems like a step backwards. I didn't actually notice any speed improvement on my desktop computer or laptop. The might be more noticeable on a phone I guess.
Nameless Voice on 20/11/2017 at 15:58
I got it on my phone because I forgot to disable updates.
I don't really mind losing the extensions, since I didn't have many there and the main one (uBlock Origin) still works.
The interface is hideous to the point that I think part of it is a bug, though.
It messed up the top of the browser/phone, so the "action bar" is bright white when Firefox is open, and the address bar section is a weird grey that interacts wrongly with themes.
Hoping those are bugs.
The new "new tab" screen is far worse, replacing the big "favourite websites" previews with tiny boxes and not really adding anything new to use the space.