Firefox 57 issues thread

nomorewindows · 2017-12-03 23:44:46

cfr wrote:

Steef435 wrote:
But uMatrix blocks requests instead of execution like NoScript, so it'll probably result in a bigger footprint. So it's less great as a privacy tool, if I understand correctly.
I don't really follow this. It is true that it is less secure/private by default, but this can be changed so it blocks by default, even for first party domains. As I understand it, it also lacks some of NoScript's protections against click-jacking etc. But I don't really see why it would be generally less good at privacy or have a generally larger footprint. (Especially given the current mess which is NoScript.)

Maybe uMatrix is like uBlock?

gorhill · 2017-12-05 00:19:27

Steef435 wrote:

But uMatrix blocks requests instead of execution like NoScript, so it'll probably result in a bigger footprint. So it's less great as a privacy tool, if I understand correctly.

That is completely incorrect. uMatrix blocks execution of scripts.

What NoScript is now doing was done by the precursor of uMatrix, HTTPSB, more than 4 years ago. See:
https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchbo … d-browsers

Such incorrect information is really unfortunate, because it's done in an authoritative manner and a lots of people reading this will just accept unquestionably it as a fact.

eschwartz · 2017-12-05 01:06:22

gorhill wrote:

Steef435 wrote:
But uMatrix blocks requests instead of execution like NoScript, so it'll probably result in a bigger footprint. So it's less great as a privacy tool, if I understand correctly.
That is completely incorrect. uMatrix blocks execution of scripts.
What NoScript is now doing was done by the precursor of uMatrix, HTTPSB, more than 4 years ago. See:
https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchbo … d-browsers

I'm a bit confused as to what this sentence is supposed to mean, unless of course it is supposed to mean that uMatrix/HTTPSB was "doing 4 years ago what NoScript now does". Which of course cannot possibly be what you mean, since NoScript dates back to at least 2006...

So is this just an irrelevant tangent, are you too busy tooting your own horn to notice this isn't the Chromium thread, or what?

Such incorrect information is really unfortunate, because it's done in an authoritative manner and a lots of people reading this will just accept unquestionably it as a fact.

I really don't see how this thread was at all authoritative, especially in the context of a throwaway comment in a much broader thread, and given that intelligent users will investigate for themselves (or alternatively not care at all, as long as it is fast and works).

So the sky is probably not falling today.

gorhill · 2017-12-05 01:37:09

Eschwartz wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to what this sentence is supposed to mean, unless of course it is supposed to mean that uMatrix/HTTPSB was "doing 4 years ago what NoScript now does". Which of course cannot possibly be what you mean, since NoScript dates back to at least 2006...

I said "what NoScript does now". NoScript is using CSP injection now, unlike its legacy version. uMatrix was using CSP injection 4 years ago. NoScript blocks javascript execution now. It follows that uMatrix was blocking javascript execution 4 years ago. Given this, it's hard to understand the erroneous claim today -- after 4 years of being able to find out -- that "uMatrix does not prevent javascript execution".

Eschwartz wrote:

So is this just an irrelevant tangent, are you too busy tooting your own horn to notice this isn't the Chromium thread, or what?

uMatrix is available of Firefox as well, and works just the same way as it does on Chromium -- so the old article is still completely relevant.

I corrected misinformation, for some reasons this seems to bother you.

Lone_Wolf · 2017-12-05 12:57:18

This thread is not called "Noscript vs uMatrix" , but firefox issues 57 .

I have been switching between different FF 57 profiles so many times I have set FF to start with profile manager all the time.

One thing has become very clear :
noscript + umatrix + Ublock origin equals "recipe for disaster"

Overall though I now feel FF 57 improvements may be worth the trouble of having to research security issues and differences between addons.

cfr · 2017-12-06 01:34:36

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Overall though I now feel FF 57 improvements may be worth the trouble of having to research security issues and differences between addons.

I'm not sure. It doesn't seem much more responsive or faster to me. It still grinds to a halt. It can still bring my machine to a halt. Just now, it has more threads to do it with.

But really, it is the lack of download management, NoScript and tab control that is bothering me .

Steef435 · 2017-12-06 11:34:06

gorhill wrote:

Steef435 wrote:
But uMatrix blocks requests instead of execution like NoScript, so it'll probably result in a bigger footprint. So it's less great as a privacy tool, if I understand correctly.
That is completely incorrect. uMatrix blocks execution of scripts.
What NoScript is now doing was done by the precursor of uMatrix, HTTPSB, more than 4 years ago. See:
https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchbo … d-browsers
Such incorrect information is really unfortunate, because it's done in an authoritative manner and a lots of people reading this will just accept unquestionably it as a fact.

Oops, my bad. It's what I had gathered from some online searching. Thanks for the clarification! As the author of uMatrix, would you mind explaining the functional differences between uMatrix and NoScript as it is now? Can uMatrix be seen as a drop-in replacement?

Also, thanks Eschwartz! It's settling to know my words have no authority here.

cfr · 2017-12-07 00:10:06

Steef435 wrote:

[
Oops, my bad. It's what I had gathered from some online searching. Thanks for the clarification! As the author of uMatrix, would you mind explaining the functional differences between uMatrix and NoScript as it is now? Can uMatrix be seen as a drop-in replacement?

I don't think so. For one thing, NoScript protects against some kinds of attack which uMatrix doesn't. (I think click-jacking - not sure about XSS stuff generally.) And NoScript did have quite a nice interface for customising some of this.

On the other hand, I think uMatrix can probably block some things NoScript can't, since it is less exclusively focused on script requests.

Also, they block differently. For NoScript, if I allow scripts from a domain e.g. archlinux.org, then I allow them globally. So archlinux.org scripts will be allowed on any site they appear on. You can do this in uMatrix, but you can alternatively allow archlinux.org to execute scripts only when they are found on archlinux.org and, say, amazon.co.uk. Then archlinux.org scripts won't be allowed to run on, say, google.com. So a finer-grained control is possible, as I understand it.

Moreover, NoScript blocks by default, whereas uMatrix allows site requests on first-party domains by default. Hence, I don't need to do anything to allow archlinux.org to execute scripts on archlinux.org, but only need to allow them on amazon.co.uk. I wasn't happy about this so changed the default to block most things even on first-party domains, but I don't have to make that change for NoScript.

Also, as it currently stands, NoScript is essentially unusable, whereas uMatrix is not. So, while I think I prefer NoScript as it is a whole lot less hassle, it isn't really an option right now.

Last edited by cfr (2017-12-07 00:11:12)

kokoko3k · 2017-12-11 15:43:12

If anybody thinks that the new autoscroll icon sucks, here is a snippet for UserChrome.css to restore the old one:

/*autoscroller */
        #autoscroller {
        background-image: url('')  !important;
        }
        #autoscroller[scrolldir="NS"] {
        background-image:  url('')!important;
        }
        #autoscroller[scrolldir="EW"] {
        background-image: url('') !important;
        }

Last edited by kokoko3k (2017-12-11 15:46:52)

johnnydvc · 2017-12-11 16:07:13

Hi everyone,
I've got some issues with firefox's urlbar dropdown suggestions and my garkisch gtk theme.
I've tried changing css files, serching for stylish scripts and fiddling with the about:config page.
Nothing seems to help my problem.

Have a look at my urlbar:
Urlbar issue

Any suggestions?

progandy · 2017-12-11 16:13:00

johnnydvc wrote:

Hi everyone,
I've got some issues with firefox's urlbar dropdown suggestions and my garkisch gtk theme.
I've tried changing css files, serching for stylish scripts and fiddling with the about:config page.
Nothing seems to help my problem.
Any suggestions?

I have something like this in my $PROFILE/chrome/userChrome.css

#PopupAutoCompleteRichResult > richlistbox {
    background: #889 !important;
}
#PopupAutoCompleteRichResult .search-one-offs {
    background-color: #44A !important;
}

johnnydvc · 2017-12-11 16:20:59

Hey, thanks for the quick reply.
Your suggestion didn't have any effect on my theme.
Is it some completely different issue?

ninian · 2017-12-12 23:33:14

Firefox 57 is working very well for me, apart from this:
Twice in banking/insurance sites I have had a problem with a 'confirm' type button when purchasing products.
You left-click and nothing happens, so have to go through whole buying process again using a Chrome-based browser.
Very frustrating as problem can't be easily reproduced, so can't even try in Safe Mode.
Possibly it's an extension at fault, but all the ones I'm using are approved for Firefox 57.

Are there any test websites (with interactive buttons, etc) which I could harmlessly experiment on, disabling extensions one by one, and trying safe mode to see who is the culprit?
Had a search but didn't find quite what I need. Suspect the problem is not Firefox 57 itself.

NoSuck · 2017-12-13 06:59:36

johnnydvc wrote:

Any suggestions?

What exactly is the problem? The text color being too dark? That might not necessarily be Firefox's fault. Compare with the following:

export GTK_THEME=Adwaita:dark
firefox

kokoko3k · 2017-12-13 10:22:28

Under kde, i'm having problems removing the titlebar, so i'm using another way that works with breeze and Oxygen style only.

1) Install and place:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addo … he-window/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addo … he-window/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addo … he-window/
2) Use a regular expression in window decorations - theme settings - window-specific overrides:
[v] Window title: Regular Expression = (Mozilla Firefox)$
or
[v] Window Class Name = .*(Navigator Firefox)$
[v] Hide window title bar

What i get this way, is the firefox window complete with shadows.

Next, since i want a dark theme for firefox, but a bright theme for the other windows, and i use borders on unmaximized windows, i make another rule to make the border dark.
In Window Manager settings: Window Rules, [New]
Window Matching: Window class (application): Exact Match: navigator firefox ([v] Match whole window class); next in appearance & fixes tab, select Titlebar color scheme, FORCE, and select a dark theme.

Last bug i encountered, as said in my post above (cannot drag the window when using any theme) can be mitigated by placing a flexible space next to the url bar; dragging from there works.

https://i.imgur.com/05xfjYP.png

...tricky, but it is "set and forget", so i'm fine.

johnnydvc · 2017-12-13 16:36:44

NoSuck wrote:

johnnydvc wrote:
Any suggestions?
What exactly is the problem? The text color being too dark? That might not necessarily be Firefox's fault. Compare with the following:
export GTK_THEME=Adwaita:dark
firefox

Yeah that WAS the problem. I couldn't figure it out. On my other machine everything looks just fine. I even did a diff with the prefs.js files.
The problem was having a chrome folder inside my FF profile in the first place. I deleted it and the issue was resolved.

RESOLVED!

Arch Linux

#26 2017-12-03 23:44:46

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#27 2017-12-05 00:19:27

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#28 2017-12-05 01:06:22

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#29 2017-12-05 01:37:09

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#30 2017-12-05 12:57:18

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#31 2017-12-06 01:34:36

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#32 2017-12-06 11:34:06

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#33 2017-12-07 00:10:06

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#34 2017-12-11 15:43:12

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#35 2017-12-11 16:07:13

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#36 2017-12-11 16:13:00

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#37 2017-12-11 16:20:59

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#38 2017-12-12 23:33:14

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#39 2017-12-13 06:59:36

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#40 2017-12-13 10:22:28

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

#41 2017-12-13 16:36:44

Re: Firefox 57 issues thread

Board footer