Mypal 68 in Windows XP - Custom Buttons and Extensions

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I am well aware.  The ONLY reason I "installed" was for PROCESS MODE TOGGLE.  Without that button, THERE WAS ZERO REASON FOR ME TO DIVE FURTHER.  ZERO!

[AstroSkipper]

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I am well aware.  The ONLY reason I "installed" was for PROCESS MODE TOGGLE.  Without that button, THERE WAS ZERO REASON FOR ME TO DIVE FURTHER.  ZERO!

Just a small hint. My custom button is called PMT - Process Mode Toggler. It toggles the process mode and is therefore a toggler. Back to your statement. If you really want to install the Custom Buttons extension for only one custom button without any deeper interest in Mypal 68 anyway, since you are a user who always deletes everything after a short time, then it's not worth the effort at all. This extension actually only makes sense if you want to retrofit missing features or if you plan to replace a lot of extensions by custom buttons which have only a very low resource consumption and are much less restricted than webextensions. These custom buttons can do things  which webextensions are not allowed to do . And especially my self-created custom buttons do exactly what I want them to do.

Edited January 30 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[feodor2]

I do not get why @AstroSkipper do not want put it for all available.

There is nothing extraordinary, you can make any custum button you want, take another similar button available as example and replace inside its setting with process switch.

 

[AstroSkipper]

On 1/31/2025 at 11:45 PM, feodor2 said:

I do not get why @AstroSkipper do not want put it for all available.

Then you simply haven't read many of the posts in this thread and in my thread about UXP browsers. FYI, I have neither ruled out nor promised a release of the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button even though I generally create custom buttons for personal use. I have written at least six new custom buttons for Mypal 68 in the last few months. And long before that quite a few for the UXP browsers. After releasing some of them, I could not recognise any significant interest.  BTW, I have also deepened my JavaScript and CSS knowledge considerably to modify already existing UC.JS scripts and especially to create new ones from scratch. Both are in full swing.  It should be mentioned at this point that everything is purely self-taught. Programming is just a hobby of mine. I never learned it professionally. Anyway! Due to a lack of real interest in legacy custom buttons, it seems pointless to me to publish my custom buttons at the moment. I have put it in a nutshell here:

On 1/28/2025 at 1:29 PM, AstroSkipper said:

As far as I'm concerned, I can put it in mathematical or statistical terms. There is a clear, linear correlation between the statistical features of user interest and willingness of a developer to publish with a correlation coefficient r of r > 0.95. 

Apart from that, I have already published so many different things in this forum that it is difficult for me to keep track. But I don't necessarily have to publish things that nearly nobody appreciates or wants to use.

On 1/31/2025 at 11:45 PM, feodor2 said:

There is nothing extraordinary, you can make any custum button you want, take another similar button available as example and replace inside its setting with process switch.

That's exactly how I see it. But we are probably the exceptions here.   And then the user would also have to familiarise themselves with the special JavaScript language and its syntax provided by the Custom Buttons extension (there are commands and variables that do not exist in the standard JavaScript language) ...   After all, a similar button as a template for a desired one is not always available. 

Long story short: the ball is now in the court of the readers of this thread. 

Edited February 1 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[feodor2]

On 2/1/2025 at 1:25 PM, AstroSkipper said:

the user would also have to familiarise themselves with the special JavaScript language and its syntax provided by the Custom Buttons extension

Not necessary - here the custumbutton already published by you

/*Initialization Code*/ var prefName = "security.csp.enable"; var enabledImage = ""; var disabledImage = ""; this.onclick = function (aE) { if (aE.button === 0) { Services.prefs.setBoolPref(prefName, !Services.prefs.getBoolPref(prefName)); setSelfImage(); } }; function setSelfImage() { if (Services.prefs.getBoolPref(prefName)) self.image = enabledImage; else self.image = disabledImage; } setSelfImage();

replace "security.csp.enable" with the desired thing

 

On 2/1/2025 at 1:25 PM, AstroSkipper said:

I have neither ruled out nor promised a release of the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button even though I generally create custom buttons for personal use.

Why to tease then?

[AstroSkipper]

On 2/3/2025 at 4:05 PM, feodor2 said:

On 2/1/2025 at 2:25 PM, AstroSkipper said:

the user would also have to familiarise themselves with the special JavaScript language and its syntax provided by the Custom Buttons extension

Not necessary - here the custumbutton already published by you

/*Initialization Code*/ var prefName = "security.csp.enable"; var enabledImage = ""; var disabledImage = ""; this.onclick = function (aE) { if (aE.button === 0) { Services.prefs.setBoolPref(prefName, !Services.prefs.getBoolPref(prefName)); setSelfImage(); } }; function setSelfImage() { if (Services.prefs.getBoolPref(prefName)) self.image = enabledImage; else self.image = disabledImage; } setSelfImage();

replace "security.csp.enable" with the desired thing

Toggle CSP is a custom button I created for only toggling one preference in about:config and made it available almost two and a half years ago. To be honest, there wasn't much interest in this button. And your suggestion to use this button as a template is a little off the mark. Toggling the browser.tabs.remote.autostart preference has no direct effect while the browser is running and can't be a solution as you actually should know.  More steps are to perform. If you compare the two buttons, you should notice that the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button has a much more complex functionality than the Toggle CSP custom button. BTW, I have revised the Toggle CSP custom button some time ago and designed it so that the manual switching of the security.csp.enable preference, for example, in about:config is also registered by the custom button to always display the correct status via the button image as well as via the button tooltip, even in such or similar cases.   However, the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button does not need such modification, and thus, I have already removed it again, as solely toggling the browser.tabs.remote.autostart preference has no effect on the current browser session in terms of its process mode. 

On 2/3/2025 at 4:05 PM, feodor2 said:

On 2/1/2025 at 2:25 PM, AstroSkipper said:

I have neither ruled out nor promised a release of the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button even though I generally create custom buttons for personal use.

Why to tease then?

Teasing?   I do not tease anyone.  I just demonstrated what custom buttons are capable of, and I made it clear to think about publishing if sufficient interest was shown. No more, no less. However, I cannot see this at the moment. And to be honest, I don't know what your problem actually is. Regarding the PMT - Process Mode Toggler custom button, which I already made available for you only, I am the creator and decide for myself if and when I publish something. Just like you do when it comes to Mypal 68. One thing is clear: you are you, and I am me. No pills will help.

@feodor2 If you want to tell me something specific, you should articulate it as clearly as possible. I’m not a fan of reading between the lines or subliminal hints.

Edited February 7 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[AstroSkipper]

On 1/27/2025 at 9:23 PM, AstroSkipper said:

On 1/27/2025 at 8:12 PM, feodor2 said:

Ublock 1.61.2 also works as usually, on the single process logger opens by the context menu on "new tab" or "new window".

For you the last good version may be 1.56

At the moment, I have reverted to the last officially compatible version 1.46. But I will test the 1.56 version again. Thanks for the hint!

@feodor2 I moved to the most recent, final version of uBlock Origin which is 1.62 at the moment. The logger works fine in multi-process mode but in single-process mode, the logger popup window is very unstable. Some extensions, scripts and whatever else interfere considerably with the loading and display of the logger popup. It often remains empty. Resizing the logger window helps in some cases. I investigated this further and found that changing the advanced setting loggerPopupType from popup to normal may be a solution. In this case, the logger is opened in a normal window in which it loads fine as far as I could see until now. At least, on my computer with its current configuration. I'll keep an eye on that. 

Edited February 22 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[AstroSkipper]

On 2/21/2025 at 12:40 AM, AstroSkipper said:

On 1/27/2025 at 9:23 PM, AstroSkipper said:

On 1/27/2025 at 8:12 PM, feodor2 said:

Ublock 1.61.2 also works as usually, on the single process logger opens by the context menu on "new tab" or "new window".

For you the last good version may be 1.56

At the moment, I have reverted to the last officially compatible version 1.46. But I will test the 1.56 version again. Thanks for the hint!

@feodor2 I moved to the most recent, final version of uBlock Origin which is 1.62 at the moment. The logger works fine in multi-process mode but in single-process mode, the logger popup window is very unstable. Some extensions, scripts and whatever else interfere considerably with the loading and display of the logger popup. It often remains empty. Resizing the logger window helps in some cases. I investigated this further and found that changing the advanced setting loggerPopupType from popup to normal may be a solution. In this case, the logger is opened in a normal window in which it loads fine as far as I could see until now. At least, on my computer with its current configuration. I'll keep an eye on that. 

P.S.: @feodor2 Now, I have realised what you meant by using the context menu. I have never opened the logger interface via its icon context menu before. Indeed, this also works in both process modes to properly open the logger in a tab or window. However, changing the advanced setting loggerPopupType from popup to normal is of interest for those who prefer only one normal left-click on the logger icon as usual.

Edited February 23 by AstroSkipper

[nicolaasjan]

Since the Firefox root certificate expiration on March 14, the addon tab now looks like this :

(at least I think that is the cause)

Manually downloading updated versions and dragging them into this tab still works.

@feodor2 Could Mypal be compiled with the new certificates?

Are the relevant certificates here in the source tree of Mypal?

The `addons-public.crt` in there says this:

Certificate:
    Data:
        Version: 3 (0x2)
        Serial Number: 1 (0x1)
        Signature Algorithm: sha384WithRSAEncryption
        Issuer: C = US, O = Mozilla Corporation, OU = Mozilla AMO Production Signing Service, CN = root-ca-production-amo
        Validity
            Not Before: Mar 17 22:53:57 2015 GMT
            Not After : Mar 14 22:53:57 2025 GMT
        Subject: C = US, O = Mozilla Corporation, OU = Mozilla AMO Production Signing Service, CN = root-ca-production-amo
        Subject Public Key Info:
            Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
                Public-Key: (4096 bit)

---<snip>---

Can be checked with openssl like this:

openssl x509 -in addons-public.crt -inform DER -text

BTW, current Firefox certificates are in .pem format and are located in `./security/manager/ssl`.

 

Could the relevant ones be put in the source tree of Mypal and recompile?

They may have to be converted to .crt:

Windows .bat file to do that for all .pem files in current directory:

@echo off
for %%i in (*.pem) do (
    openssl x509 -outform der -in "%%i" -out "%%~ni.crt"
)

Mozilla's current `addons-public.crt` will then be valid until Dec. 3 2200.

    Data:
        Version: 3 (0x2)
        Serial Number: 1 (0x1)
        Signature Algorithm: sha384WithRSAEncryption
        Issuer: C = US, O = Mozilla Corporation, OU = Mozilla AMO Production Signing Service, CN = root-ca-production-amo
        Validity
            Not Before: Feb  1 00:00:00 2024 GMT
            Not After : Dec  3 00:00:00 2200 GMT
        Subject: C = US, O = Mozilla Corporation, OU = Mozilla AMO Production Signing Service, CN = root-ca-production-amo
        Subject Public Key Info:
            Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
                Public-Key: (4096 bit)

 

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, nicolaasjan said:

@feodor2 Could Mypal be compiled with the new certificates?

Updating the embedded root certificates of Mypal 68 is of course a very good idea and important for using this browser in the future. 

[nicolaasjan]

13 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

Updating the embedded root certificates of Mypal 68 is of course a very good idea and important for using this browser in the future. 

Even more important would be applying relevant security fixes from Mozilla (like Moonchild does), otherwise using this browser is Russian Roulette.

[AstroSkipper]

46 minutes ago, nicolaasjan said:

Even more important would be applying relevant security fixes from Mozilla (like Moonchild does), otherwise using this browser is Russian Roulette.

You are absolutely right. If any security patches can be applied by @feodor2, then this should be done in any case. Of course, one should also be aware that activating user scripts or using certain hacks has unfortunately a negative impact on the security of Mypal 68. I, for example, use both. But I also know what I'm doing. 

Edited March 19 by AstroSkipper

[AstroSkipper]

3 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Of course, one should also be aware that activating user scripts or using certain hacks has unfortunately a negative impact on the security of Mypal 68. I, for example, use both. But I also know what I'm doing. 

That's why I do not get any security warnings when opening the Add-ons Manager :

Edited March 20 by AstroSkipper

[nicolaasjan]

7 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

That's why I do not get any security warnings when opening the Add-ons Manager :

Security by obscurity?

[AstroSkipper]

7 hours ago, nicolaasjan said:

Security by obscurity?

No. But no unnecessary security bullying when I use self-modified or unsigned extensions or themes. I don't need such Mozilla checks. They don't exist in New Moon, either. So in my case, I prefer to get rid of them.  However, for the normal user, such security checks are completely ok and in certain cases even sensible. 

Edited March 20 by AstroSkipper
Update of content