Firefox Extensions - My Picks

110 thoughts on “Firefox Extensions - My Picks”

1. Nice list!

   Personally I’d replace Adblock Edge for the vastly superior (even in this Beta state) “uBlock” https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

   and HTTP UserAgent cleaner for the “Random Agent Spoofer”: https://addons.mozilla.org/el/firefox/addon/random-agent-spoofer/ (Github version is better)

   Reply to 'Shadylayman'

   1. hi Shadylayman – funny you mention uBlock as i looked at it a short while ago, but too quickly to realize it’s advantages

      uBlock will certainly replace both Adblock Edge and Element Hiding Helper as it is a much more capable extension in every way

      thanks for mentioning it :)

      regarding HTTP UserAgent cleaner however, that one stays – it covers a whole lot more than just the user-agent string

      Reply to '12bytes'

2. For some time now, I’ve been using these Greasemonkey scripts: Anti-Adblock Killer 8.1, AdsBypasser 5.24.0 (gets around the very annoying Ad.fly, Linkbucks, etc. pages), and Ad Host Cleaner 1.3.4 — the last version I could find of this. Its motto was “Bye Bye Download Accelerator/Manager”, and for awhile it thwarted file hosts that wanted to force you to accept an .Exe file version each time, rather than a standard .Rar piece of an archive. Of course, this is very bad practice, easily giving a free ride to malware or who knows what. However, Ad Host Cleaner seems to no longer be effective. I was hoping you might know of some later script or extension (for FireFox or for Chrome) that still provides control over this ?

   Reply to 'Gene'

3. Can you share your complete settings (screenshot would be easier) for Clean Links addon? I used to use your recommendation of Pure-URL with its default settings because I haven’t had the time or knowledge to configure it to find a good balance between privacy and usability and apparently Clean Links is better than Pure-URL in every way. Cheers.

   Reply to 'mincedcarrot'

   1. i have event delegation mode enabled – all of the rest is personal preference

      so event delegation mode means that links are not rewritten (cleaned) when the page loads, but rather only when you actually click on a link that needs to be rewritten

      i much prefer the other mode, but the developer says the code driving it is not maintained – the non-event mode rewrites links at page load time and therefore you can make use of the CSS (highlight style) to give a visual cue as to what links on the page were rewritten

      if you need help with anything else, let me know

      Reply to '12Bytes'

4. I noticed that you recommended Shim Storage, then it was replaced with HTTP UserAgent, which was eventually dropped because development was abandoned. Do you still use Shim Storage? If not, how do manage DOM storage (if you bother)? For example, uMatrix clears DOM storage of the webpage if the cookies was blocked, but if it isn’t the storage is created–do you simply let it persist throughout the session? I don’t feel comfortable with that (I have cookies and cache deleted every 30 minutes), but haven’t found a way to clear DOM storage throughout the session.

   I’m also interested in the specifics of your Clean Links settings–do you mind posting a full screenshot of it? I’m not technical or patient enough to personalize my own settings and it would help a lot if I can use your specific configuration and then remove or add things as needed if things break for me (couldn’t find much information of other people’s configurations because it doesn’t seem to be a popular addon). Have you configured it to at least replace the defaults of Pure-URL addon?

   Reply to 'Yuri'

   1. hi Yuri – no, i don’t use Shim Storage and actually development has been resumed on HTTPUserAgent Cleaner (update: and then removed again) – although i think this extension is a worthwhile addition, there’s 3 reasons i’m no longer using it; 1), i wrote the English manual for it and found it very difficult (to put it mildly) to work with the dev because of the language barrier (he can barely understand/write EN) and his lack of helpfulness in providing answers to questions, 2), because it’s yet another extension that people will have to fiddle with when something breaks and 3), given the capability of uMatrix and the other add-ons listed here, i think it’s usefulness is somewhat limited, particularly as far as spoofing certain system and browser details – for example, spoofing your display/browser resolution will often render a page that will look horrible

      regarding uMatrix and DOM storage, i disallow cookies by default (as per the guide) and only allow them for the few domains i visit were they are actually needed – all of this is dumped when the browser exits as per my settings privacy.clearOnShutdown.* – so no, i don’t clear at regular intervals, but i will occasionally do a manual clear with the built-in history manager (selected are: cookies, cache, active logins, offline website data and site preferences)

      regarding Clean Links, the default settings are OK – the only real thing to be aware of is whether you enable Event Delegation Mode (it is enabled by default) – if you do not enable it, then you can take advantage of real-time link highlighting which i much prefer, however the dev has told me that the code driving this mode is not maintained, so i use the default mode (i’m trying to persuade him to work on this) – Redirect Watcher, HTTP Observer, CopyLink Controller and Link Tracking are also enabled

      Highlight Cleaned Links, Highlight Style and Replay Delay are all either of limited use or not used at all when running in Event Delegation Mode

      i think it is important to understand how to add strings to the Remove From Links regular expression, as well as what to look for in a URL that can be removed – unfortunately, learning regular expressions will present a lot more hassle than it’s worth for the average user and so i’d like to see a UI incorporated for building them where no knowledge of RegEx is necessary

      hope that answers your questions

      Reply to '12Bytes'

5. So to clarify, for the Clean Links addon, Event Delegation Mode is purely cosmetics and enabling/disabling it doesn’t affect the fact that links will always be cleaned when entered into the browser or clicked to go to that page? Is the only reason they want to disable it is that you want to see the clean version of links just because it looks nicer? Lastly, were you able to convert the garbage fields from Pure-URL addon to rules for Clean Links and if so, can you share them?

   Garbage fields from Pure-URL:

   utm_source, utm_medium, utm_term, utm_content, utm_campaign, utm_reader, utm_place, ga_source, ga_medium, ga_term, ga_content, ga_campaign, ga_place, yclid, openstat, feature@youtube.com, fb_action_ids, fb_action_types, fb_ref, fb_source, action_object_map, action_type_map, action_ref_map, ref@facebook.com, fref@facebook.com, hc_location@facebook.com, ref<ref_@imdb.com, src@addons.mozilla.org

   Thank you.

   Reply to 'mincedcarrot'

   1. actually the DOM traversal mode is cosmetic because it allows you to see what links are rewritten before clicking on them, but yes, basically you are right in that links are cleaned in either mode, however Event Delegation Mode is recommended by the dev

      i haven’t bothered incorporating the Pure URL garbage fields and, so far, haven’t seen a need to

      Reply to '12Bytes'

6. I last posted here on 6/6/15 (above). Awhile ago, when the switch to semi-mandatory Signed extensions came along, many developers (such as for the excellent ‘DownThemAll’) started making noises about dropping out entirely. However, it turned out that we users still had the option of circumventing this issue via a setting in About:Config.

   I don’t know how many of you are aware of it, but there is an even bigger sea change fast approaching, and it looks to be HUGE. Check out the following:

   http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-versions-of-firefox-prepare-for-its-biggest-change-ever/#comments-1e50e84a-27cb-4d26-b723-1f3fd3ffbe05

   and a discussion thread I started in response

   https://portableapps.com/node/54471

   So, if you didn’t know before now you do, and won’t be shocked when this occurs. A whole lot of our favorite extensions may simply be going away, for good. Some very major ones like Greasemonkey may avoid that, adapting with special updates. I don’t know what the implications may be for various scripts we may be running under GM . . . .

   If you have some encouraging words to add — maybe some positive details that have not yet come to light — I’d be very glad to read them.

   Reply to 'Gene'

   1. hi Gene – i’m aware of E10S and also what appear to be other major changes coming regarding extensions

      i don’t know how this will pan out, but, to be honest, i’m ready to get of the FF bus anyway and maybe this will be the push that does it

      however this seems to suggest that there is a method to disable the feature…

      If we run into issues, we can slow the roll-out, pause it, or even disable E10sS for those who got it.

      Reply to '12Bytes'

7. Hi,
   What do you think about this new extension? https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/behavioral-keyboard-privacy/?src=search
   It seems interesting but how to check if it does work?
   Thanks

   Reply to 'Osine'

   1. fingerprinting by analyzing keystroke timings doesn’t sound like a far-fetched idea, but this attack relies on JavaScript which means it wouldn’t work for sites where JS is disabled (and it should be disabled globally by default in my opinion)

      also, unless the extension randomizes the dwell and gap times, i would think that its effectiveness would be very limited since your dwell and gap times are now perfectly consistent and therefore quite unique assuming that few people use the extension (currently only 20 for Firefox), however even if a lot of people used it, you could still be easily fingerprinted if you set the timings to something other than the defaults – assuming the min and max values are 0 to 99, and assuming i’m calculating correctly, that allows for 9800 unique possibilities (excluding the default of 50-50) and if the max were 999, then 998,000 possibilities (excluding the default of 50-50)

      even given the above, i’m not sure it’s a bad thing, but i think you would really want to change the dwell-gap times once in a while

      Reply to '12Bytes'

8. Hi, do you do recommend any form to save bookmarks online? i was using gmakrs with google marks but was discontinued long ago.

   Reply to 'seba'

   1. in the interest of privacy, i would personally recommend against doing this unless you’re going to use your own server, unless you find a service with a strong privacy policy and will encrypt your data

      Reply to '12Bytes'

9. BetterStop is unmaintained for five years. Is there any alternative (WebExtension or not)?

   Reply to 'cwave'

   1. none that i’m aware of – if you find something, let me know :)

      Reply to '12Bytes'

10. Follow-on to my post from 6/27/16: The End is near. XUL extensions end in August for the ESR branch of FF — which is where you have had to be for awhile now in order to continue using them. (And we’ve already seen where you had to revert Greasemonkey back to v. 3.17, in order to retain the use of many existing scripts. Even the possibility of that reversion became much more difficult, outside of ESR.) Every other discussion of extensions or scripts now becomes tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I read the blog from the developers of the excellent DownThemAll extension, who stated that the replacement APIs are **feeble** in comparison to what was in place before, very much calling in to question the future of such extensions, and pointing the way towards these developers simply quitting altogether. And I take them at their word. This is all supposedly in the service of browser security, but then you really have to ask “At What Price, Security ?|

    Reply to 'Gene'

    1. thanks for the comment Gene

       i suspect there are others besides myself who have become disillusioned with Firefox – i’ve been using it since before the 1.0 stable release and, for a long time, enjoyed watching its growth – at this point however, the only reason i still use it is because there is nothing else out there that can match its functionality given its extensibility and Google Chrome is out of the question – and actually i don’t use FF, but rather Waterfox which will apparently continue to support XUL extensions into the foreseeable future – the problem with that is, although all is ok now, the developers of the XUL extensions who can’t port their work to web extensions because of the feeble API, aren’t going to continue to develop their extensions

       Reply to '12Bytes'

       1. Yes, the term ‘disillusion’ is the proper one. I’m looking at Palemoon, GNU Icecat and the slow development of K-Meleon as alterantives.

          Reply to 'Disgruntled Netizen'

          1. i actually went back to using Firefox for now – Pale Moon is based on very old code – i thought Icecat was dead, but apparently it’s still developed

             Reply to '12Bytes'

             1. Icecat is a fork I had not previously heard of, but I’ll check into it.
                I’m continuing to use the final “5290 / Legacy” release of Portable FF — because the functionality provided by certain extensions is absolutely essential to my use of a browser — and will continue using it to the *bitter end*, whatever that may be. (Quite possibly a comparable situation to my use of Win 7, which supports some key software that the W-10 I happen to despise does not.) At some point, I suppose that stance could become untenable. Already some hints on that: e.g., a leading VPN product reports that it requires FF 57 or later. But I’ll cross that bridge when I must.

                Others I correspond with on some mailing lists and online forums, both here and abroad, are in agreement on this. I’ve had major arguments about the prior XUL extensions with the proprietor over at portableapps.com, who maintained the FF portables and others. He’d say things like, “Well, that extension only had 50K users.” Even if that were true, the dude just does not get it ! And, from what I saw of the crop of current, suggested “instead of” extensions, they are simply pathetic and woefully inadequate.

                One partial silver lining here is that we may be able to cope by doing something that is arguably necessary, anyway. There is no reason why we must be restricted to one browser, particularly since the portable editions make this coexistence a lot easier. The OS is minimally aware of their presence, and so they should not clash. Depending on which computer it is, I run a mix of FF, Opera, and Chrome. (IE too. Although I never could stand it, sometimes you just can’t avoid having to use it.) Either due to poor web-page design, errors, or browser-centric formatting, it often happens that a particular page will not display or print properly in one or more browsers, but will in another. All too often, text will be super-imposed over other text making it unreadable, or will run off of the margins, now matter how you adjust your screen, etc. So, having alternatives becomes a virtual necessity. Even if their functionality begins to erode, the longer I can continue to use those FF extensions — at least in some places — the better.

                Reply to 'Gene'

                1. I’m continuing to use the final “5290 / Legacy” release of Portable FF — because the functionality provided by certain extensions is absolutely essential to my use of a browser

                   i thought the same thing, but i managed to find WebExtensions to replace nearly all of the XUL add-ons – if you want i can try and find replacements for you if you tell me what you need

                   Already some hints on that: e.g., a leading VPN product reports that it requires FF 57 or later

                   that sounds strange – no VPN should have any dependency on any browser since the browser is not in the VPN loop, unless you’re referring to a VPN browser add-on, in which case i wouldn’t recommend that – if you’re looking for a VPN, have a look at AirVPN – that’s my referral link which helps me out a little bit – also NordVPN – i’m just testing out their service now

                   Reply to '12Bytes'

11. The link to smooth scrolling tweaks on this page (https://12bytes.org/tech/firefox/firefox-extensions-my-picks) doesn’t list any smooth scrolling.

    Am I missing it?

    Reply to 'some-dude'

    1. thanks for pointing that out – i corrected the issue – you can find the scroll tweak code here

       Reply to '12Bytes'

12. Useful collection on extensions! I have it linked to go over more carefully – there were a few I have never seen before, including “Toggle fonts” which I have already installed:-) and ‘Site Bleacher’ which I want to study more carefully as a replacement for some add-ons I already use.

    One that I find very useful is: “Drag-Select Link Text” by Kestrel

    It’s a productivity add-on which lets you select/highlight text within a link. This has been a personal FF annoyance of mine for too many years and the extension has worked flawlessly in the many months I’ve used it.

    Reply to 'gazoo'

    1. re: Site Bleacher – it’s the only cleaner i’m aware of that can remove IndexedDB storage, other than something like Temporary Containers, but that creates new problems

       re: Drag-Select Link Text – press the Alt key while dragging the cursor over a link – you can do this even in the middle of a link

       Reply to '12Bytes'

       1. About indexedDB, have you tried Forget Me Not?

          Reply to 'Ray'

          1. hi Ray – Forget Me Not, and all other cleaners with the exception of Site Bleacher, only clean IDB storage on browser start, close, or manually – Site Bleacher is the only one i know of that cleans automatically per-domain

             maybe one day, far far away, Mozilla will FINALLY improve the WebExtension API to allow proper auto-cleaning of IDB… maybe (not holding breath)

             thanks for mentioning though :)

             Reply to '12Bytes'

             1. I would use Site Bleacher, but it doesn’t offer enough options for whitelisting, etc. I’m actually looking for an addon that clears indexedDB manually. Got any recommendations? I used to use StoragErazor, but that appears to no longer work for v65 and up.

                I do use Site Bleacher on Chromium though due to the lack of options there.

                Reply to 'Ray'

                1. hi Ray – you can whitelist sites with Site Bleacher, though i suspect you already know this

                   as for alternatives for manual cleaning, search AMO for ‘indexeddb’ – there are a few – also see if Cookie AutoDelete can do IDB

                   just know that only SB will auto-clean by domain – all others will only clean manually or at browser start/exit

                   Reply to '12Bytes'

13. ever heard of Nuke Anything? If so, thoughts on it?

    Reply to 'Shadomatrix'

    1. as far as privacy and tracking, i believe it’s useless – all it seems to do is hide page elements (and only temporarily) which i assume it does with CSS – it doesn’t prevent resources from being downloaded

       Reply to '12Bytes'

       1. I use Noscript, it does a great job to prevent malware, it has been proven and Edward Snowden, Tells people to use it.

          Reply to 'HC'

          1. i prefer uBlock and uMatrix, but it’s a personal choice – in my case uBO (and uM to an extent) is mandatory, so i see NS as largely redundant, plus i’m a fan of simplicity and don’t care for any “suite” software – also the NS developer pulled some very unethical crap a while back

             that Snowden recommends NS carries little weight in my book – has he compared it to uBO/uM? if you’re using the Tor browser, then yes, you’ll be using NS since it comes bundled with it

             that said, NS may offer some additional protection against XSS, but JS, malware and CSRF are all covered by Firefox and/or uBO/uM with the proper lists enabled

             Reply to '12Bytes'

14. Thank for everything…
    What is you opinion about addons Don’t Track Me Google and Google Analytics Blocker?

    Reply to 'Fernandel'

    1. i would advise against any security/privacy extension that is domain specific – my thinking here is, what’s the point of sanitizing google if you allow everyone else to track you?

       if you use uBlock Origin and/or uMatrix, you can filter or block any domain you want – with uBlock you can subscribe to a variety of filter lists that also protect against google and other domain tracking

       lastly, i would advise against using any google services directly – if you want to use their search engine, consider doing so through a proxy, such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, etc. (there are many) – if you do use google directly, at least disable cookies and JavaScript for their domains

       Reply to '12Bytes'

15. 12bytes,

    What’s your opinion on Tampermonkey as an alternative to Firemonkey? We already know that Greasemonkey is bad privacy, but is Tampermonkey better?

    Reply to 'Dan'

    1. hi Dan – regarding privacy i think TM is next in line after FM, however regarding functionality it appears GM offers the most and it’s the one recommended by the ‘arkenfox’ crew since one or more of their privacy scripts depend on it (more info here)

       Reply to '12Bytes'

       1. Thanks 12B for the prompt reply.

          I kind of like FM more, and the developer seems like a stand up guy. I’ll probably stick with FireMonkey.

          Reply to 'Dan'

          1. i agree – i use FM also, though only for a couple scripts at the moment

             Reply to '12Bytes'

             1. If I may ask, what scripts do you use?

                On greasyfork.org it’s a mess of scripts for kid’s games. A useful script in there is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

                Reply to 'Dan'

                1. i’m actually aiming to dump my script manager so i only have 2 scripts at the moment; ‘ig-shutup’ by ‘tlrib’ which hides some junk on Instagram (and which i can replace with my own CSS) and YouTube: Age Verification Bypass (https://greasyfork.org/en/users/221926) which i need to find a replacement for in the form of an extension

                   Reply to '12Bytes'