Bug 1782501 Comment 51 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen) from comment #50)
> (In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #45)
> > Please nominate this for ESR140 also.
> 
> Requested uplift to ESR 140 and even ESR 115 on the assumption that users of old ESR might be running NoScript as defense in depth. 

Not just that: the Tor Browser and the Mullvad Browser are based on ESR and ship NoScript by default.
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen) from comment #50)
> (In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #45)
> > Please nominate this for ESR140 also.
> 
> Requested uplift to ESR 140 and even ESR 115 on the assumption that users of old ESR might be running NoScript as defense in depth. 

Not just that: the Tor Browser* and the Mullvad Browser are based on ESR and ship NoScript by default.

* We still maintain an ESR115-based "Legacy" version, too.
Revision 2 by
on 
(In reply to Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen) from comment #50)
> (In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #45)
> > Please nominate this for ESR140 also.
> 
> Requested uplift to ESR 140 and even ESR 115 on the assumption that users of old ESR might be running NoScript as defense in depth. 

Not just that: the Tor Browser* and the Mullvad Browser are based on ESR and ship NoScript by default.

`*` We still maintain an ESR115-based "Legacy" version, too.

Back to Bug 1782501 Comment 51