A suggestion:

make it so that the user can add sites to NoScript's "force the following sites to use HTTPS connection only" list feature http://noscript.net/faq#qa6_3

Thanks for the suggestion. Is there a reason you prefer NoScript over HTTPS Everywhere?

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

If I can do the work with an addon I already use (NoScript) which is awesome btw, then why install an extra one, which would inevitably consume extra system resources - there's no reason.

I will look into how NoScript works for this, but I suspect they add items directly to a database (unlike HTTPS Everywhere which allows importing XML rules). HTTPS Everywhere works because we can just write rules without actually touching their extension in any way (we just automate something the user would have to do manually with a text editor).

Unless NoScript works the same way, we'd have to open their database and add the rules directly, which is not acceptable.

Thank you.

So NoScript stores URLS in a string preference (noscript.httpsForced). It's possible to change this from another extension, but I'm pretty sure it's against Mozilla policy to do so (if not, it's still bad form to be editing another addon's preferences). Sorry, but I don't feel like I can do much on this.

I may look into basic HTTPS enforcement for HTTPS Finder eventually, but I believe using NoScript or HTTPS Everywhere is a better option (due to those addons having more developers and experience).

If you're still having problems with HTTPS Everywhere, I'd encourage you to report the issues here: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere/development.

Thanks

Actually, what I can do is continue working on HTTPS Finder (there are still some very noticeable bugs which need to be addressed). Once I am comfortable with where HTTPS Finder is, I can try to contact the developer of NoScript and try to get their input/thoughts on it.

It would be very easy to do programmatically, but I don't want to be editing someone else's extension without working with them on it.

I will keep this in mind and hopefully revisit it in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.

You're welcome. Keep up the good work

Issue 61 is a duplicate of this.