We don't need a plugin. Like you said there's NoScript and Adblock. Why would you need another one?

@ djpailo, then don't use it when/if it comes out. :) It's just another choice/option you can use.

I hear you out. I', just worried all these side projects to interfering with work on new updates to the main programme.

Ah i get you. I think 1.6 is very stable compared to the older spybot versions. But rest assured program updates will keep coming ha. Besides, most of these "side projects" make up or are part of the program eventually anyways, so it's good they are taking more features into account and test them thoroughly. :)

But i hear ya.

Does plugin will become supported in all Firefox versions (1.x,2.x,3.x)?

As you con see, the status is still "Suggested", not even "Accepted" - there are no fixed plans ;)
There's not much documentation around for Firefox Windows binary addons (the pure XUL variant wouldn't be optimal since getting a lot of existing code would have to be rewritten and later this copy maintained as well).
So, no fear for interference... this hasn't really got a high priority ;)

I don't think it is necessary for two reason. First, there are multiple programs currently available [NoScript and Adblock]. I run Adblock and the only reason I ever turn it off is to stream watch TV shows from the major networks. In addition, if you have Spybot running in the background with Teatimer, doesn't that already protect you from these types of programs. Plus if you Immunize you computer daily/weekly, you should never have problems with this. Maybe a better approach is to look at NoScript and Adblock, and redevelop Teatimer and Immunize to close any gaps with these programs leave open with their usage, this way the spybot user gets better usage of his currently available tools without the need for more; Simplicity with scanning programs is best.

You mistake the immunization for active code. The immunization makes use of the browsers own methods of blocking, but cannot be extended beyond that.

And TeaTimer cannot access the browser internally, it could "properly modify" the browser interface as a plugin could. An (outdated) example would be the phishing protection we have in the IE plugin. Firefox 3 now has improved there, so this would no longer be necessary, but just from TeaTimer, we could never have implemented something as elegant as what the Mozilla team did.

Simplicity thus also means to keep separate functions separate instead of forcing everything into one thing ;) Why force something that affects only FF users into a part where it would run on Opera-only user machines as well?

Also, while the 2.0 Resident module already blocks URLs on system level, we've always been friends of multiple layers of protection.

All this isn't saying that I personally am not content with NoScrip and AdBlock ;)

We recently discussed a concept on getting the browser block thing modularized enough to have one central piece, plus browser specific parts, to avoid having to re-implement the same thing over and over. In regards to a FF plugin, this means that one is less difficult than having to re-implement inside the XUL framework or having to use a DLL.

Would be really high-tech this one!!

Sorry to comment late on this, but I believe that it would be a much welcome extension. We have extensions like TACO with poor implementation of blocking, NoScript is excellent for scripting and content issues, Adblock is neither here nor there, not really a security tool, finjin is a great concept but greatly limited, WOT has too many false positives and the interface is annoying and siteadvisor is just too buggy and slow.

SO if we can get a true blood SSD implemented in Fx with active checking and monitoring, it would be invaluable in my opinion because it adds a layer of protection that Fx is sorely missing and the current extensions don't provide too well. IMHO.

The thing I mentioned is now part of Spybot 2.0, allowing a plugin of the type I mentioned :)