Do you use NoScript ( Firefox Addon )

Discussion in 'polls' started by Joeythedude, Jan 4, 2012.

?

Do you use noscript to handle Javascript

  1. Yes

    90 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. No

    84 vote(s)
    48.3%
  1. carat
    Offline

    carat Guest

    I second that and I read that NoScript makes Firefox about 16 % slower ...
  2. Hungry Man
    Online

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    16% slower to start up.
  3. carat
    Offline

    carat Guest

    I see :)
  4. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    programs like NS and RP are for people who have a little bit of geeks in them.

    my own strategy is to permanently allow only a few sites, the bare minimum.
    i like to use the option to temporarily allow or block any given site.
    then, when you close the browser the temporary list is cleared.

    this way, you can avoid managing a long list of exceptions.
    and security is increased because you decrease the chance of one of the thing on a whitelist to 'go bad'.
  5. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    actually, there seem to be quite a bit of overlap between NS & RP in the sameness of the sites/resources they block for any particular website.


    not sure if it's worth the extra aggravation to manage 2 apps like this.
    i'll give it more testing...
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  6. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    I thought that at first, but I have kept RP on both Firefox & SeaMonkey. Well, except for the portable versions I use of those browsers.
  7. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Ermm ... yes, I forgot to mention that. Once you have whitelisted your regular sites you shouldn't feel so tortured though. Usually the first script in the RP list allowed enables you to see most of the page. Others like photobucket are fairly obvious to allow. If you hover the mouse over the blocked item it usually shows you what it is in tooltips. You have to remember to turn these back on in SeaMonkey if you have forgotten you have turned them off! I must say, I do feel pretty safe with a combination of NS & RP.
  8. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    right.

    if you are willing to put up with the inconvenience i think it is great security.

    i think the only things i have permanently allowed are google, youtube and it's dependencies, and paypal.

    i think the whole idea is a great concept really.
    i don't think i would recommend this to Joe/Jane Average though.
    especially the kind of people who 'lose' their file if it's not saved in either My Documents or Desktop, ;)
  9. tlu
    Offline

    tlu Registered Member

    Well, in this case using RP is really a torture ;) I think one should at least start the Initial Configuration (or whatever it's called in the English version) in the General tab in order to make it useable.
  10. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    i cleared the default whitelist to start from scratch.
    i enjoy pain. ;)
  11. tlu
    Offline

    tlu Registered Member

    Ah, a masochist. Do prefer pigskin or cowhide for your whip? :D:D:D
  12. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Yes, I'd argue it can seriously tweak the performance of even the veritable NoScript. I don't feel completely bulletproof when surfing with these two enabled, but I think I'm wearing a pretty good kevlar vest, to use a clumsy extended metaphor.

    You're right about the average Joe/Jane, but they wouldn't be Wilder's members though would they? ;)
  13. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    tlu & daveski: hahaha! :D

    anyway, i finally removed RP.
    i thought using both NS and RP was just too much.

    it sure is interesting to see how many scripts that have nothing to do with the content you are interested in are trying to load.
    sometimes, you can have over a dozen of these bloodsuckers trying to latch on. lol
  14. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    not using noscript.....it's a hassle.....
  15. jitte
    Offline

    jitte Registered Member

    It's the first extension I install on a new build of Firefox or Seamonkey.
  16. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    It's the first layer of protection for my pc. But NoScript is hurting my browsing experience. Even if I allow everything in a page I am unable to view a google translated page or a pdf file in the browser.

    Can anybody help?
  17. bo elam
    Online

    bo elam Registered Member

    On my PC, allowing google.com and googleusercontent.com gets it done.

    Bo
  18. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    Well mine does not. Anyways, I've removed NoScript. Great protection but makes my browsing experience sloppy.
  19. bo elam
    Online

    bo elam Registered Member

    You probably had googleusercontent or google as untrusted. Thats why google translate did not work even when you allowed everything. To make it work, add the addresses to the whitelist.

    You can try it using Sandboxie. Install NoScript sandboxed, add the addresses in the whitelist and you ll see Goodle translate web pages. :)

    Bo
  20. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    Oh yes now it works. Thanks a lot Bo. :thumb:
  21. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    But now what about the pdf files? What should I add to the whitelist to view a pdf file in my browser(Firefox)? Just to let you know, I temporarily trust everything that appears in the context menu when you hover the cursor over the NoScript icon. And those 2 google items do not appear when google translate page loads. I also allow everything when a pdf file loads but it is just blocked.
  22. bo elam
    Online

    bo elam Registered Member

    When you "temporarily trust everything", the two Google items do appear "temporarily" in your whitelist. They go away from the whitelist when you close your browser or revoke temporary permissions.

    On the PDF issue, uncheck "forbid other plugins" in Options>Embedding. That should do it for you.

    NoScript :cool: is a beauty, don't let it go.

    Bo
  23. ams963
    Offline

    ams963 Registered Member

    Okay thanks.
  24. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    got to agree.

    i tried NoScript a few years ago and hated it to no end.

    now, i would not browse without it.

    lots of sites work well with javascripts neutered.
    those who do not, it's just a matter of allowing a couple of things.

    for example, some sites might meed google.com, googleapis and gstatic, for example.
    they all belong to Google.
    you get to know pretty quick the basic thing that need to be allowed.

    you can temporarily allow all the page if you trust the site.
    you can also permanently allow stuff that you really trust.
    though it's good to keep these to a minimum, i think.

    give it a chance for a couple of days.
    it's not as bad as it seems. ;)
  25. tancrackers
    Offline

    tancrackers Registered Member

    NoScript seems WAY too powerful for my taste. It just seems too tedious whitelisting scripts while everything is automatically disabled by default. Javascript is essentially during web browsing. I prefer Adblockplus with a good adblock and privacy filter subscription.