Discussion in 'other software & services' started by strongsword, Oct 19, 2011.
At least two of those bugs are the same thing btw.
I'm not buying it. When Giorgio Maone ports NoScript successfully for Chrome I'll use it. Chromium is open source, does this also apply to Google Chrome? Why hasn't Giorgio written a NoScript for Chrome yet?
What functionality? If I've had problems with it, you can bet others have. There is no way I'm buying that it is in the same class as NoScript.
Now you're just in denial LOL!
It makes the Titanic look safe ... Jeez, it makes Flock look stable LOL!
Chrome is Chromium + PDF viewer and a few other completely irrelevant things.
You'd have to ask him why he hasn't. Plenty of devs are Firefox only. Does that mean their counterparts are somehow less sufficient? Makes no sense.
ScriptNo and NoScript both provide the ability to block objects on a page before they load. They both do this. That's the functionality.
I pointed to the bug page, of course others are having issues. It's irrelevant, the fact is that they can both accomplish the same thing. I personally have not had any issues.
If there's no way you're buying that it's in the same class as NoScript I won't argue about it. Seems like a waste of time.
Not really. I defend Google because I like Chrome and I think most criticisms of Google are out of date and due to tin-hat blogs spreading misinformation.
An interesting interpretation of bugs that have little to no bearing on security and only on stability/ease of use.
I am not saying that the two extensions are equal. NoScript has had more time to work out bugs. But in terms of whether or not the two can accomplish blocking scripts/objects on a page before they load... they both do this... that's a fact.
NoScript for Firefox still has some functionality that ScriptNo for Chrome hasn't.
Only NoScript offers Application Boundaries Enforcer, added protection against XSS, ClickJacking and META redirection.
BTW, my order for most secure browsers "out-of-the-box" is:
1. Latest IE
2. Latest Chrome
3. Latest Firefox
4. Latest Opera
5. Latest Safari
ScriptNo has ClickJacking protection I believe. I may be wrong.
There may be some things that NoScript does that ScriptNo does not. That's fair.
What I'm trying to say is that in terms of what they can potentially do, witht he WebRequest API, there is no difference.
From what I can gather it is some problem with the API. I think he reckons that NoScript just can't be ported successfully to Chrome. My guess is that all of the NoScript clones for Chrome just aren't in the same class. I used NotScripts & tried the farce known as ScriptNo. You can keep telling yourself that they are in the same league as NoScript, but I don't believe it.
Yes, the only difference is that NoScript actually works properly.
You are deluding yourself if you believe ScriptNo isn't a poor imitation of NoScript.
I bet you a pint of Butty Bach & a Vegemite sandwich that the future will show that ScriptNo will be viewed as a poor imitation of NoScript.
Do you think that there is a Google Queen like the Borg Queen? I often wonder.
Maybe not the best analogy, perhaps comparing real ale to pasteurised fizzy lager?
Yes, but NoScript does it well.
You don't really have to lol I'm going by what the developers are saying and the simple logic of what webrequest API does.
Whether it's in the same class or not isn't my point. As was pointed out there are a few features not yet implemented. But they CAN be implemented. The support is there.
NotScripts was a project wayyyy before WebRequest API and it's no longer developed.
ScriptNo is working just fine here. It's blocking scripts before they load.
I understand that it's an experimental build and it malfunctioned on your computer. That really has no bearing on whether it has the support to be just as good.
The dev seems fairly dedicated. We'll just have to wait and see.
I know that he can implement all of the features of NoScript it's just a matter of whether or not he will. The API support is there.
That's really my main point.
I'm not going to try to convince you that ScriptNo is better than or equal to NoScript. My point is that there is no longer anything holding back the project. The WebRequest API is still being developed and the project still has bugs but I would certainly bet that we'll see a working NoScript-for-chrome .
I would suggest someone makes a request for the dev to implement
I might later if no one else does.
I still think that if NoScript could be developed for Chrome Mr Maone would have done it by now.
At least it actually worked a little bit.
Make sure you have a back-up browser.
As I said, if NoScript could be properly ported for Chrome it would be. Lesser imitations are all you're going to get for the foreseeable future IMHO.
So was the NotScripts guy. I believe Giorgio Maone is pretty dedicated as well. And he has been for quite a while.
I will believe it when I see it. BTW, I prefer a jug rather than a sleeve for my beer.
Yes, it's just not a convincing one, sorry.
A/ You can't.
B/ It isn't.
Yes, that's just my point ... it won't actually be NoScript though will it? Otherwise Giorgio Maone would have written it.
I guess we need an updated statement from Giorgio Maone on this, to end the argument.
Can someone contact him and ask him about his views on the WebRequest API for Chrome and everything related? LOL
IE9 - SmartScreen Filter
Firefox is good when highly tweaked for privacy/anonymity (ie tor browser setting)
Safari (webkit sandboxing+ blocks advertising cookies by default+3rd party no need plugins)
Opera can use adblock.ini to block ads. no need extensions. Opera Turbo can be used as proxy.
chrome is last because of doubts with privacy (i don't really want to use chrome extensions because most of it can access everything I do)
whether a browser has built-in sandboxing mechanism or not is not a great matter for me because I have sandboxie
adblocking, click-to-play plugins, sites compatibility, malware filter and or privacy/anonymity features are what I look for in a browser.
Maybe he's waiting for the extension to no longer be experimental. Maybe he just prefers focusing on one browser.
It didn't work nearly as well as ScriptNo.
I've had 0 problems with it. I don't know what happened on your end but it's not happening on mine.
lol if it could be ported it would be but only if it's by the original dev? How does that make sense? Maone is the only guy who gets to make it?
I've realized that I can't convince you of anything lol
Well this just seems silly. Of course it won't be. Why does that matter at all?
Feel free to. Doesn't he post on here sometimes?
I believe he reads these very forums.
I'll make an account and ask.
Maybe it can't be done as well as NoScript.
For you maybe.
I'm not totally convinced ScriptNo isn't malware released by fanatical anti-Google Chrome terrorists.
*Light-bulb Moment* NOW you're getting it. If it could be done, it would have been. Otherwise you end up with ScriptNo the poor red-headed stepchild alien spawn distant cousin eighty six times removed with a bend sinister clone.
You ain't convincing me that ScriptNo is in the same league as NoScript, that's for sure.
Maybe. I don't see why not. WebRequest stops requests before they're made. It's possible that some of the fancier features may need mroe support - we'll need to hear back.
No that's a fact. It didn't block requests and it barely even blocked certain specific types of scripts. It just did not work as well.
Eh, I'm done. If this is what I'm arguing against there's no point.
We'll just have to disagree and wait until more information can be provided.
I guess so.
I'm just miffed that ScriptNo fried my portable Chrome. I had such a nice theme on it as well.
It's been fun.
I'm looking forward to that pint of Butty Bach.
I mean... there's just no reason why you can't have a NoScript alternative that isn't by Maone. He is not the best developer in the world. Someone else out there is just as competent - maybe even moreso.
ScriptNo or almost all Chrome extensions request for Data on All websites.
This item can read every page that you visit -- your bank, your web email, your Facebook page, and so on. Often, this kind of item needs to see all pages so that it can perform a limited task such as looking for RSS feeds that you might want to subscribe to.
Caution: Besides seeing all your pages, this item could use your credentials (cookies) to request or modify your data from websites.
^this worries me the most
my cookies is mine! I don't want anyone tasting my cookies
Yeah, no clue what messed your Chrome up. Could be interfering extensions. I really don't know.
We'll wait and see what the response is.
All Firefox extensions can access the data too, they just don't request a specific authorization (besides the one to be downloaded and the one to be installed). LOL
Almost all of my extensions (I think all buy my Adblock Plus) request access to a single page and that page alone.
This is the same exact case as with Firefox.
I'll stop using any extensions from now on.
Separate names with a comma.