ScriptSafe former ScriptNo: Discussion

No, I've confirmed hogndog's results on Windows in both my personal Chrome profile and a default Chrome portable.

 

Re: NoScript / ScriptSafe addons

tlu is right about ScriptSafe being unreliable. Tests results might vary as they did in my case from one to the other, but it depends on whether or not the test site's page is refreshed. On first try it failed 4 tests, then it failed 2 on the next test. I got the exact same results as tlu's using ScripBlock.

 

Re: NoScript / ScriptSafe addons

Have any of you tried Chrome portable to eliminate profile settings from the equation? I've never seen a fail so far, so what is your testing methodology that's resulting in failure?

 

^J_L, when you refresh those pages (the 6 links from tlu's post), do you still get a 'javascript disabled' on all 6 of them when using Chrome portable?
Or when you've opened those links in 6 tabs and then re-open them again, having 12 tabs open in total, do you still get 'javascript disabled' on the last 6 tabs?
(Haven't tried Chrome portable myself. Crude testing was done on Chrome installed on Fedora19).

 

I just used Chrome stable in Linux.

 

Re: NoScript / ScriptSafe addons

Of course it does Noscript is very reliable, indeed.

 

So did I.

Regarding different results: I think it's important to delete the browser cache before performing those tests with different extensions. Reloading the respective sites with Ctrl+F5 or Shift+F5 should also work.

EDIT: Having said that, I repeated my test with exactly the same results.

 

Well now I'm puzzled after testing again in Chrome stable but on a different computer running linux Lite (the other machine runs mint 15 xfce)

ScriptSafe passes all six tests, same as J_L's results, every time! I deleted all private data, open/closed the browser, repeated for a total of three separate tests and it passes all tests. I know about the unreliability of ScriptSafe because of results numerous people get with it using Windows or linux, but for some reason it seems to be infallible on this setup.

*EDIT*

now on a fourth test it fails #2 but passes the rest?? I can only conclude, based on what i've seen and what so many others have seen, that it still can't be relied on, especially when compared to NoScript which never seems to fail.

*EDIT#2*

six more consecutive tests, deleting all private data between them, refreshing pages, closing/opening browser, and ScriptSafe passed all tests perfectly, which now makes me second guess my fourth test above. It seems to work reliably in this setup, on this machine, just minus a couple extensions (Edit this cookie 7 Lastpass) which I use on the other machine's Chrome setup.

*EDIT#3*

this time ran tests again without refreshing or deleting data and it failed #1 (I wasn't seing things, LOL), passed the rest. Definitely it's unreliable even in this setup.

 

I have now noticed inconsistent results during testing. There were two incidents on my default profile when duplicating tabs on site 3 and 6. Cannot replicate after first try. As for Chrome portable, I somehow got failures on first load on sites 4-6. Then it never failed no matter what I tried.

So ScriptSafe works most of the time for me. I have not noticed any other incidents, although it's in Allow Mode with Block Unwanted Content/Cookies normally. Don't know how these tests affect real-world usage, but I haven't found a better extension yet.

I suggested Chrome portable, because it's the easiest way to have a clean profile in Windows, but as for Linux this should do: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/142059?hl=en

 

In my website of test scriptsafe, blocks a redirect, scriptblock not.
I can not publish the website to test because pornographic content.

Pale moon + Ghostery (function anti-redirect):




The function is not present in Ghostery installed on Chrome.
Sorry my bad English.

 

Re: NoScript / ScriptSafe addons

tlu, I just tested all 6 sites with ScriptSafe and all came up with Javascript disabled. In my case it worked great (I am on Dragon, not on Chrome).

 

Pale Moon
Noscript (1/6)
ABP (EasyList Italy + EasyList)

the file to the VT scan is OK



Ghostery blocks the pop-up.
Noscript (1/5)
Link for test:

http://www.costacrociere.it/B2C/I/Corporate/human/Job Opportunities/master/master.htm


p.s. ABP list (EasyPrivacy) blocks the pop-up.

 

ScriptSafe with Dragon also working on that website. JS blocked.
Also I did not see any pop-up, even if I am not running Ghostery. Maybe some other extension blocked it.

 

With Chrome does not appear with the pop-up.
I also use Dragon with only ABP.
For testing I disabled scriptsafe.

 

Re: NoScript / ScriptSafe addons

That's really strange. I disabled ScriptBlock, enabled ScriptSafe, emptied the Chrome cache and started Chrome anew. On all 6 websites javascript was reported as enabled confirming my first test again. Perhaps there is an interdependency with other extensions

BTW, did you also test Dragon with ScriptBlock?

 

No, I did not. Just using ScriptSafe.
I might give it a try later.

 

ScriptSafe has been updated to include many fingerprinting blocking techniques.

Check out a review by Ghacks:
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/06/21/scriptsafe-for-chrome-update-brings-fingerprint-protecting/

This is my first time using ScriptSafe. Has functionality quite similar to uMatrix, but doesn't have uMatrix's resource type blocking.

However ScriptSafe is better with fingerprint blocking and has some other privacy options not available in uMatrix.

I'm currently testing using both uMatrix and ScriptSafe, but I am using uMatrix for blocking content and using ScriptSafe's fingerprinting.

 

Also being discussed here.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/html5-canvas-fingerprinting.386179/page-4#post-2596375