Yes, NoScript Surrogate script feature is really a nice feature. As, this would allow NoScript to definitely block the offended scripts with no exclusions. In case a offended script needs to be executed, it can invoke dummy script instead. This was a one feature/advantage other blockers did not have. uBlock Origin in its upcoming version, will have something similar, not sure what Raymond will call it. But it can be used to surrogate the resources, not just scripts
Possibly, when flash is not installed, the website serves HTML5 video via videoplaza.tv. This is why with uMatrix, videoplaza.tv would need to be allowed. uMatrix blocks it under Other. NoScript only blocks HTML5 video if you enable Forbid <AUDIO> / <VIDEO>. In Windows_Security screenshot you can see videoplaza.tv does not load any scripts but does load an xhr and multiple "others".
Yes, But i would wait for atleast an RC version before jumping on it. I have already created a bug entry. I may be doing something wrong...?
Hello malexous, with Flash not installed in Firefox, videoplaza.tv appears in the NoScript menu but as you can see in the screen, it is blocked, only scripts from zie.nl are required for the video to play. Bo
With the upcoming version of uBlock Origin, one will have surrogate blocking (more precisely uBlock Redirect, is what i think its called) capabilities.
its working fine in firefox too! Also, just FYI.. anybody wanted to check if the resource got successfully replaced, they can check it by opening dev tools (f12) -> goto debugger pane --> check for the specified resource in there. You will see a dummy one there. For Example, if ga.js is blocked and redirected, then - 1) In the uBlock Logger, you will see the ga.js resource as blocked from google. 2) Then look at debugger pane for ga.js entry. The resource present there is a dummy one.
My previous thoughts were that NoScript was more work than it was worth. But these days every single time I go to almost any site I was getting JavaScript popups asking for my email address or asking me to like them on Facebook, or something similar. So NoScript is back. It is to me what popup blockers were a dozen years ago. The only thing that makes the internet bearable. I don't mind the idea of acceptable ads. I see them on a page. If I didn't click I'm not interested. I don't go to a particular site to interact with ads. I'll block them or stop coming. Either one works for me.
Oddly, I've just ditched NoScript on Fx. It's interesting that it's finally been ported for Chrome. I don't think it's particularly necessary on Chrome though.
Sorry, I misread from an earlier post and assumed that it had finally been ported for Chrome. It may have an equivalent. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...mlchbcfoiefnifjeni?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon
Thanks for the replies. Looks like it's not ready and the equivalents don't seem to have very good reviews. So unless someone here has a high opinion of one of them, I'm probably not going to bother. I don't use Chrome much anyway.
I think Georgio has wanted to port it for Chrome for a long time but had some problem with Google and the application programming interface protocols. I should have thought it was redundant on Chrome used with HTTPS Everywhere and uBlock Origin. I'm much happier just toggling the JS on/off as I need it anyway.
Hi Daveski, Which JS toggler do you use ? - or is it the inbuilt one in K-Meleon which I know you use. I use Palemoon with Noscript as default browser but I use slimjet (chrome clone) most of the time and the only reason I don't move over to it full time is the lack of a reliable noscript type add on. It's the 'temporarily allow JS' function in noscript that I miss when browsing with slimjet. Allowing JS on certain sites with Slimjet whitelists the site which in a lot of cases I don't want to do, and which then means having to edit the whitelist later.
The script blockers I use for Chrome and Chromium browsers are Script Blocker, Script Weeder and uMatrix. I've used Script blocker the longest and find it to be solid but the real disadvantage is that it doesn't have a temporary allow option. Script Weeder does. I have one of them along with uMatrix installed in every Chromium browser I've got installed. uMatrix complements the basic script blocking with a lot of other features and I have the default 1st level domain setting enabled which means I don't have to make many extra exceptions for it. None of them are the exact equivalent of Noscript but they all get the job done. These days, I view script blocking as an absolutely essential security component in a layered security setup and having one and whitelisting on a per domain basis can save you a lot of grief. Just read how drive by malware and exploits work. It almost always starts with a bit of js. The other thing I have come to love about script blocking is that it really lets you filter content, particularly on big sites that deliver content through massive scripting engines across multiple domains like Google and Facebook. By selectively enabling domains and subdomains, I get the web page the way I like it, not the way Facebook or Google are trying to force it on me with the usual complement of ads and trackers.
I use PrefBar, which was actually inspired by K-Meleon's privacy bar. As you can see here (on Win 7) it is quite customisable:
I totally agree with you about script blocking, I do exactly the same with Palemoon and noscript. Not having noscript for a Chrome browser is why I haven't moved fully over to slimjet yet, but script weeder sounds interesting. I've thought about umatrix before, so I will do some homework on script weeder and umatrix and see if one of them meets my needs. Thanks for your input.
