You wake up one day and there is no other similar software, for whatever reason you can't use both, although you may test each extensively, in the end you'll chose which one ?
This is an easy one. I have never liked NoScript, so I vote for uBlock Origin, which I have been using for a long time.
uMatrix or Noscript would have been a better choice. uBlock Origin isn't a script blocker it is a domain blocker, while uMatrix and Noscript are script and other web element blockers so the two extensions are not covering the same ground and can and should be used together. The truth is that both an ad/domain blocker and a script blocker are necessary these days if you want any control over your web experience and privacy and security while you browse.
Good thing this is a hypothetical scenario. uBlock Origin if it came down to a crucial choice, both are keepers.
According to the original scenario, you're not allowed to have Adblock Plus. You can only have NoScript or uBlock Origin, that's it.
This isn't really correct. All it takes is a simple filter rule to turn uBlock Origin into a "script blocker": Code: *$script
Well, Ublock is more like Adblock plus than NoScript but if I had to choose one among those two, to me personally thats a no brainer. Why? Because I can block almost 100% of all annoying ads and pop ups with NoScript alone (thats so even though NoScript is not an ad blocker like Ublock origin or Adblock plus). And on top of that, only allow the scripts I wish to allow to run. Bo
Yes and you can add lists to uMatrix to turn it into an adblocker. The primary focus of each extension is different but there is a lot of cross functionality. I am referring to the primary function. I use both together because it is far easier to block scripts with uMatrix. Another thing to mention is that there is a Noscript extension for Chrome but it is not the same as the one for Firefox. I like the Firefox version but not the Chrome version. I use it with Adblock Plus in Firefox but Adblock Plus remains just out of force of habit. On anything new I set up, it gets replaced by uBlock Origin. On Firefox, it is a toss up between Noscript and uMatrix. For Chrome and Chromium browsers, uMatrix is the clear winner. I would keep it instead of uBlock Origin because it is much easier to add lists to it than add script blocking to uBlock Origin. In the real world, I always combine ad blocking with script blocking and uBlock Origin with uMatrix.
I use uBO in medium dynamic filtering mode for 3rd party scripts and frames. We should discuss only dynamic blocking in here because users of NoScript can with it use what ever adblocker they choose (excluding the OP's assumption also uBO). Now uBO medium mode allows 1st party scripts and frames which is convenient when encountering unknown sites and not so with NS. Also uBO has local scopes, so you don't have to whitelist domains globally like you have to do with NS. uMatrix is a fortress blocker and in most times too much. I do like the ability to block first party cookies though and miss it in running only uBO. Sometimes i enable uMatrix. But most times it is uBO alone and in running Firefox NS allowing scripts globally.
"Right on the money." Also having Noscript enabled will block objects or scripts where website would not be able to function like it should.
Oleg, with NoScript you can set Objects and do whatever you want to do with them. If you dont want to block any, you don't have to. Block all? you can too. You set that up the way you want it. If you want to block all but Flash, you can set it up that way also. You also have the choice to have them run only in whitelisted sites if you want. Thats how I set mine. I block all objects from untrusted sites and none in whitelisted sites. It works great. Same with scripts. All scripts by default are blocked by NoScript and you allow what you want. I allow all scripts that are required for me to do whatever I do in the sites I visit in a regular basis and no more than that. I don't miss anything in any site due to using NoScript. If I did or it broke functionality of the webpage, I wouldn't be using NoScript. In my personal case, usability and being comfortable using the internet and the computer comes before security. A program can be great and all but if it was a hassle, I wouldn't use it. I dont even see signs of NoScript blocking anything. NoScript gives you the option to collapse blocked objects and hide placeholders, I use NoScript that way. The result is a clean looking webpage. No signs of anything broken. And to me, the user, nothing is broken as I get to do whatever I want to do in the sites I visit. Bo
When we compare uBlock Origin and Noscript, we must take in consideration that both offer features that the other does not have. uBO easy operation way similar to NS is dynamic medium filtering mode. If the web page is not working one can with a single click allow all the 3rd party scripts that can run locally. That still leaves iframes blocked. One can also block individual 3rd party domains if not wanting to allow bad domains. There are static malware filter lists to be added to guard against bad scripts. That is UBO's hassle free usability! uBO can also block popups globally and then allow individual sites to have popups, though the rule set becomes ugly. So I don't do that. It has some usability issues at least in Chrome with blocking all popups. Nooping 3rd party domains have the disadvantage in any filtering mode that all gets nooped, in medium mode also the frames! But if one knows to whitelist only good 3rd party sites and has time, well. uBO is flexible in making global rules too. And it has some global privacy features. If I had to choose, uBO definately over NS, I don't like its interface and geekiness and global rules only. As it is I use both in Firefox, with NS running as a dummy allowing all scripts globally and still offering some added protections.
I'll willingly deal with NoScript's learning curve, particularly as I'm trying to keep the security on the machine effective but minimal and streamlined. I'll have my cake and eat it too. This is why I don't use Edge, even though I'd like to, and I don't know what an "Internet Explorer" is.
Thanks for the answers so far. I know that uMatrix is closer to NoScript, but if you enable 3rd party scripts/frames in uBO (medium mode) you'll get similar functionality across the 3 with uBO being friendlier to use. Hence I think the thread makes sense: a harder learning curve with a bit more function (XSS, ClearClick) from NoScript or ease of use with uBlock.
That's simply because you've probably never read about uBlock Origin's Dynamic Filtering. Particularly the distinction between global and local rules (example) which is something which can only tediously mimicked in Noscript by manually adding complicated rules in ABE. It's super easy to block, e,g, Facebook in uB0 worldwide and to allow it on facebook.com only - you can't do that with Noscript at all unless you add such an ABE rule.
Yes, and I use uMatrix to block scripts, too (as a matter of fact I don't use Dynamic Filtering in uB0 at all). Nevertheless, you can globally block 3rd-party scripts (and 3rd-party frames) (medium blocking mode) and even 1st-party scripts in uB0 by default and noop or whitelist what's needed. With these settings uB0 is a true alternative to Noscript and much more flexible at the same time. But it's true that uMatrix offers a much more granular control. EDIT: Oh, besides - from those members who voted for Noscript I haven't seen any justification why they consider it superior to uB0. That would be probably the most interesting aspect of this thread.
Trialed Switchboard, uBlockO, uMatrix awhile back. I prefer NoScript + AdblockPlus because I'm used to them and they're easier for me. AdblockPlus does it's thing wo me and NoScript (w limited whitelist) only needs temp allow. Firefox sandbox. NoScript offers control wo fuss and AdblockPlus blocks ads wo fuss. As to "superior". IDK
