How to configure Noscript for ordinary users

I need that script.
If I don't need it on that website, I need it elsewhere.
The only way to block that script selectively elsewhere is to use UBO.
You with Noscript > 5 can you block the same script on a website and consenting it on another website?

I can't do it.

 

In post #20 in this thread, I mention cloudfare and explain how I handle this sort of domains. To me, it is perfectly fine to handle the handful of scripts that fall in the same category as cloudfare (I call that category...Limbo). This are scripts that you have to allow in some websites to get the content you require out of the website but you dont want to allow them to run everywhere.

With NoScipt 5 you could create rules to get what you want. But I was never interested in learning how to do that as I dont think this rules or settings are necessary. Like I said, it is only a handful of scripts that I treat the same way as cloudfare. It is simpler and easier to handle this very few amount of scripts the way I do than to create rules for them.

Bo

 

I prefer to have dual control with UBO as I explained in the specific thread:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ublock-a-lean-and-fast-blocker.365273/page-221#post-3005686

This method has also saved me in the past from careless mistakes that would have likely infected my Windows XP pc without real-time AV.

Thanks for this exchange of opinions

 

Today a colleague brought this thread:

https://malwaretips.com/threads/how-to-configure-noscript-for-ordinary-users.108024/

to my attention with Lenny Fox's conclusions.

I'd like to tell Lenny Fox, who remains sympathetic to me,that many of his conclusions are wrong.

With UBO there is no need for its specific ping rule, which is not sent thanks to:

just run this test:



https://armin.dev/apps/ping-spotter/

Also the benefits of Noscript are not only those mentioned in the thread.
Or rather those not mentioned.

P.S.Personally I don't use the UBO setting nor the Noscript one because my browser doesn't send the ping to deafult.

 

Yes but we all know that if you block first party scripts that certain content will perhaps not load or a website might load all messed up.

I'm not too worried about this, so far I haven't seen any succesful attacks in real life.

Well perhaps I forgot, because I did use NS like 12 years ago. But anyway, I have to take my words back, NS still doesn't make any sense! You have to ask yourself, why would we use a script or adblocker? It's for speed, security and privacy. And guess what, you get exactly the same with uBlock Origin with a far smaller chance that it will break websites. This means that you won't keep having to fine tune things, because 99% of all people don't have the time for this.

Like I said, I still think NS is pointless. I decided to take it for a testdrive, with and without scripting enabled in the default mode. Unless I did something wrong, I noticed that with scripts enabled, it doesn't block any ads. And with scripts disabled it breaks most websites.

 

Yes, those settings were available 12 years ago. Look here, this is how they appeared in NoScript 5:



Those settings are the cream on top of the cherries (the cherries being the script blocking) for NoScript so I doubt you forgot them, you just didnt know (this is because you never learned NoScript).

And here are the same settings in NoScript 10. They are not identical but they are pretty much the same. Some things are different, in one version of NoScript you untick to allow content to run and in the other version you untick to forbid the content to run. But the end result is the same.

Yes, we use adblockers and content blockers like NoScript to achieve better speed, better security and better privacy, but we also use this type of programs to clean the internet of annoyances. With NoScript you achieve this by using it as a tool to tailor webpages in a way so only the type of content you want to run is allowed to run. Granted, some people like you want just about everything to run, NoScript is not for you, but you shouldn't expect everyone to feel the same as you. You and I have a different opinion on what to allow and what not to. You have no right to decide for me what makes sense allowing and what doesn't. In my computer, it is my choices what decides what is allowed to run. And the way I do it makes a lot of sense to me. You have no right playing god in deciding what I should allow in my computers. Just like I don't in yours.

Bo

 

Trust me there isn't much to learn. And those settings don't change my opinion about NS. I do think that the old GUI looked better, but uBlock Origin is way more user friendly and also let's you block first party scripts which you love to do, you should really give it a try just for fun.

Correct, I forgot to mention annoyances, which you can easily block via uBlock's element picker. Of course annoying ads are already automatically blocked because of the filterlists.

No I don't want everything to run, because I want to block annoying ads and trackers. But I don't want websites to break all of the time, so blocking ALL scripts which is the main purpose of NS, is a very silly thing to do in my view. Even uBlock Origin will sometimes break stuff, it might block embedded content from YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, but this is easily fixed most of the time with only a few clicks.

Now you are just being over dramatic, nobody is trying to decide what you should run on your PC. But the discussion is mostly about which tool and which approach is more userfriendly. I once again have to repeat that for 99% of all people, NS isn't a good solution, this is a fact.

 

@Rasheed187

Something being easy is a good thing but what's best is not determined by what's easier. More often than not its actually the opposite, when something is difficult to learn or to accomplish is usually better than things that are comparable but easier. Harder things dont cut corners, they don't compromise, on the other hand, whats easier usually does.

You and your 99%. I don't use the Tor browser but a lot of people interested in privacy does use that browser. There is only 1 Tor browser, and they choose NoScript over all other programs that are somewhat similar, including you UBO. That is 1 out of 1 for NoScript, a 100% win for NoScript. And 1 that will never change as Tor browser refuses to go the easy way and cut corners using programs that use filters. To accomplish what they want, they chosen what they believe is the best (NoScript), obviously to this people what is easier is not the important factor for determining what is best.

You and your.... NoScript doesn't make sense. Thats right Rasheed. Since you couldn't make sense of NoScript and found it difficult to learn it, you attack it constantly. You want programs to do all things for you but NoScript doesn't work that way. NoScript gives you the tools, but you the user is the one who picks and allows and doesn't allow what to run. You learn how to do this but you are lazy to do so. So, to convince yourself that you are using the best, you even lie to yourself, but inside of you, you know the truth.

Bo

 

As someone that has used both Noscript and uBlock. I don’t see much of a need for Noscript when uBlock works better.

Also the Tor statement really doesn’t help Noscript. If I’m correct, the Tor browser existed look before uBlock was even a thing. So, of course they couldn’t add it back then.

There has been Tor users that have wanted for a few years to get Noscript replaced with uBlock

 

One last thing, @Rasheed. Yes, NoScript has a tough learning curve but once you learn it, the program becomes as easy as drinking water. It should be that way and will become that way if the user puts the effort into learning how to use it.

I said it before (including in this thread), making NoScript set and forget should be a goal with NoScript. Over time, you learn what to allow and what not to allow, and you become familiar with scripts, and the names, and just by looking at the names, you ll have a rough idea of what an script does. And by building your white list and black lists, the process for choosing what to allow and what not to becomes easier. Also, all your bookmarks should be set up so when you visit them, you dont have to deal with them at all. You land in the sites, and the site works, and you don't interact with NoScript. And that Rasheed (in a few words) is how you make NoScript easy.

Bo

 

Your opinion. I bet a 100 to 1 you are one of those 5 minutes NoScript users who installed the program and expected it to do things for you. Sorry, NS doesn't work that way. You have to put effort

You are proving my point. They couldn't add it back then, but they could now. And they wont do it. Period.

This Tor users you are talking about here, are of the type who wants things easier, they don't want to put the effort into learning, but what does Tor do? Nothing. They won't switch.

Bo

 

Nope. I have used Noscript many years ago back when I used Firefox. I’m completely aware how it works. So, I know uBlock is better

Considering your post, it does seem like you have no idea how uBlock works. You claim Noscript requires work and time. But here’s the thing, while on default you could say uBlock is set and forget that is not the case with advance users.

If a person wants to use the uBlock instead of Noscript they can’t expect it to work perfectly at first. A user needs to learn how to block and unblock scripts. It requires time. But over time their effort bears fruit.

Both Nocript and uBlock(for advance users) requires time and learning. But in the end what you get from uBlock is something more user friendly without reducing protection

 

FWIW...

I have set NS back to simply cross-site suspicious requests only and everything else handled by... no need to mention so as not to imply Product A vs Product B

The reason (imho): NS needs some feature-enhancement work.