"Javascript not enabled" and NoScript

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by John Bull, Mar 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Bull

    John Bull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    London UK
    Useful tip
    ========

    This message has in common with other web users popped up on frequent occasions when viewing a web page. The matter is subject to a number of calls for help by a number of frustrated web users.

    It happens even though the browser has Javascript fully enabled and permitted.

    I cured it by :-

    I. First, just check that your browser has Javascript enabled, usually in the Tools>Options.
    2. When the web page says that "Javascript is not enabled", look at the bottom right of the screen, you will almost certainly see a NS "Options" box - click it.
    On the NS panel that comes up, click "Temporarily allow all this page".

    Problem cured, the restricted page is now OK and the video or other JS dependent matter is no longer withheld.

    John

    A typical example is : -http://www.br-online.de/br-alpha/deutsch-klasse-sprachkurs-lektion-1-ID1215443422995.xml-
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2011
  2. ABee

    ABee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Posts:
    330
    I wonder why understanding NoScript is a javascript blocking extension is such a difficult concept for you?

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=293545

    If you're merely going to 'allow all' on every page you visit, why bother installing NoScript to begin with?

    I think most of us who use NoScript have a little better "solution" than the one you've proposed.
     
  3. Judge Dee

    Judge Dee Guest

    That's the truth. It defeats the whole purpose of NoScript when you're on web pages that have multiple scripts from various places.
     
  4. allizomeniz

    allizomeniz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    903
    I've found NoScript to have a steep learning curve. It can be frustrating if you don't know exactly what you're doing. But it's pretty flexible and you can tweak it to best suit your needs. You should hardly ever need "Temporarily allow all" if you have it optimally configured.
     
  5. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Just allow the website and the domains that hosts the videos (or other JS objects). Way better than your temporary "cure".
     
  6. pegr

    pegr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,279
    Location:
    UK
    IMHO, NoScript is an unnecessary complication if you are using Sandboxie for web browsing. It's adding additional inconvenience for no extra benefit.
     
  7. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Depends on what you actually use it for, imho. I couldn't care less about the extra security as I am using Sandboxie. If anything gets out of line I'll close the browser and be done with it. However, I myself use it for the ability to kill off trackers as well. There are two things in my mind though. 1. Ghostery can do the same thing in Firefox, so perhaps NoScript isn't really needed for that, and, it saves you a boatload of whitelisting. 2. If ever you've had issues bad enough and required a re-install of Firefox (which I have recently), and you have to install Noscript again..guess what you get to do? Yep, I get to play guessing game with all of my websites again.

    I'm not going to get into the "Noscript is mandatory vs NoScript isn't" debate. That's a personal preference, and, again, what else you have for security does make a difference. For me personally, I might be nearing the end.
     
  8. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I think NoScript can be a bit difficult to use until you get your head around it. I still think that Ghostery can be a good alternative if you just want to block trackers, although many people use both. Iron/Chrome has a default option to switch off JS until you OK it on a particular page. It's a basic option compared to NoScript & has its own problems (particularly for using extensions) but can be useful.
     
  9. sbseven

    sbseven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Posts:
    140
    I agree, but there are other protections within NoScript like XSS, Clickjacking, CRSF and MITM (http://hackademix.net/2010/08/01/al_9x-was-right-my-router-is-safe/). These can be utilised regardless of Javascript / embedded object settings.

    The NoScript settings, including the whitelist, can be exported / imported via Options...
     
  10. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    There are the benefits of privacy and less resources used by webpage. I still didn't keep it though, mainly because I'm too lazy :p
     
  11. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    You bringing up the issue of less resources reminded me of a problem I see often. I've ran into many websites that have a particularly persistent ad server or tracking script, that cause a website to load slower because of scripts being blocked. A good example for me is PCWorld. While it rarely chokes, there is a very noticeable difference in loading times with all of the scripts that try to run there.
     
  12. John Bull

    John Bull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    London UK
    Thank you everybody, useful posts.

    I posted my opener because a lot of users on the web are asking the same question "Why am I getting - Javascript not enabled - when my browser HAS it enabled ?". They are of course using NoScript, which blocks the sites JS. Forums are included in this matter. One answer was to disable NoScript ! The user did and his JS then worked OK.

    What is the point in having NS when you are going to disable it ? None.
    This is why I stated my solution, so that these users should they visit Wilder's can cure their problem at a click.

    The "temporary allow" is logical for one-off visits and "permanently allow" for sites visited frequently.

    OK, if you fully configure NS properly, perhaps this is nonsense, but NS is not easy to understand for the average user. And of course like some of you say, using SBxie, NS is probably unnecessary, any problems, just close down the browser and Alles Kaputt !

    John
     
  13. tlu

    tlu Guest

    This should not be too surprising considering the name of this extension ... :D

    I don't think that NS is particularly difficult to understand if the user just spends a tenth of the time he's probably having a tinker with his PFW/HIPS for reading the NS features and FAQ sites instead.
     
  14. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I dunno 'bout that squire, I'm a university graduate & even I don't find that first link particularly easy to understand! ;)
     
  15. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Well, it's information overload for most people. There are a lot of options and features in NS that you really don't need to know about, and, frankly won't use often, if ever. Ninety-nine percent of the time, you're only going to need to know about the top domain and, with care, which script is needed to let a website fully function. To be honest, it's exactly that, that is the main source of "I really hate this stupid extension" complaints. Even white-listing, as much as it sucks, sucks less than figuring out which script does what.
     
  16. John Bull

    John Bull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    London UK
    OH Yes NS is messy to understand, even though some of us have achieved respectable academic qualifications. But then why spend our valuable time understanding it ? Either dump it if you are using SBxie or do what I said. No big deal really.

    Straining your brain on some useless crossword is a fruitless occupation in the train going to work, better enjoy the scenery.

    The relationship between high IQ and the ability to pass exams and thereafter make your mark in industry and society is a hypothetical psychiatric and meaningless game-show. I once watched a TV game show where the reigning "Brain of Britain", contestant was unemployed.

    John

    PS - and by the way dw426 posts some of the most intelligent comments covering many topics ever seen on this Forum.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2011
  17. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I'll just have to do more homework! ;)
     
  18. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I'm getting there .... :cool:
     
  19. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Well, it presents all settings available in Noscript. That doesn't mean that you have to use all of them in the beginning. I mean, you can skip, e.g., the HTTPS and ABE tabs in "Advanced" without any downsides. They are additional options that increase your security but don't belong to the basics. Noscript works without using them at all.

    What I was trying to say: I'm always surprised that many people here use PFWs or HIPS or both. They spend days or even weeks to understand them, optimize their settings and learn how to interpret/handle numerous everyday false positives.

    But after 1-2 days usage of Noscript, many of them seem to give up because it's allegedly too complicated and breaks too many sites - although its basic principle is much easier to understand than the intricacies of any PFW and HIPS. Why is that so? Why are obviously so many people unwilling to learn about using Noscript? This observation often leaves me speechless.
     
  20. sbseven

    sbseven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Posts:
    140
    I think with a PFW/HIPS, things do eventually settle down once your work pattern has been established and encoded. This also applies to NoScript through whitelisting, but normally, the frequency of viewing new websites exceeds the frequency of installing new software. So NoScript is just going to be more 'in your face' breaking stuff on a day to day basis. I think this is the main reason a lot of people dislike it/give up, over and above any complexity of use or understanding.
     
  21. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    +1. NoScript, without the extra features involved, is not hard at all to understand. Scripts run, or they don't, simple as that. I install software fairly regularly, but I surf around the net and go to new places every single day. And, NoScript is there..every. single. day. It's funny, a friend of mine and I were talking about it this morning. He said I should adjust my viewing habits if it was such an issue. I said screw that, I pay close to 50 a month for my net. I'm not going to adjust to NoScript, NoScript can adjust to ME, lol.
     
  22. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Yes, I understood your point. Perhaps many people want NS to be easy to use 'out of the box' like many extensions can be. My knowledge of computers essentially begins & ends with 'Windows for Dummies' & even I don't have much of a problem with NoScript. :)
     
  23. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Indeed, that is the exact reason I gave up on managing it, while still keeping Comodo.
     
  24. tlu

    tlu Guest

    That's an explanation. On the other hand - as already mentioned - although NS blocks scripting/objects on many sites and, thus, technically breaks them, most of them can be viewed without the need of (temporarily) whitelisting them.
     
  25. redgrum

    redgrum Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Posts:
    50

    It is a big deal, because you are advising them to use it completely incorrectly, removing most of it's benefit.

    It's the same as advising someone using sandboxie who cannot get an executable to run sandboxed, to just save it outside the sandbox and run it!

    NoScript is not a set-and-forget utility for most of it's capabilities, I would advise against trying to find a solution that treats it like one.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.