NoScript or uBlock Origin

Discussion in 'polls' started by Joxx, Sep 13, 2016.

?

NoScript or uBlock Origin

  1. NoScript

    11 vote(s)
    14.7%
  2. uBlock Origin

    64 vote(s)
    85.3%
  1. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    It's uBO for me. I use it in medium blocking mode, with default popup blocker.

    Before uBO, I used Noscript+ABP. Now just one.

    B/w uBO is an content blocker..
     
  2. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    I seen you write what I am quoting a few times, it seems to me like the feature is huge for you. But to me, even after thinking about how I would use that feature, I dont see it that way. When I want to untrust something, I want it untrusted. No ifs. Same with whitelisted sites. The exceptions are 5 domains. To me this domains are like in a limbo list which I rather keep out of my whitelist/blacklist and prefer to temporarily allow when I have to. It works good that way for me. You know what they are and where you want to allow them.
    For me personally, I have been using NoScript for over 7 years, thats a long time. And never an issue. NoScript works so good, I have never in all these years uninstalled it for any reason. I am not willing to throw that away just because a new extension has come out. UBO and Umatrix can be outstanding but there is no justification for switching from NoScript just because. Theres got a be a reason to switch and for me personally, theres none.

    Here is something that I don't think is available in UBO that helps you decide how to handle the unknown scripts that we encounter when we visit sites. By middle clicking any entry in the NoScript menu, you get an info page about the script, this feature is very useful as it help you decide how to handle it (white list it, temporarily allow it or untrust it). It saves you time. Here is a couple of example.
    https://noscript.net/about/tradeadexchange.com;tradeadexchange.com
    https://noscript.net/about/popads.net;popads.net

    Another good reason for choosing NoScript, this is good for users who install all plugins, even the ones they hardly ever use is that with NoScript you can handle plugins. You can block them all, or block a few, or do it only for blacklisted sites or also with white listed sites. In my personal case use, that don't do much for me as I only install the plugins I use regularly. In one computer, I install flash and in another one I don't have any plugins installed. But is a good feature. I set mine for plugins to run in whitelisted sites only.

    Another good reason for choosing NoScript over UBO is that some sites will block displaying content when they detect the adblocker. That wont happen with NoScript. When that happens, even after disabling the adblocker, NoScript continues blocking scripts and will block almost 100% of all ads and popups. I think this is big.

    One more. I dont use NoScript for security, but I am convinced that by using it, I am safer. I never get to see fake scanners or ramsonware screens. That don't happen when you use NoScript and use it as its supposed to be used, its not luck. Also for security, NoScript comes with Anti XSS protection. Its rare but I seen the warning from NoScript a few times. When I seen it, I react accordingly. Same with Clickjacking. As with cross site scripting, its also rare to see NoScript warning about clickjacking but I remember a few years ago, a site I visit regularly was and remained infected for a few weeks and I was extra carefull with what I clicked as NoScript kept warning me. I didnt stop going to the site even though I knew it was infected. I was using an AV at the time, it never said nothing. :)

    Bo
     
  3. mood

    mood Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    13,824
    Sure, if scripts are blocked which can detect the presence of an adblocker, you'll see no ads with NoScript.
    But blocking scripts can be done with uBlockO too.
     
  4. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,829
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    It's not surprising...I think...because:
    - NS is working on milions machines with Firefox during ca 10 years his own history and have established some standards due to its efficiency and stability
    - it's like symbol or "model in art" which is hard to weaken and the rest can only try hard to mimic him or copy
    - for others vendors off scritp/ad-blockers NS still is the far aim to achieve
    - I'm using NS enough long time to not to have needs to find something for replacement...this "something" allways would be only "prosthesis"
    This was only my answer for question in poll and my private opinion...I don't want to blame uBO and lower his advantages. For sure it's efficient and useful but not for me
    ;)

    :thumb: for Bo
     
  5. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,483
  6. Jarmo P

    Jarmo P Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    1,204
    I doubt a bit about that millions machines or whatever number. If here in Wilders that is a sort of geek forum, the number of Firefox users using these extensions usage is 1:4. Well we have to take in account that that maybe not all voters in this thread are exactly Firefox users. And me I have also NoScript installed but operate just uBlock Origin.

    NoScript might be a bit past thing same as adblock plus lol. The latter adblocking extension might have more users in general than we here in wilders though proportionally as we know better.
    I'm expecting after my post the NoSripters come voting and the usage proportion gets better.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2016
  7. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,829
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    My answer is simply - ca 2,1 mln of downloading from page of Firefox addons...3 pages from Germany more than 700 K (Chip.de ca 606 K, ComputerBild 91 K, PCWelt ca 30 K). How many from not named hundrets pages where we can find NS? I know...it's only installator's statistic but I do think we can talk about milions users in few years period.
     
  8. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Thanks@bo elam for your detailed post, explaining about NoScript merits. Appreciate your time for detailed write-up :thumb:

    Personally i see uBO and Noscript are designed with different goals (one is an security extension, and another is content blocker) in mind, and hence operate way differently. However, many of what uBO or Noscript provides can be achieved with either of the extensions. It just comes to preferences of each individual.

    I think the only features i see missing in uBO from Noscript are XSS, Clickjacking, Plugin blocker, HTTPS redirect. However, they can be covered with certain specific usage like -
    1. XSS - This is easily achieved or mitigated for the most part, with the use of uBO medium blocking mode. #rd party SCript/Frames The only problem i see is, if a comprosited site is in your whitelist. It might not protect in case of uBO. This is just an educated guess.
    2. Clickjacking - With the use default deny 3rd party script/iframe blocking, and gigantic list of static filtering. I don't see this a problem, nor i have saw documented instance in the internet in the recent past.
    3. Plugin Controller - I use just Flash. So, all i can see it click-to-play by default.
    4. HTTPS Redirect - I hope one day it comes to uBO.

    The sites don't detect or know it's an adblocker or what it is. If so, its a big problem to users. All they try to find is, if an x element is loaded on a site or not. If not loaded, then block the displaying the content. And how you over come this situation is more important for content-blocker, ad-blocker.
    1. You can allow the content (usually the ad stuff) the site is asking to. Which is an ugly approach. (ABP is more prone to use this approach. Sadly :( )
    2. Or else use surrogate resources ( as called in NoScript world ) (uBO leverages this approach similar to Noscript..:thumb:)
    As explained before both operate differently. And so, the tacking of this situation is different.
    It is easily mitigated for the most part with gigantic filter lists and the use of default-deny approach. In case you still need to know about a site. All you need to do is copy the domain name and do a quick google search. Though it is not a one-click as in Noscript. Remember this feature is meaningless in uBO world, as you are already filtering all known bad content ;)

    Last but not least, lean & efficiency is all it matters to me. 2 Vs 1 :)
    uBlock Usage.PNG NoScript Usage.PNG

    Note: I am writing this post, just to educate others or if anyone wanted to know more about uBO world when they come from Noscript world ;)

    Please correct me if i said anything wrongly about anything!
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2016
  9. mood

    mood Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    13,824
    Yes, correct. Technicially seen it's a check if something is loaded/not loaded, as you mentioned above.
    But in the broadest sense it can be called that way, that scripts/sites can "detect an adblocker".
    Example:
    For adblock-users:
    A lot of sites are implementing "BlockAdBlock". There is an adblocker-test for it: https://sitexw.fr/blockadblock/
    ----
    I'm using uBlockO, but i block scripts and other content with uMatrix.
    uBlockO = blocking of ads-related stuff (only adblock-related filter-lists are selected), remote-fonts, pop-pups
    uMatrix = blocking of all other content, "The block-all/allow-exceptionally approach" (Cookie/Plugin/XHR/Frame = blocked, Images = allowed for 1st-party)
    If these extensions were not available, i would choose NoScript ;) (i used it a long time before)
     
  10. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Hi harsha, in my opinion, most of you guys using UBO are using too many filters. Two or three cover more than enough. If I was using it, I would untick all except Easy list and Easy privacy and add one for YouTube annoyances. Thats more than plenty for my case use.

    About the NoScript info page. Thats a great tool when you white list or black list and unknown script. It saves you a lot of time and helps you know what they are and gets you into the habit of learning what they are and do. No quick Google search can beat that. Be honest, do you know anything about the scripts you are allowing? Do you search them with Google? Remember, be honest :).

    Bo
     
  11. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Yes, sure it can. But if you are using UBO for blocking ads and scripts and you visit a site that detects the adblocker and the only workaround (at that particular moment in time) is to disable UBO, then you wont be able to block scripts.

    If its a football game you want to watch. what you are going to do? Watch the game or spend an hour figuring out how to overcome the problem, testing disabling one of the many filters you enable, updating filters, etc. None of this happens with NoScript.

    Bo
     
  12. TairikuOkami

    TairikuOkami Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    3,112
    Location:
    Slovakia
    Indeed, I use UO with Adguard DNS, it includes EasyList, I just use Privacy Filters to block trackers. Youtube video now starts before a webpage even loads.:cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  13. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    TairikuOkami, check this YouTube filters, they can be used with UBO. I use Other annoyances (the one at the bottom).
    https://youtube.adblockplus.me/en/

    Bo
     
  14. wolfrun

    wolfrun Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Posts:
    604
    Location:
    Canada
    ublock0 goatdee.GIF uBlocko goatdee.GIF

    As you can see above, I can view sports in real time, no problem at all with little or no clicking in uBlock0. I was able to do the same in noScript along with Adblock Edge. That was two extensions vs. only one with uBlock0 and am just as well protected. XSS is built in Palemoon so not at a loss there.
    Bo has been using his setup for years and I know he will never change and that is, respectively his choice just as using uBlock0 is my choice. I m not going to try to persuade him to change because that would be like me trying to change him into becoming a Vikings fan.:argh: Fat chance of that happening. lmao. What's the old saying...more than one way to skin a cat? Lastly, I kind of figured this is going to be an "us vs. them" scenerio whereby we to tend to agree to disagree. My suggestion would be to use whatever works for you and are most comfortable with.

    EDIT: The above mentioned ublock0 is with dynamic filtering.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  15. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    I think that's best, Wolf. Users should use whatever they want to use without being asked to justify why they choose a particular program or why they voted for NoScript. You are my friend and I remember when you mentioned in a PM some time ago that you had switched from NoScript to UBO, I never even asked why you did it. To this day, I dont know why you did it.

    I think whats important is to use something to block scripts and ads. For you that don't know, the site (http://goatd.net/) where Wolf took the picture from is a nasty site. As nasty as they come. But by blocking scripts and ads the site becomes tamed. Like a sleeping baby. If you click that link without using an addon to saddle break the site, before you get to begin watching a game, you ll get a few pop ups and a bunch of ads, including one that tells you that your flash is old and Click here to update it.

    Wolf, by the way, I never seen any anti adblock in goatd. But sometimes you might see one in http://www.strikeout.co/. You might want to test it during a few days. The anti adblock works today, not tomorrow and is an everyday battle between the site and the filters. It affects any adblocker but not NoScript. So, if you test the site to watch Sano and the boys for a few days, you might have to one of those days have to disable UBO/ABP completely or a at least one filter, but not NoScript.

    Bo
     
  16. wolfrun

    wolfrun Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Posts:
    604
    Location:
    Canada
    Ok. I see what you mean. I used to do the same when I was using noScript. Now for such sites I have uMatrix installed in FF as well as uBlock0 for the more "dangerous sites",which pretty much covers as what you are referring to. Palemoon, have just uBlock0 installed for everyday browsing. The one common denominator we have though is Sandboxie which to me is the most important. :cool:

    EDIT: Dynamic filtering with uBlock0 is disabled when used with uMatrix.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  17. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,130
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    If you mean that an anti adblocker gave you problems with NoScript, then probably you didn't identify all the domains that were needed to allow. Perhaps you clicked and clicked to allow temporarily and you needed to allow a domain that was blacklisted and didn't realize you had to allow it in the site or sites that gave you issue and this made you disable NoScript. That can happen. Greetings.

    Bo
     
  18. rm22

    rm22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Posts:
    353
    Location:
    Canada
    uBlockO (medium)

    i used NoScript - if it had the option for local/global settings i'd likely still be using it. It is still installed in 'global allow all' mode
     
  19. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,643
    Each to his own. If it comes to pure ad- and tracker blocking, you're probably right (I'm using Fanboy's Merged Ultimate List). Although lists which block, e.g, intrusive cookie notifications are also very useful. ;)

    But the thing is that the hosts files available in uBlock Origin (and not necessarily enabled by default) go beyond adblocking by blocking many malware, shock, hijack etc. sites not included in Easylist/-Privacy. I particularly like the fact that uB0 applies strict blocking by default (contrary to ABP which blocks those sites only if they are secondary resources). You might argue that you can use those lists as system-wide hosts files. That's true - but we all know that all filter lists and hosts files contain false positives, and IMO it's easier to manage them in, e.g. uB0.

    A major benefit of strict blocking and of blocking sites in Dynamic Filtering is that not only scripts are blocked but all network requests to those sites, including cookies, web bugs/beacons etc.

    Regarding global and local rules:
    Well, it's very important for me, indeed. Example: I hate Facebook. Unfortunately I have to use it for business reasons but do not want it to track me all over the web. As mentioned, that's super-easy to achieve in uB0 (or in uMatrix). Another example is, of course, Google. Google Maps or Youtube videos are used on many sites. So I allow them for specific sites (with local rules) but still block them on all other ones (with global rules) to prevent them tracking me. With Noscript you can 1. allow them permanently - which allows them everywhere, or 2. allow them temporarily - which is a never-ending hassle, or 3. write endless and complicated ABE rules. All I can say is - no, thanks, I had done that long enough in the past! Again, each to his own - but after enjoying the benefits of uB0 (and uMatrix) I will certainly not go back to Noscript.

    Just my 2 cents ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  20. monkeylove

    monkeylove Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Posts:
    78
    I've been using both for several months. I've to make adjustments for some websites.
     
  21. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Yes it can be called like that, from an end user perspective.:thumb:

    I am just talking about technically ;)

    +100 :)
     
  22. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    I am surprised here..Why can't be the same solution applied here for uBO, as you suggested in post #45. You could do the same with uBO mini filtering UI shown by the @wolfrun couple of posts above.

    And i agree with you, its a cat and mouse game. which will happen more frequently to adblocker/uBO in general than Noscript. Unless the monitored resource is also blocked with Noscript.:) However with uBO, You have couple of options to defuse the anti-adblocker mechanisms.. ( i do these whenever i encounter or find time to go through github bug reports )
    • disable inline scripting - most of time it works.
    • If not you could use built-in resources present here @uAssets to craft a neutering filter.
      • It has quite few anti-adblocking defusers -- such as Addefend, antiAdBlock.js, fuckadblock.js, noeval

    Don't worry! No fanboyism here sir :). Yes i do that when i encounter some thing suspicious, though it is not very often. And in case if time permits, if needed, i would do defusing myself by going through the js code. (i created few inline script filters like that in the past);)
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  23. TheWindBringeth

    TheWindBringeth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Posts:
    2,171
    Indeed some filter lists are on the large size...

    Fanboy Ultimate: 89701 lines (many exceptions and cosmetic filters though)
    Hosts file: 67016 lines (four general purpose ones merged & deduped)
    Malware Domains: 16997 lines

    However, when it comes to ordinary advertising/tracking there is a smaller number of effective TLDs that are responsible for most of it. So even a short list of 1000 rules could cover much of what a user encounters and significantly reduce the "do I want to block this host/domain?" decision making. Note: One can apply this to NoScript by loading its untrusted list. As long as the user is running default deny, and can selectively override in a sensible fashion, they would be OK.

    I don't understand why you think it would be a meaningless feature in uBO. One: you can load every blocklist under the sun and still miss things. Two: even if you are blocking it you may still want to research a particular host/domain. I feel it would be best to make doing so as easy as possible. Including providing a way for the user to modify the lookup URL. Person A might prefer to search Google, Person B might prefer to search some other site or their own database.
     
  24. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,643
    Yes, true, it wouldn't be a meaningless feature - but a much less relevant one. Even if those blocklists/hosts files cannot cover every evil site under the sun they cover a lot of them. Hence, the need to use this feature is, at least, greatly diminished compared to Noscript.

    EDIT: And if you're using medium mode or even hard mode in Dynamic Filtering the need for this feature is even less relevant.
     
  25. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Yes. Those are really really large ones. Of which i was using only fanboy ultimate and some others. Altogether my list total is -- 78,330 network filters + 32,877 cosmetic filters
    Remember, even using above quoted filter lists. Users should not face any slowdowns (like page stuttering or much jank) with uBO. However same cannot be said for ABP. (based on my previous experience)

    Agreed!

    hmm..I dont know what to say, sorry. Even if it blocks, its good thing in uBO world. As it only blocks malware/suspected domains i think

    Haha you are right buddy. And thats what i am doing with uBO medium blocking mode ( And same can be said for Noscript), and nooping common libraries :)

    Yes, even blocking all content, some thing can be a miss. But my quote was related to the use of Medium blocking mode approach in addition to filter-lists. Please see below -
    So, what i was saying is that this feature might not be of not of great value to the user when one uses uBO in default-deny mode (along with filter-lists). At least to me ;)


    .
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.