Discussion in 'polls' started by Joxx, Sep 13, 2016.
Thanks. You said more precisely.
So after keeping up with this thread and testing extensively both programs I finally cast my vote on NoScript and will be using it.
It's true that uBlock Origin can, after tweaking, be almost as effective as NS and easier to use.
But NoScript has the feeling of old school, demanding, learning curve, a hint of HIPS, irritating some times but fun and rewarding. In the end it comes down to personal preference and to me this is it.
I edited my previous posts #39 and #41 respectively.
What put me off NS was when I set it to force HTTPS. I logged onto a specialist retail site that I have an account at and it banned my IP. I had to contact them and get my IP unbanned. Their explanation was that the server security software detected NoScript's forcing of HTTPS as an attack.
I just have a browser GUI toggle switch for JS on/off now.
Is I was ask to use one word to describe my feelings about NoScript, that's the one.
If thats all, then don't use that setting. I don't do anything with it, never have.
I went one better ... and uninstalled NS. Never been happier!
@Daveski17 : NS must be something the Morlocks have invented.
LOL! The Morlocks can keep NS.
As said before: Each to his own. And at the end personal preferences play a role. However, I wonder why you say that uB0 is "almost" as effective as NS. I don't think that's correct. NS has some advantages mentioned in @harsha_mic 's post. Aside from the fact that I haven't seen any XSS and clickjacking warnings in NS for many years, the integrated filterlists/hosts files and Dynamic Filtering relativize these advantages considerably. This is also true for the NS info page (accessible via middle-click).
On the other hand, there are a couple of advantages offered by uB0:
1. uB0 is an all-purpose blocker. It can be used as a simple adblocker but, e.g., also as a true script blocker if you block 1st-party and 3rd-party scripts in Dynamic Filtering by default in order to mimick NS's behaviour. The advantage is that you have all in one extension with less overhead. And with the help of the powerful logger - which shows everything allowed and blocked - it's easier to determine why a site doesn't work as expected.
2. The various (ABP-compatible) filterlists and hosts files available in uB0 block most of the bad guys out there. They act as an automatic gigantic blacklist which you would have to create manually in NS (and Strict Blocking doesn't only block scripts but everything from those blacklisted sites - contrary to NS). Together with Dynamic Filtering they put the advantages of NS mentioned above in perspective.
3. The distinction between global and local rules in Dynamic Filtering may not be important to @bo elam but the examples mentioned in my previous post show that this functionality is very useful and makes internet life definitely easier. You can't (easily) do that in NS.
4. Even as a script blocker uB0 is more powerful than NS. With Dynamic URL filtering (which takes precedence over the other filtering modes ) you can explicitly allow/block specific scripts on a site - regardless if you generally allowed/blocked scripts for it. (This applies not only to scripts but to all request types.)
5. Various available blocking modes and an amazing network filtering engine in which different filtering modes work together make uB0 more flexible and versatile than any other similar add-on available.
Perhaps you should reconsider your statement that uB0 is only "almost" as effective as NS.
I can't, I'm a Morlock
ABP just started to sell acceptable ads and NS phone home, or at least it did till last year.
That means nothing to me. I trust Mr Palant and Giorgio and I dont see any ads or pop ups. The only scripts that run are the ones I allow. But most important of all, my browsing experience with Firefox feels great. Its been like that for years. I never had to uninstall either addon because I suspected they might be causing an issue. That says a lot to me. Unlike some of you who prefer to use something else, I feel very confident about my choices. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to try shaking other peoples trust in what they choose to use to reinforce my preferences.
I said it here before, and I tell it to you. My feelings about NoScript are so strong that I wouldn't trade it for none of the security setups that we read about in the whats your security setup thread. And that goes for ABP too. This programs are the pioneers, the grand daddy's of what they do. Other programs try to be like them and in my personal opinion, gauge against, not the other way around.
I don't use NoScript for security but a lot of security I get from using it. That I know. In the more than 7 years I used this wonderful programs, I have never ever seen anything like a fake scanner or ramsonware or anything that looks like malware. Thats due to NoScript and Adblock plus.
NoScript's developer crossed a line back in 2009 and Adblock Plus's developer crossed a line back in 2011. A great many more developers have crossed various lines since then, especially on the corporate side. A trend that will continue. That is over and above the countless genuine mistakes/bugs (many severe) that various developers have made. A trend that will continue.
Both Adblock Plus and NoScript call out for different purposes. They, like every other extension, should be carefully investigated, configured, and monitored. Everyone, especially in a security/privacy forum, should be looking over extension code, checking prefs/settings, running some tests, inspecting traffic, etc.
I'm giving you Cold hard facts (as TheWindBringeth did above) and not only you deliberately ignore them (la la la That means nothing to me la la la I trust Mr Palant and Giorgio la la la ) but you turn this as an attempt from me to shake other people trust on ABP/NS?
Just to clear the things.
For NS: I agree this is a great program. It's a great security tool. No problems. However can't say the same in-terms of efficiency, at-least when compared to uBO or uMatrix (see here my post#33)
For ABP: I agree, this is a grand daddy to others (Adguard, uBO) in-terms of age. And nothing else sadly. Efficiency wise, I believe this should not be taken as an example at all.
Believe me, the development of uBO/uMatrix was never driven by "try[ing] to be like" ABP or NoScript. What drove the development was to make an efficient code base, able to read high quality blacklists (hosts-based, EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc.) and to put at users' disposal the tools to take control and to reduce their privacy exposure to 3rd parties, the plague of today's WWW.
ABP's original goal (ignoring "Acceptable ads" for a moment) is for users to "not see ads", nothing more -- a lot of ABP users are failing to realize that what is given as solution to their issues is often the partial disabling of their blocker (through the use -- sometimes extensive -- of exception filters).
I would recommend using them together. I was not aware of UBlock Origin being a script blocker; NoScript obviously is, hence it's name. I have been using them both together for over a year with no problems. They are both the best of the best in security extensions, and serve separate purposes.
They serve different purposes in that uB0 blocks much more. But as mentioned before, it can also be used as a script blocker which is actually more powerful and versatile than NS. The only rationale to use NS alongside uB0 is its XSS and clickjacking filters (which work even if scripts are allowed in NS). From my experience with NS over many years they are triggered very, very rarely, though, so this advantage is more theoretical than practical (particularly considering uB0's large blacklists).
But I'm afraid that there are not really any new arguments - all of them have already been brought forward. I think one big problem is that NS is actually a simple addon by comparison - basically you allow scripts for a site or you don't. Period. uB0 on the other hand can be used as a much complex addon with all its different blocking modes and possibilities - but most users don't bother to read its documentation. Hence, it often is "underused". At least that's my impression from many posts in the uBlock thread.
There was also a conflict between 'NoScript' and 'Ghostery' around the same time as the Adblock Plus
incident that was resolved.
Stopped using 'NoScript' in favor of 'uBlock Origin'. Does all that I need in one extension
No need for NoScript and Adblock Plus.
First and third-party scripts, third-party frames can be set in uBO. Pale Moon browser has XSS filter
enabled along with about:config tweaks.
Why not run them both-- there's sufficient separation between the two despite the overlap in configuration capability. Is there a reason why it's one OR the other with so many on here (unless for keeping the browser clutter-free)? They can co-exist harmoniously without a lot of adjustments in the settings, particularly if you're not thoroughly familiar with them already. Example: uBO bocks a malvertising site via a Microsoft app and NS blocks cross-scripting during a YouTube upload.
Yes, check the title of the thread and my first post.
If you want to discuss the merits of using them both please start another thread.
To be fair to Giorgio though, he did say he was sorry. I think.
Separate names with a comma.