Harsha, I read articles that say that ABP is inefficient, about NoScript never. All I can say is they feel great in my system, like they are not there, they do exactly what I want, they work great together and never a problem. Bo
@gorhill Thank you ! For me , that is the entire issue neatly summarized , in a nutshell Agreed , and I've done the same for years , and yet I read all this stuff about ad-blockers . What ads ? ..... I have never seen one . Seriously ? ... that company must have some kind of fiscal death-wish They reject and block a genuine previous customer who insists on a secure transaction ? If I was looking to place the blame for that boo-boo it would certainly not be on NoScript . I'd be looking at the knuckle-head who handles their IT , or the person who hired them -
Hi gorilhill. Perhaps you did not intentionally create UBO to be like ABP but I tested UBO and made it work similarly to ABP. Basically the same with the same filters. Even the element picker is somewhat similar. If I was to use UBO, I would use it as I use ABP and use it with 2 perhaps three filters, no more than that. But whatever, congratulations, I think you done good work. Otherwise the number of downloads for the UBO Firefox addon would not be gaining. And it is. Thats a sign that your addon is being accepted by many. Bo
We can compare NS in his job to application which combines "anti-exe module" when it blocks by default script on specific page (if this page is not whitelisted) with "HIPS features" (earlier mentioned) when we make needed allow/deny script's rules for specific pages. Is it (NS) better in comparison to uBO which we can describe as the "signatured based anty-malware with behavioral monitor/blocker"?...I don't know...it depends of our needs so for me question "NS or uBO?" is still like "apple or tomato".
I use very few programs, as few as possible and don't switch programs around like most people do. Can you understand that? I trust the people that make the few programs that I use. Otherwise, I wouldn't use them. Bo
What gorhill was speaking can be more clearly seen from HTTPS Switchboard, the "daddy" of uBlock and uMatrix. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/http-switchboard-for-chrome-chromium.356427/ Actually reading now my first posts at the thread I was then like Bo is now. A stupborn not easy embracing to new ways and ideas lol. Anyone having known both HTTP Switchboard and NoScript can't say that HTTPSB was made with nothing else but a knowledge of NS existing and being a "simple" script blocker. It was quite original with new concepts.
Hence this thread, both can (when tweaked) perform similarly but the path to arrive there is different.
Yeah, scary isn't it? If I couldn't have directly emailed their office they would probably never know what had caused them to lose a customer. You'll love this; the 'knuckle-head who handles their IT' told me that he personally uses NoScript.
You came to this thread telling us the story of how you were blocked out of a site because you used the forced HTTPS connections option. Good, I'm sure many learned with your experience, I surely did. But then you went to say... ... and that gave the impression that the culprit of your bad experience had been NoScript. Well, in fact it had been you Dave, and that's a no-brainer.
The fact is, I'd only ever forced HTTPS on two sites, the other was Amazon. I'd never used the facility before to force HTTPS on any site. I know I've had brain damage (multiple brain bleeds) but it can ONLY have been NoScript that caused my IP to be blocked, and, this was indeed verified by the engineer who unblocked my IP. I think NoScript is probably a good idea, I used it for seven years. I now have uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes and a JS toggle switch. I just don't need NoScript anymore. No NoScript; No brainer!
Bo, Yes, it works similar when we are dealing with easy list and similar filters (aka static filtering engine ). Which gorhill mentioned. However what is different is the code was written entirely from scratch with performance as one of the goal. Which is what made this extension to be so resource friendly. That's it. From their to reduce 3rd party exposure, it introduced new tools (aka dynamic filtering engine, where not only the code but the functionality is first of its kind-sth like 2d firewall i think) Didn't know ABP had a inbuilt element picker. I don't recollect it. I will check it out. However I feel it closely resembles firefox devloper tools element picker! And its logger is so rich with details it allows to debug what is happening. It shows not only website requests, but also extension and browser requests Good for you. In fact, if may i ask, can you do a simple test for me <you don't need to add any extn. to your browser > Open a new browser. <i believe you are using both ABP and NS. So, have them enabled> In the first tab, open about: performance <no space>, and uncheck "display latest 10s" option. And open the sites as shown in the image here.. I just wanted to see how is the performance on your system..
Yes!! in its default state. Which is better, i can't say for others. But remember, dynamic filtering in uBO. It is similar to what NS achieves, perhaps differently (you have nice logger to debug at your disposal). So, when comparing tweaked version of uBO, it is more similar to NS . In that it allows you default-deny 3rd Party Scripts/IFrames. Hope i made things clear for you.
Yes, Harsha. I understand, UBO is supposed to be resource friendly when compared to ABP. Please don't mind it, but I am not interested in this tools (unlocked by ticking "I am an advanced user"), or the logger, etc. All I want is an adblocker, thats why I said that I know UBO can be used like I use ABP. To me in the case of the adblocker, having less is more. I don't like playing with firewalls. It doesn't come with ABP but I use use this addon from same developer of ABP that works with ABP. When I like to use it, I install it in a sandbox, create the filter, save the filter out of the sandbox and delete the sandbox afterward. I don't keep Element Hiding Helper installed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/elemhidehelper/ This is what I see when I open about: performance with 6 sites that I use regularly being open. I don't see some of the details that show in your picture. I am in W7. What can I say, my browsing feels great. I dont use antivirus, HIPS, AE, web guard, WOT, firewall, etc, I am sure that helps. Bo
No issues. Each to his own interest. To me, having one less addon is important Ok. Thanks. I knew about this one. Thought there is an inbuilt one, when you were talking earlier. Good. Its performing great in your machine. Sadly, devil is in the details, which is hidden!. You would have to click the "more" button next to each of the addon to see the details. Would you mind redoing the test again, with those details. If not, no problems. Thanks anyways sharing your results. Happy browsing
We agree. I only use 3 extensions in that computer and No plugins. I think I got room to use the ones I like. Bo
Lol yeah At first, i thought you were using an old version of Firefox (pre-austrlis version). Later realized that you were using CTR
Well, uB0 can also be used as a simple script blocker if configured accordingly. The problem is that those settings are "hidden" in Dynamic Filtering and the logic of the latter has to be understood first. However, I admit that for someone used to NS configuring uMatrix is a bit more straightforward. Unfortunately, there is not much documentation for it but the relevant HTTP Switchboard wiki site still applies. Simple - yes. But set and forget - no, IMHO. If you allow one of those well-known ubiquitous sites in NS permanently (perhaps by accident) they are allowed everywhere. Hence, if you have to allow them to make a site work properly you always have to remember to allow them temporarily in order to avoid this. uB0 and uMatrix in contrast are set and forget because of their distinction between global and local rules, and global and domain-specific scopes respectively: You can allow those ubiquitous sites for specific domains only, if necessary, and be absolutely sure that they cannot track you at all because they are still blocked on all other domains. That's what I call set and forget.
You made a mistake when you wrote what I am quoting. Perhaps you meant to say that if a domain is in my untrusted blacklist (perhaps by accident), if I have to allow it to make a site work properly, I have to remember doing it. That can happen but is extremely rare as I know what the domains I blacklist are. In a reply to you earlier, I told you that if I want a site blacklisted, I want it blacklisted, no ifs. That also applies to whitelisted sites. I also told you that there are 5 exceptions to how I handle this. And only 1 of these 5 domains (cloudflare.com) are included in my blacklist. So, there's really very little to remember. Bo
Surely the ability to set per-site rules in uBO is worth something, such feature is something planned for NoScript 3.0. See "Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!":
oh dear, oh dear now I see that allowing an element (say twitter.com) will allow it everywhere with NoScript, I thought it was per-site and yet others had mentioned it (I just went through the thread) and somehow it slip past me, stupid me. I'm not quite sure how this changes things, it has advantages (like allowing disqus.com will allow user comments across all sites that rely on Disqus) but it has obvious disadvantages... I'll have to see...
I am sure it is, gorihill. But in my particular case use, I only see 2 domains that I would benefit being able to set script rules per sites for them. But its only two, no more than that. One is cloudflare which I keep in my blacklist and allow it temporarily in one sports site that I use regularly. And then there is ajax.googleapis which I need for a Georgia radio station that I listen to once in a while. I dont whitelist or blacklist this domain but as you know, its blocked by default by NoScript. So, I temporarily allow it when I visit the station. And then of course, there is Facebook and Tweeter. I don't have real accounts there, I have a couple of Mickey mouse accounts for those sites. I don't blacklist or white list them but leave them in a limbo, like ajax.googleapis. I also leave google.com in a limbo. The only times I found requiring google.com is for getting suggestions when searching YouTube or Google. But personally, when I search, I don't want suggestions of any kind. Following suggeations takes the focus away from what I am doing. Other than this 5 domains, the rest I clearly want them blacklisted, whitelisted or left blocked by default. Bo
update: uBlock Origin hard mode + NoScript allow scripts globally. update: NoScript block scripts globally + Adguard extension.
No, you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about your blacklist at all. All arguments have been brought forward, we're only beating a dead horse. And if it takes 4 pages until it is recognized that Noscript doesn't have site-specific rules although this has been emphasized over and over again, my English or my writing style is much more incomprehensible than I thought. Or people are simply not reading carefully enough. Either way, I'm out here.
