Noscript

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by max2, Nov 2, 2015.

  1. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    4,958
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Sorry, Kees. I cant help you understand what you read.

    Bo
     
  2. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Yes, NoScript Surrogate script feature is really a nice feature. As, this would allow NoScript to definitely block the offended scripts with no exclusions. In case a offended script needs to be executed, it can invoke dummy script instead.

    This was a one feature/advantage other blockers did not have. uBlock Origin in its upcoming version, will have something similar, not sure what Raymond will call it. But it can be used to surrogate the resources, not just scripts ;)
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  3. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    Ireland
    Possibly, when flash is not installed, the website serves HTML5 video via videoplaza.tv. This is why with uMatrix, videoplaza.tv would need to be allowed. uMatrix blocks it under Other. NoScript only blocks HTML5 video if you enable Forbid <AUDIO> / <VIDEO>. In Windows_Security screenshot you can see videoplaza.tv does not load any scripts but does load an xhr and multiple "others".
     
  4. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    1,061
    that's great news. is your source the beta version?
     
  5. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Yes, But i would wait for atleast an RC version before jumping on it.
    I have already created a bug entry. I may be doing something wrong...?
     
  6. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    1,061
    @harsha_mic
    i see. let's wait on it and see what raymond's got to say about it.
     
  7. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    4,958
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Hello malexous, with Flash not installed in Firefox, videoplaza.tv appears in the NoScript menu but as you can see in the screen, it is blocked, only scripts from zie.nl are required for the video to play.

    Bo

    no flash - copia.jpg
     
  8. Techwiz

    Techwiz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Posts:
    541
    Location:
    United States
    Anyone know how I can get the surrogate blocking capabilities of noscript for the chrome browser?
     
  9. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    With the upcoming version of uBlock Origin, one will have surrogate blocking (more precisely uBlock Redirect, is what i think its called) capabilities.
     
  10. Techwiz

    Techwiz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Posts:
    541
    Location:
    United States
    Thanks, I didn't realize that. Hopefully the update arrives :)
     
  11. Arrived and working (in Chrome :D)
     
  12. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    its working fine in firefox too!
    Also, just FYI..
    anybody wanted to check if the resource got successfully replaced, they can check it by opening dev tools (f12) -> goto debugger pane --> check for the specified resource in there. You will see a dummy one there.

    For Example, if ga.js is blocked and redirected, then -
    1) In the uBlock Logger, you will see the ga.js resource as blocked from google.
    2) Then look at debugger pane for ga.js entry. The resource present there is a dummy one.
     
  13. Techwiz

    Techwiz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Posts:
    541
    Location:
    United States
    Best news I've heard all day.
     
  14. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,778
    Location:
    USA
    My previous thoughts were that NoScript was more work than it was worth. But these days every single time I go to almost any site I was getting JavaScript popups asking for my email address or asking me to like them on Facebook, or something similar. So NoScript is back. It is to me what popup blockers were a dozen years ago. The only thing that makes the internet bearable. I don't mind the idea of acceptable ads. I see them on a page. If I didn't click I'm not interested. I don't go to a particular site to interact with ads. I'll block them or stop coming. Either one works for me.
     
  15. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,529
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Oddly, I've just ditched NoScript on Fx. It's interesting that it's finally been ported for Chrome. I don't think it's particularly necessary on Chrome though.
     
  16. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,778
    Location:
    USA
    I've searched for a Chrome version and found nothing. Is it called something else?
     
  17. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,492
    No, Noscript is not available for Chrome but it might be soon.
     
  18. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,529
    Location:
    Lloegyr
  19. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,778
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks for the replies. Looks like it's not ready and the equivalents don't seem to have very good reviews. So unless someone here has a high opinion of one of them, I'm probably not going to bother. I don't use Chrome much anyway.
     
  20. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,529
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I think Georgio has wanted to port it for Chrome for a long time but had some problem with Google and the application programming interface protocols. I should have thought it was redundant on Chrome used with HTTPS Everywhere and uBlock Origin. I'm much happier just toggling the JS on/off as I need it anyway.
     
  21. ghodgson

    ghodgson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Posts:
    833
    Location:
    UK
    Hi Daveski,
    Which JS toggler do you use ? - or is it the inbuilt one in K-Meleon which I know you use.
    I use Palemoon with Noscript as default browser but I use slimjet (chrome clone) most of the time and the only reason I don't move over to it full time is the lack of a reliable noscript type add on.
    It's the 'temporarily allow JS' function in noscript that I miss when browsing with slimjet. Allowing JS on certain sites with Slimjet whitelists the site which in a lot of cases I don't want to do, and which then means having to edit the whitelist later.
     
  22. MisterB

    MisterB Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Posts:
    1,207
    Location:
    Southern Rocky Mountains USA
    The script blockers I use for Chrome and Chromium browsers are Script Blocker, Script Weeder and uMatrix. I've used Script blocker the longest and find it to be solid but the real disadvantage is that it doesn't have a temporary allow option. Script Weeder does. I have one of them along with uMatrix installed in every Chromium browser I've got installed. uMatrix complements the basic script blocking with a lot of other features and I have the default 1st level domain setting enabled which means I don't have to make many extra exceptions for it. None of them are the exact equivalent of Noscript but they all get the job done. These days, I view script blocking as an absolutely essential security component in a layered security setup and having one and whitelisting on a per domain basis can save you a lot of grief. Just read how drive by malware and exploits work. It almost always starts with a bit of js. The other thing I have come to love about script blocking is that it really lets you filter content, particularly on big sites that deliver content through massive scripting engines across multiple domains like Google and Facebook. By selectively enabling domains and subdomains, I get the web page the way I like it, not the way Facebook or Google are trying to force it on me with the usual complement of ads and trackers.
     
  23. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,529
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I use PrefBar, which was actually inspired by K-Meleon's privacy bar. As you can see here (on Win 7) it is quite customisable:
    fxwilders.jpg
     
  24. summerheat

    summerheat Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Posts:
    1,492
    Why on earth would you use a second script blocker alongside uMatrix? :confused:
     
  25. ghodgson

    ghodgson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Posts:
    833
    Location:
    UK
    I totally agree with you about script blocking, I do exactly the same with Palemoon and noscript. Not having noscript for a Chrome browser is why I haven't moved fully over to slimjet yet, but script weeder sounds interesting. I've thought about umatrix before, so I will do some homework on script weeder and umatrix and see if one of them meets my needs.
    Thanks for your input.
     
  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.