Greasemonkey vs. NoScript

[harbinger]

Is there a method to resolve conflicts between Greasemonkey & NoScript?
Perhaps something in about:config?
Even if it requires some modifications to the scripts.

Otherwise, detection of locally based scripts?

Regards.

[GµårÐïåñ]

I believe if you have chrome:// enabled, it works just fine and I think that's enabled by default/mandatory by NoScript. Or am I missing something? sorry if I am wrong.

[Giorgio Maone]

There's no conflict between GreaseMonkey and NoScript.
However some user scripts may inject script fragments or script inclusions inside the web page: those injected/included scripts are at the content level, therefore they don't have chrome:// privileges and are subject to NoScript's permissions.

[GµårÐïåñ]

Understood. I thought of chrome with respect to Greasemonkey itself, not the scripts it provides. Since there is no conflict then what I said clearly doesn't apply. Thanks.

[Guest]

Hi!

Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but it's among the first search result for this "problem".

I recently ran into the mentioned problems with NoScript and Greasemonkey - the script itself executes just fine but script embedded into the page require JS execution priviledges for the page - and by chance found a solution.

It's really simple:

• Don't use the normal ".onclick" etc. properties but use ".addEventListener("click", ...)" instead.
• Don't use a string for the deferred function but use a function object directly.

This wont work:

Code: Select all

var someNode = ...
someNode.onclick = "alert('foo');


but this will:

Code: Select all

var someNode = ...
someNode.addEventListener("click", function () {alert("foo");});


[Giorgio Maone]

I recently ran into the mentioned problems with NoScript and Greasemonkey - the script itself executes just fine but script embedded into the page require JS execution priviledges for the page - and by chance found a solution.

Thank you for sharing.