InformAction Forums

So NotScript provides at least some level of filtering, although it can be bypassed, at least its granular control beyond what we currently have.

Is there a way that noscript functionality could be plugged into privoxy or some other proxy software to eliminate the need for Chrome to supply the functionality?

esheesle wrote:So NotScript provides at least some level of filtering, although it can be bypassed, at least its granular control beyond what we currently have.

Is there a way that noscript functionality could be plugged into privoxy or some other proxy software to eliminate the need for Chrome to supply the functionality?

Unfortunately not, because there are so many ways to obfuscate active content while it goes through the pipes (i.e. before it gets parsed by the browser) that trying to block it through a proxy (even though it's been attempted by proxomitron and similar projects) is futile.

I pinged againg some Google acquaintances of mine to speed up the "NoScript API" work yesterday, but I've been told that, even though it has been accepted, it's not scheduled yet

optimalcycling wrote:I've put the disclaimer that NotScripts is not affiliated with NoScripts for Firefox on both my website and on the Google Chrome extension page. I've also put links back to http://noscript.net on my website, the NotScripts about page in the extension, and on the Google Chrome extension page: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/de ... dajjpkkcfn

I understand what you are saying but it is a fact of human nature that when you make something so similar it WILL be confused by a portion of the population and it is not until they realize something is wrong and come complaining that they realize, its not by the same people. I think there was absolutely NO GOOD REASON, to make it so similar (varying by only a 't' in the middle and 's' at the end). You could have called it a hundred different things that would express your product's intention without relying so heavily on the similarity in the name. The fact is whether you like to admit it or not, that you are playing on the success of NoScript and the name recognition to drive attention to your extension. Simple as that and if you deny it, you are being less than sincere and truthful. I've said my piece, so the rest is up to others, but wanted to make sure the objection was on the record so that when the proverbial crap hits the fan, no one acts surprised or shocked.

It should also be noted, that even YOU who supposedly knows the difference, called it NoScripts (see emphasis) so you think everyone is going to know clearly they are different?

Well, it's to be expected that NotScripts is not going to be able to provide the same level of protection as NoScript due to Chrome's limitations alone. But, the fact that it does provide us with at least some of the basic functionality and a bit higher level of protection is to be applauded. It may even be enough to convince me to make the full switch to Chrome as my primary browser while I wait patiently for NoScript to be "cleared for landing," so to speak, on Chrome.

Does this Notifications of Web Request and Navigation API, as (partially, probably, so far) implemented according to bug 50943 provide the necessary support for NoScript?

fichal wrote:Does this Notifications of Web Request and Navigation API, as (partially, probably, so far) implemented according to bug 50943 provide the necessary support for NoScript?

This is a part, though it's not useful to block inline scripts (but is useful to implement ABE-like functionality, for instance).
For inline script blocking I've been told but some Google security staffers that there's some ongoing unofficial work for a "NoScript API" in Chromium.
Since these security guys at Google are also NoScript users, and eagerly waiting for NoScript to come on Chrome, I'm confident I'll be notified of interesting progresses as soon as they happen.

Is there any update on this?

My FireFox is having too many lag problems and I can't pinpoint the culprit. So I gave Chrome a try and I am really liking their minimalistic look, although some page loads seem to take much longer than FF. I've been installing extensions for Chrome all day and the one that I could not find anywhere was my most prized add-on in FF...NoScript!

So has there been any update on when/if this will be available? I don't like having two browsers that I have to switch back and forth from, bad enough I need to keep IE for those sites that require it. And I also was never aware of how much tracking is really going on throughout all internet pages until I started using NoScript. Not I'm not too comfortable using Chrome cause I know that data is being sent all over the place without my knowledge and because I don't like all the extra add-on crap. I like my browsing to be straight simple and to the point.

Updates?

Is NoScript working in Chromium/Chrome a matter of "It will work eventually"--code just needs to be written to allow it to work. Or is there something in Chromium's design that just prevents an extension like NoScript from ever working in it?

nickr wrote:Is NoScript working in Chromium/Chrome a matter of "It will work eventually"--code just needs to be written to allow it to work. Or is there something in Chromium's design that just prevents an extension like NoScript from ever working in it?

At this moment one of the major obstacles is the multi-processing design choosen by Chromium, which forbids every kind of synchronous communication between chrome and content and therefore prevents critical configuration data (e.g. NoScript's whitelist) from being safely and reliably shared across the application. Other APIs, especially in the networking area, are missing as well.

By comparison Electrolysis (E10s), the new multi-processing design choosen by future Firefox (and current Firefox Mobile betas) poses challenges, but they're not impossible ("code just needs to be written") and in fact NoScript is being adapted.

Giorgio Maone wrote:

nickr wrote:At this moment one of the major obstacles is the multi-processing design choosen by Chromium, which forbids every kind of synchronous communication between chrome and content and therefore prevents critical configuration data (e.g. NoScript's whitelist) from being safely and reliably shared across the application.

Setting the other issues aside why does the data have to be synchronous? I am not a browser expert but I believe both Firefox and Chrome support WebWorkers and SharedWorkers. Wouldn't you be able to create a SharedWorker when the browser and extension are loaded which could then be queried by extension code loaded in each tab that would query "Here's the URL, is it on the whitelist?" to which the SharedWorker would perform the search (or possibly spawn other workers to search, allowing simultaneous searches to be performed) on an extension whitelist file or perhaps load the file into memory or the HTML5 application database and respond "Yes" or "No"?

You probably want to know the result of whether a destination is trusted before it is loaded.

Here's a link to the bug that prevents NoScript from working (please correct this post if I'm wrong!)

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issue ... l?id=54257

Guys, once you create an account and login, immediately to the left of where it says "Issue 54257" a star icon will appear. Click on it to communicate to Google that you want this issue fixed. The more stars it gets, the higher its priority on the fix-list.

And this bug as well.

http://goo.gl/OxIuw

Giorgio,

What's the situation with NoScript for Chrome? Can I now look at Chrome with a serious eye!?!

Your plugin not being available for Chrome has been the sole reason I have remained faithful to Firefox.

Regards
Duke

Dukeswharf wrote:What's the situation with NoScript for Chrome?

I've been recently contacted by the Chromium privacy team, who offered to ease the porting by lobbying for the necessary changes to be implemented in the browser.
We're currently cooperating to that aim, but it won't happen overnight.
May I ask you what, exactly, makes Chrome a better choice than Firefox for you?