ABE test

Post a reply


In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you complete the following challenge.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: ABE test

Re: ABE test

by barbaz » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:10 pm

You're welcome. Image

Re: ABE test

by Bounder » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:15 pm

Hi Barbaz, many thanks for the clarification, indeed very much appreciated. :D

Re: ABE test

by barbaz » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:06 pm

Bounder wrote:Is it really true to say that ABE is strictly independent of script blocking - or vise versa?
Yes
Bounder wrote:Given all of what's just been posted in this thread so far, would it be more correct to say that blocking in one makes the other one redundant for a given address?
Not necessarily. Script blocking blocks only active content, and only by the domain it comes from. ABE can block any type of request, based also on what made the request, and can even do full paths if you want/need.

Re: ABE test

by Bounder » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm

Is it really true to say that ABE is strictly independent of script blocking - or vise versa? Given all of what's just been posted in this thread so far, would it be more correct to say that blocking in one makes the other one redundant for a given address?

Now I ask this not to be "smart", but rather to clarify things (for myself at least).

Re: ABE test

by Paulie » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:42 pm

Thank, barbaz!

I ran another test to confirm what you noted about their independence. Office365.com script is needed to in order to sign in on outlook.com . I allowed it in the whitelist for NoScript but denied it via ABE.

Went to outlook.com and even though it said "forbid 365.com", the sign in page was not loading.

Re: ABE test

by barbaz » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:28 pm

NoScript script blocking is independent of ABE. ABE is independent of script blocking. They are two separate things that each have their own sets of permissions.

So it's showing that way only because the script is allowed in script blocking.

Re: ABE test

by Paulie » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:04 pm

When looking at Xbox.com or outlook.com, the option to "Forbid optimizely.com" from running is shown, instead of the default "temporarily allow optimizely.com" that would be shown if it weren't whitelisted.

Re: ABE test

by barbaz » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:42 pm

Paulie wrote:it appears that optimizely.com still runs across all three websites, instead of just microsoft.com
How are you determining this?

ABE test

by Paulie » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:41 pm

Hi there,
I'm testing out ABE but can't seem to get it to work. I'm trying one of the examples form FAQ 8.10

Scenario: I want the optimizely.com script to run on microsoft.com, but on no other websites. I'm testing the rule by looking at xbox.com and outlook.com, which both would normally run optimizely.com

I've allowed optimizely.com in the Whiteliest, which then allows it to run across all three sites.

The rule I wrote in Advanced for USER is:

Code: Select all

# Testing optimizely.com
Site .optimizely.com 
Accept from .microsoft.com 
Deny
However, it appears that optimizely.com still runs across all three websites, instead of just microsoft.com

What am I missing?

Top