3453245 wrote: other sites also do that and if i don't allow at least the main domain, theere is no point browsing.
as for pc gamer site, that was just a recent example.
Why? If I can read the content without enabling scripts on the main side, then there is a point in browsing them.
And for any other example there is also regularly a combination of "call" and "reply" without actually enabling most of the ad content that the checks think they check for but actually don't.
The sites don't expect Noscript, they expect adblockers. And in their expectation they believe that checking basically "javascript: yes, but the other thing: no = adblock = error" even if you can easily run the whole check without actually having the adds and tracking.
as for noscript being detected or adblock, it works together sometimes so maybe noscript could be more hidden. surely that would help it's case of being a security tool anyway. the point is, noscript could obfuscate code and things for it's own good anyway.
You don't understand how noscript works. There is no "hiding" because there is no "being in the open" to begin with.
It's entirely local. The website doesn't KNOW what you are doing at all. Your computer runs (or doesn't run) scripts, and the people writing those scripts have error conditions in them, with consequences.
No script just allows those or doesn't depending on your choices, and if your choices cause the programmed conditions, you get the consequences.
They don't know what is keeping the page from loading the way THEY intend it to, and factually they rarely if ever check properly for it either (because considering the myriads of browsers that would cause more errors than help them).
They do a very minimalistic check, and if you account for that, you are fine.
Most sites either work with actually NO scripts, at least as far as reading the material, and most of the rest works if you find the combination of "call and check" and enable those, without actually enabling all the rest of the scripts.
(like in the pcgamer case. it's merely the mainpage, and the cdn, the site tries to run like 10 other scripts including the adds, and you need none of them.)
Same goes for pages like wikia or others.
What you want is completely outside of the scope of this tool, and it is literally impossible to provide this without a fleet of programmers reacting to individual cases.
[quote="3453245"] other sites also do that and if i don't allow at least the main domain, theere is no point browsing.
as for pc gamer site, that was just a recent example.
[/quote]
Why? If I can read the content without enabling scripts on the main side, then there is a point in browsing them.
And for any other example there is also regularly a combination of "call" and "reply" without actually enabling most of the ad content that the checks think they check for but actually don't.
The sites don't expect Noscript, they expect adblockers. And in their expectation they believe that checking basically "javascript: yes, but the other thing: no = adblock = error" even if you can easily run the whole check without actually having the adds and tracking.
[quote]
as for noscript being detected or adblock, it works together sometimes so maybe noscript could be more hidden. surely that would help it's case of being a security tool anyway. the point is, noscript could obfuscate code and things for it's own good anyway.
[/quote]
You don't understand how noscript works. There is no "hiding" because there is no "being in the open" to begin with.
It's entirely local. The website doesn't KNOW what you are doing at all. Your computer runs (or doesn't run) scripts, and the people writing those scripts have error conditions in them, with consequences.
No script just allows those or doesn't depending on your choices, and if your choices cause the programmed conditions, you get the consequences.
They don't know what is keeping the page from loading the way THEY intend it to, and factually they rarely if ever check properly for it either (because considering the myriads of browsers that would cause more errors than help them).
They do a very minimalistic check, and if you account for that, you are fine.
Most sites either work with actually NO scripts, at least as far as reading the material, and most of the rest works if you find the combination of "call and check" and enable those, without actually enabling all the rest of the scripts.
(like in the pcgamer case. it's merely the mainpage, and the cdn, the site tries to run like 10 other scripts including the adds, and you need none of them.)
Same goes for pages like wikia or others.
What you want is completely outside of the scope of this tool, and it is literally impossible to provide this without a fleet of programmers reacting to individual cases.