InformAction Forums

That is the opinion of the creator of a site. If you go to this website with JavaScript disabled in any way it only contains a message that tells you you need a 'browser' to access it. So I decided to check the source of the page: Erm... right...

Thanks for sharing. To each his own. I'm not going to visit the site and add to its hit count.

Alan Baxter wrote: Thanks for sharing.

No problem!

Alan Baxter wrote:I'm not going to visit the site and add to its hit count.

You shouldn't! Does he (or she) really expect that smart people like us obeys noobs who still uses FONT tags?

You shouldn't help him by linking to his website.

dhouwn wrote:You shouldn't help him by linking to his website.

You're right! I removed the link.

Hi posters in this thread,

Well there should be a penalty for this misguiding information, because the denial of malcode is a serious offense. It is not to be hoped that clicking a link will not "javascryptify" the author of this credo to a Vitro file-infector download site. He most likely then can re-install his OS. This information makes that users online do not use any protection because it is a "drag" and half of the population is working a PC that is now part of a zombie botnet that is herded by or rented to CyberCrime & Co, and the formal owners of the machines aren't even aware. The same dangerous nonsense makes that users no longer install a two-way active firewall solution. Be stupid and Surf in the Nude, I will stick with NoScript,

luntrus

I have come across a few ignorant morons like this guy in my time. As said earlier by Alan, to each their own. Giving an idiot more attention is just as stupid as taking them seriously.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:I have come across a few ignorant morons like this guy in my time. As said earlier by Alan, to each their own. Giving an idiot more attention is just as stupid as taking them seriously.

Yes, thinking that JavaScript is the savior of the internet is really stupid and posting a link to him wasn't too smart of me either.

Rather than post the link, could you pass it on to RSnake and Sirdarckcat, who will gleefully XSS this jerk? Since he knows so little about JS and its dangers, surely his site is full of holes. They'd have a ball! -- and so would we, when they blog about it. Cheers!

Tom T. wrote:Rather than post the link, could you pass it on to RSnake and Sirdarckcat, who will gleefully XSS this jerk? Since he knows so little about JS and its dangers, surely his site is full of holes. They'd have a ball! -- and so would we, when they blog about it. Cheers!

I may even do that...

Mike-RaWare wrote:

Tom T. wrote:Rather than post the link, could you pass it on to RSnake and Sirdarckcat, who will gleefully XSS this jerk? Since he knows so little about JS and its dangers, surely his site is full of holes. They'd have a ball! -- and so would we, when they blog about it. Cheers!

I may even do that...

Would you let us know if you do, so we can watch for their reactions? ... and if you don't, perhaps PM the link to me, and it might yet fall into their hands?

Mike-RaWare wrote:

Tom T. wrote:Rather than post the link, could you pass it on to RSnake and Sirdarckcat, who will gleefully XSS this jerk? Since he knows so little about JS and its dangers, surely his site is full of holes. They'd have a ball! -- and so would we, when they blog about it. Cheers!

I may even do that...

Please don't even joke about hacking someone's site here. It's not funny and reflects badly on the NoScript community.

I really don't see why you're harping on this guy.
He's developed or modified extensions & offers them to you to use - for free. (And I assume they are legit.)

And so he wants to make a buck or two while he's at it (or whatever a "hit count" is). Heaven forbid. And its not like other developers don't try to do the same (or worse).

Hey, you want to watch a Youtube video (on youtube.com)? Guess what, you need to enable JavaScript on two different domains to do so. I would be far more worried with youtube being hacked, then some relatively obscure netticat site out there.

So some of his thoughts on JavaScript are misguided. So be it. Hopefully we know better.

This site uses cookies, LSO's and javascript

This site uses cookies but not for tracking reasons. They are needed to prevent prevalent hotlinking and to give download permission to real visitors. Otherwise the very old server machine might break down because of unexpected hotlink traffic - which is worse in any case. Since the cookies are only needed for the time of a visit, they will automatically expire after a few hours.

Flash plugins that run on this site will also store LSO's (local shared objects) on your system, intended as a demonstration of modern tracking technology (see also BetterPrivacy addon). However no personal data is stored, just the curent time. The user gets further information by the text that is displayed by those Flash animations.

Finally, this site uses scripts. Javascript is doubtlessly the architect of the future web. All major browser manufactures recognized the importance of that technology and are actively pushing their browsers towards highly sophisticated script engines. That effort consumes 85% of the whole Firefox developement time. Using and extending this technology is of big advantage for everyone's web experience as many new web services have already proved.
The scripts used here are of a more plainless nature, but are at least very important for maintaining the major site functionality. For example, the addon install buttons would be broken without script support - alltogether with disappointed visitors. Did you know that almost all Firefox addons are made of javascript?

http://netticat.ath.cx/extensions.htm

therube wrote:I really don't see why you're harping on this guy.
He's developed or modified extensions & offers them to you to use - for free. (And I assume they are legit.) (WHY? In the face of this evidence? -- TT)

And so he wants to make a buck or two while he's at it (or whatever a "hit count" is). Heaven forbid. And its not like other developers don't try to do the same (or worse).

Hey, you want to watch a Youtube video (on youtube.com)? Guess what, you need to enable JavaScript on two different domains to do so. I would be far more worried with youtube being hacked, then some relatively obscure netticat site out there.

So some of his thoughts on JavaScript are misguided. So be it. Hopefully we know better.

Yeah, hopefully WE do. But what about AverageUserLand? YouTube etc. don't produce add-ons for Fx (at least, I wouldn't install them if I did). This guy makes dozens of Fx add-ons, with vast access to your browser and your system, and such people need to be trustworthy. To tell AvgUser they're stupid for fearing JS -- well, if *you* don't fear it, why are you here? Why are you running NS at all? Go to IE and avoid the hassles of allow/ta/untrusted/plugin/ABE etc. He's misleading people and slurring Giorgio's thousands of hours of effort, you, me, and millions of NS users, and encouraging unsafe hex. If he's just some web site, that's his business, but I am uninstalling Better Privacy immediately and going back to manual deletion of LSO Flash Cookies.

Why are we harping on him? Uhhh... why are you defending this FIREFOX ADD-ON DEVELOPER?

Alan Baxter wrote:Please don't even joke about hacking someone's site here. It's not funny and reflects badly on the NoScript community.

This *approved AMO developer* is reflecting badly on the entire NS community. Perhaps you can convince him of the error of his ways. Some people don't learn unless it's shoved in their faces. Besides, I would never hack anyone's site, or suggest anyone do so. But I think my right of free speech entitles me to point anyone I choose to this thread. What they do is their own business. My expectation of their reactions, as in previous post, may or may not be valid. I certainly wouldn't suggest they maliciously damage the site. Merely pointing out 20 or 30 XSS holes might be enough to convince NC that he's wrong about JS. If they go beyond that, that is their own responsibility. I still don't understand why he's being defended here. HE (and his ilk) are the problem that WE are fighting.

slurring Giorgio's

He's not. He's made no mention of "Giorgio". Giorgio <> JavaScript.

why are you defending this FIREFOX ADD-ON DEVELOPER?

I'm not. But we're beginning to sound like the AdblockPlus faithful, aren't we?

I am uninstalling Better Privacy immediately

Isn't that just what the ABP faithful said. I am uninstalling NS immediately. (And why? Because it no longer works or does what I want? No, because in their holier then thou opinion, it is no longer holier then thou. And so, you end up taking something that is beneficial to you & discard it. Why?)