InformAction Forums

NS 2.1.2.6, FF3.6.20, Ubuntu Lucid Linux.

Occasionally an annoying Flash object appears - harping products, or telling me something I already know or just jumps and screams "look at meeee!" Here's one, upper right.

Regardless of the content, I don't want to be bothered by flash objects. Now I know I can also add another AddOn, "FlashBlock" but I thought NS would get all of these, and it usually does. So, how do I prevent this from "flashing" without affecting any other content on this page (Blocking the URL is obvious, but it also kills the yimg.com static images, too...):
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/chen ... ation.html
the offending Flash object:
http://l.yimg.com/os/media/event-911/mo ... ght-r4.swf

Thanks for the excellent work with NoScript!

yimg, yahoo and yahooapis temporarily allowed.
With forbid <IFRAMES> in embeddings permissions, and apply these restrictions to whitelisted sites too, I see a holder for the IFRAME and I don't see the flash run.
Could it be a linux specific problem.

You have "Apply these restrictions to whitelisted sites too" checked? If not then it's no surprise when Flash objects from whitelisted sites are shown.

But I do NOT want to exclude EVERY 'scripted thing" from my known good sites!!!

OK, so a specific option to "Forbid Flash and it's related content; cookies and scripts for all sites" would be a very welcome thing.

Otherwise there's a fundamental flaw in the system if "some" are blocked but others are not, as some are "white" and others are "black" and occasionally the twain do meet....

emarkay wrote:But I do NOT want to exclude EVERY 'scripted thing" from my known good sites!!!

OK, so a specific option to "Forbid Flash and it's related content; cookies and scripts for all sites" would be a very welcome thing.

"Apply these restrictions" does not affect "every scripted thing" (it doesn't affect JavaScript): it refers to embedding blocking only, which nowadays mostly means Flash.

"mostly means Flash." Ok, but what else or what not?

As I see it, if "A" blocks everything, but "B" only blocks something, while the same terms and criteria are understood, then there's noagreement on "what" is blocked. More literally, I presume that if I stop a,b,c,d,e,f from a "black" site and allow them to a "white" site, I will get none on "black" but all on "white". However, if I I block the "black" and also the "white", I will get none none; no a,b,c,d,e,f on ANY site.

Say I want flash on one site only; I need it to log in with flash, or it's a video I want to see - a rare but occasional time when i MUST have Flash content working.

With FlashBlock, I just "click" on the arrow and get the flash as needed, while all other sites ignore the arrow and look just like normal HTML. That is "proactive"; a "Whitelist of Flash". That is my choice of the sites where I choose that ONLY Flash is allowed. Alternatively, one could make a "blacklist" of selected sites where no Flash is permitted - regardless of any other setting, but all other variables and scripts are allowed.

If you look at it this way, by the reality of the Internet, the Flash items need to be selectable PER SITE!

Here as described, it's not so configurable, as you indicate; it's all or nothing...

It's getting more annoying now - one of my daily sites that used to be pretty "clean" now added a Flash banner that isn't being filtered out....

http://news.yahoo.com/

So everyone else, how would you get that banner removed from this page.

(No banners on my end.)
Adblock Plus?

emarkay wrote:It's getting more annoying now - one of my daily sites that used to be pretty "clean" now added a Flash banner that isn't being filtered out....

http://news.yahoo.com/

So everyone else, how would you get that banner removed from this page.

Just check NoScript Options|Embedding|Apply these restrictions to trusted sites as well.
For what you're going to experience day by day, it would affect only Flash, and you can allow individual blocked objects by just clicking them.

Giorgio,
OK that is a workaround, but then you may as well remove the entire "trusted/"untrusted" feature; this renders it moot.

While maybe I am too vocal in a seperate Flash configuration for NS, I am more bothered why only A FEW sites pass Flash, while a MAJORITY of others - and these are all "trusted" sites" - block it?

Do you see why I am confused, and why there may be a legit need to add a separate tab for "App control/config on all sites" - Silverlight (for the MS folks) Flash, and other potentially invasive apps.

Yes this is a whole alternate concept of NS, but one that may be viable, and simple to implement.

emarkay wrote:Giorgio,
OK that is a workaround, but then you may as well remove the entire "trusted/"untrusted" feature; this renders it moot. .

I respectfully disagree. I always run with "Apply to whitelisted sites..." No Flash ever shows, only the placeholder.
Click the placeholder (NS icon) for the occasional Flash video that you would like to see, confirm, and it runs. Two clicks.
If two clicks is too many for you, you can uncheck "Always ask for confirmation". Now, you're down to one click for any desired video, and never being bothered by undesired ones.

Besides, the upcoming Noscript 3 aka NSA will offer more flexibility. The desktop version will hopefully be available very soon.

emarkay wrote:"mostly means Flash." Ok, but what else or what not? <snip>.

What's listed on the Embeddings page in NS > Options: Java, Silverlight, IFrame....
but as Giorgio pointed out, Flash is the most common.

@tlu: OP needed a solution for now, but thanks for mentioning that. It will be a large improvement, indeed.

emarkay wrote:Do you see why I am confused

I'll try to guess at a possible source of your confusion.

Embedding permissions are determined by the trust level of two locations, the page hosting the object (origin) and the location of the object's data (content). With default settings, in order for a flash object to be allowed, both content and origin have to be whitelisted. The current rules are:

• forbid <object type> checked
  • apply to whitelisted unchecked: object is allowed only if both content and origin are whitelisted
  • apply to whitelisted checked: object is never allowed
• forbid <object type> unchecked: object is always allowed

In the heading "additional restrictions for untrusted sites," the term "site" refers to both origin and content locations. This and consequently the precise rules are not obvious from the UI. A more informative heading would be "additional restrictions when either the hosting page or the plugin location is not whitelisted" and "apply these restrictions when both the hosting page and plugin locations are whitelisted"

One may be confused/surprised that with default settings, whereas on non whitelisted pages, flash is always blocked, on whitelisted pages some flash will be blocked and some won't be, depending on whether or not the flash content location is whitelisted.