NoScript Sightings

[GµårÐïåñ]

Learn How to Activate View Background Images on Firefox

The most common add-ons to cause blocked background images or other elements are also some of the most popular Firefox extensions available. NoScript is a popular Firefox add-on that blocks JavaScript and other scripting elements from executing. If the developer is using one of these programming methods to display images, NoScript may be blocking them. If it is a trusted website, consider adding it to your NoScript whitelist, or temporarily allowing JavaScript on that page.

*emphasis is mine*

[Thrawn]

Found this when searching for what the web had to say about NoScript surrogates vs Greasemonkey.

The third answer is kind of funny in its backwardness, but I wish I could reply (my Stack Exchange account got blocked from answering things because I made too many answers that people ignored).

The reality, of course, missed by this commenter, is that if a tracker is in the 'sources' property of a surrogate, then that means that NoScript is protecting you from having to allow that tracker in order to make pages work. It's exactly the opposite of what he assumed.

[Thrawn]

IPv6 readiness tester has specific NoScript instructions (and a fallback)

http://test-ipv6.com/

And there's actually some merit in their suggestion, since they use several raw addresses as well as various domains. Although they all appear on the menu after allowing the top-level site, so it's not too hard to allow them individually.

[barbaz]

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/fiv ... r-add-ons/
#1 on the list

[bgmnt]

Mentioned on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11846303
Link to blog post "NoScript is harmful and promotes Malware!": https://liltinkerer.surge.sh/noscript.html

Topics:

• - Previous affair with ABP
  - Dynamically generated ads on noscript.net
  - Ads promote possibly harmful software

[barbaz]

@bgmnt: Thank you for the links! Yeah, that's what happens when someone is bored and decides to see just how much they can sensationalize the past.

Re: previous affair with ABP, way to dig up someone that died seven years ago. If Giorgio had not stand down and cleaned up the mess, I wouldn't be on this board.
Oh, and its easier to come up with custom adblock filter to block those ads than it is to make useless drama on the Internet (and last I checked EasyList had blocked the ads anyway).

Re: the nature of the ad code, viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20615

Re: antivirus/antimalware flagging Uniblue: viewtopic.php?p=82736#p82736

No, it's not a trojan but a false positive due to some antivirus engines flagging optimization/cleanup programs as potential unwanted ones because they're often side-installed by other freeware programs in non-obvious way, and user discover having a software they didn't ask for when they're nagged because the trial period is expired. This is obviously not NoScript's case, because it doesn't install anything.

_________

BTW, have you noticed that, unlike literally every other blog I've ever looked at, that site has absolutely no information about its author, not even a nickname?

That fact alone says everything you need to know about them.

[bgmnt]

@barbaz:

that died seven years ago

Yeah, not having heard of that before it still seemed strange to me why the author of the blog post used that as a serious argument for current issues. Seems more like he wants to bring NS into discredit.

Thanks for referencing the two forum posts. Although I think the ad does not contribute to credibility (as some users also judge a product depending on what the developer promotes) the blog post seems to be way less credible.

BTW, have you noticed that, unlike literally every other blog I've ever looked at, that site has absolutely no information about its author, not even a nickname?

Yeah, I already noticed that; but what seems even stranger: That post is the second post in total with the first being about the blog setup (Nov. 2015).

So, yes, just wanted to make sure you're aware of that and hear your opinion.

[barbaz]

You're welcome, glad it helped.

[Thrawn]

I think the ad does not contribute to credibility

Well, frankly, it's not there for credibility but for income. Giorgio gives away NoScript and FlashGot for free, after all, despite investing a lot of time and effort and expertise to their ongoing development. So yes, he uses advertising on his websites as a way to supplement his income. If you don't like it, that's fine, you're still welcome to download the software. You can ignore the ads, block them, or simply download via addons.mozilla.org instead.

[Giorgio Maone]

Ask Slashdot: Best Browser Extensions -- 2016 Edition

[Thrawn]

Not precisely a sighting, since it was specifically an interview with Giorgio, but anyway, there's an update on WebExtensions progress:

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08 ... ions-apis/

I hope my comment there isn't taken as a slight against Giorgio, who's doing an amazing job of making NoScript survive and thrive through this change, but I'm rather unimpressed with how Mozilla is handling the transition. They shouldn't be creating a situation where top extension developers have to make statements like: "The so-called “legacy” add-on technology which NoScript has been built with is going to be banned very soon; therefore, like too often in real life, it’s either migrate or die" and "making this transition, although quite painful, an ethical obligation not to leave them in the cold."

This is not exactly Mozilla treating the developer community with respect and consideration.

[morganism]

NoScript on Pirate Bay forum to disable a bitcoin mining script

https://pirates-forum.org/Thread-PIRATE ... SITE-MINER

[barbaz]

NoScript on Pirate Bay forum to disable a bitcoin mining script

https://pirates-forum.org/Thread-PIRATE ... SITE-MINER

Merged the discussion of this to https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 802#p90802 as it went beyond the sighting of NoScript and makes more sense there.

[morganism]

What Is the Most Secure Mainstream Browser?

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/most-secur ... m-browser/

NoScript listed as secure plugin under Mozilla

"It’s also worth noting that you can supplement Firefox with plenty of extensions that tighten up any potential security problems. The NoScript Security Suite is a great example of this: it restricts executable content like Java solely to trusted domains. Media add-ons like Flash, too, come with added sandboxing, so if a video crashes, the rest of your page won’t be affected."

[GµårÐïåñ]

Despite their misleading title, they don't actually say what it is. They just dance around it by giving a summary of each browser and throwing in some scattered "data" to use the term loosely and stories about it and bullet points from their feature lists. Anyone reading this wouldn't know more about what is "most secure" as they did before it. Passable as a review though I suppose.