5 vs 10, allowed domain differences - Why

[therube]

NoScript 5 vs NoScript 10, any number of sites require different domains to be allowed in order for the site to display "properly".
Why?


-------


URL: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ng-716647/
Image: (top-most, center) the iceberg
Image: (bottom 4 thumbs) the "Newswire" section.

With nothing allowed, neither display.

5: requires at least rollingstone.com & polyfill.io
(this is in FF 56)
(there are a zillion domains that "join" rollingstone, a great smoke-in you might say, & on a hunch, having heard something, I allowed polyfill.io as the first domain I tried, & that was sufficient to get it to work, so I stopped at that point.)

10: requires only rollingstone.com
(this is in FF 61)


-------


URL: https://www.aldi.us/en/weekly-specials/our-weekly-ads/

5: requires +aldi.us & +wishabi.net
(without wishabi.net a message is displayed, "Oops!
This content is blocked by your browser's private browsing or ad blocking. To view this content, please exit private browsing or disable ad blocking for this site.")

10: requires only aldi-us



-------


Which is "correct" & why the difference?
Are they both "correct", but the underlying architectures of the browser/extension makes the difference, or... ?
Or is something being blocked in one & not the other?


(In SeaMonkey 2.49, akin to FF 52, I can't get those images - with no extensions installed. Yet FF 52 does display the images, as does SeaMonkey 2.53 [akin to FF 56].)

[barbaz]

Image: (top-most, center) the iceberg
Image: (bottom 4 thumbs) the "Newswire" section.

With nothing allowed, neither display.

5: requires at least rollingstone.com & polyfill.io

Not for me. I only need rollingstone.com.

NoScript Classic 5.1.8.7rc3, Waterfox 56.2.2

URL: https://www.aldi.us/en/weekly-specials/our-weekly-ads/

5: requires +aldi.us & +wishabi.net
(without wishabi.net a message is displayed, "Oops!
This content is blocked by your browser's private browsing or ad blocking. To view this content, please exit private browsing or disable ad blocking for this site.")

10: requires only aldi-us

Confirmed. Un-checking "fetch" from NoScript 10's DEFAULT preset makes it behave same as NoScript Classic.

[therube]

I guess we have to go to https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=25149 to see what fetch is .

So, is fetch "safe"?
Safe enough? Not quite as safe?
Is it dangerous to have fetch fetch by default?
Would not having fetch fetch by default end up being a nuisance, i.e. a turn off, to the use of NoScript?
(Similar to allowing Base 2nd level Domains in NS 5 is more "convenient".)

[therube]

> Waterfox 56.2.2

Are you running NS 5 or 10 in there? [Oops, you already mentioned.]
(Does 10 run in there? Current installs but that might be it?
Heh, 10.1.8.17rc6 worked for *1* allow.
10.1.6.6rc2 looks like it might *mostly* work.)

[barbaz]

I guess we have to go to https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... =7&t=25149 to see what fetch is .

Well I would word it differently - https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 552#p93552

So, is fetch "safe"?
Safe enough? Not quite as safe?
Is it dangerous to have fetch fetch by default?

It was discussed before, read this https://forums.informaction.com/viewtop ... 10&t=20538 and you can decide for yourself.

Would not having fetch fetch by default end up being a nuisance, i.e. a turn off, to the use of NoScript?

Hasn't been a problem for me in NoScript Classic, why would NoScript 10 make it a problem?

> Waterfox 56.2.2

Are you running NS 5 or 10 in there?
(Does 10 run in there?

NoScript Classic 5.1.8.7rc3, as I said. I don't think Waterfox has yet the needed WebExtensions APIs to run NoScript 10.

[therube]

Not for me. I only need rollingstone.com.
NoScript Classic 5.1.8.7rc3, Waterfox 56.2.2

Confirmed.
And that is so too in FF 56 - starting with a clean Profile.
(As it was I started with, don't remember, but I do know that 52 & 56 & 2.49 & 2.53 were all running [separately] using that same Profile. Probably not such a good idea . [Well I know it wasn't a good idea, but I did it any how.])

[therube]

OK, so I guess rollingstone didn't turn out to be such a good case after all.
(Only issue there is that I can't get some of the images in SeaMonkey 2.49 - with no extensions?)

But we learned a little about fetch.
(Oh, & that rollingstone.com ought to be banished for what they thrust upon their users.
[Users who don't use NoScript, or perhaps other blockers ? that is.])