InformAction Forums

The number of websites that do not work at all without javascript has dramatically increased.
My personal experience shows that for >95% of all urls I do not have the choice to disable javascript.

I therefore suggest that NoScript should be redesigned in such a way, that only those parts of javascript which really pose a security risk get individually blocked. Each time a script wants to execute such a function, NoScript should pop up a window asking if it shall temporarily or permanently be allowed.

At the same time functions thwarting anonimity like transmitting the real local IP should also be monitored.

Please let me know what you think about it.

Many thanks for your fine work!

Thanks for your kind words

LinAdmin wrote:I therefore suggest that NoScript should be redesigned in such a way, that only those parts of javascript which really pose a security risk get individually blocked. Each time a script wants to execute such a function, NoScript should pop up a window asking if it shall temporarily or permanently be allowed.

At the same time functions thwarting anonimity like transmitting the real local IP should also be monitored.

Please let me know what you think about it.

I wish could have such a feature for sites we allow the JS but it's technically impossible to implement, there are to many different ways to do the same thing in JS

However, re: anonymity, some specifics already can be mostly thwarted if you know the surrogate script system

I can confidently assure you that if a site does not work at all without JavaScript, then any attempt to authorise/deny each specific usage of JavaScript will be completely unusable.

Try looking at the source code of google.com.

I don't have the same experience as you do: Most sites I visit still work just fine without JS

Those that don't seem to be mostly from big companies. About the usability of NoScript though, I have to say I much prefer uMatrix UI, not to mention its ability to allow/block a website per origin rather than globally as NoScript does. That said NS has so much other hidden gems that I just can't decide what's best. Probably NoScript *if* you have an empty whitelist, but in terms of user experience I prefer uMatrix.

I really wonder what's going on with NoScript 3, how does it look, what is going to change, and when it is going to be released. (I guess, whenever Firefox e10s hits release channel)
Do we have any info ?

DDDan wrote:About the usability of NoScript though, I have to say I much prefer uMatrix UI, not to mention its ability to allow/block a website per origin rather than globally as NoScript does. That said NS has so much other hidden gems that I just can't decide what's best. Probably NoScript *if* you have an empty whitelist, but in terms of user experience I prefer uMatrix.

µMatrix is a nice addon, I use it myself but it's for advanced users only and has a much steeper learning curve than NoScript. Neither addon is "better" than the other overall - functionality of µMatrix is largely orthogonal to NoScript's (these two addons work well side-by-side), thus that discussion is off-topic for this thread, so please take it here or here, thanks.

DDDan wrote:I really wonder what's going on with NoScript 3, how does it look, what is going to change, and when it is going to be released. (I guess, whenever Firefox e10s hits release channel)
Do we have any info ?

Well, there is alpha version of NoScript 3 Mobile; however no idea about NoScript 3 for desktop, sorry.

(Guest post about UHD was split to viewtopic.php?t=21863 )