InformAction Forums

hello, sorry if this was posted previously (i did a search for redirect and meta and found nothing like this, but i could simply be too dumb to notice it).

my question is about redirect/refresh in trusted/whitelisted sites.

I would like to be able to whitelist a site, yet still have the option to allow whether to follow a redirect or not. I see that on untrusted sites, this is automatic, but it seems that when i whitelist a site ("allow" in the noscript menu), the site will suddenly redirect.

I will give an example:
I like to go to Google images to look up chemical reactions as it gives me excellent results. in this example, I found a great image of pyruvate oxidation from the Journal of Physiology.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 29,r:7,s:0
(sorry for the long link, thank Google for that)
if i don't "allow" physoc.org, i remain at the Google images page
if i "allow" physoc.org, I will not remain at the Google images page and instead will be immediately redirected to the physoc.org website.
Since I trust physoc.org, i added them to my whitelist, but i don't want to be redirected since all i need is the image and don't like to be forced to refresh if i don't want to.

is there any way to do this?
will making such a change affect things such as Google refreshes or trusted bit.ly redirects?

thank you so much and sorry for the abundance of info, i just felt it might help!

Firefox's built in Tools|Options|Advanced|General|Accessibility|Warn me when web sites try to redirect...

Hm, changing that Firefox setting does not stop the redirect and neither does the RefreshBlocker extension. If I were you, I'd consider removing physoc.org from the permanent whitelist and using Temporarily Allow only when you need it.

OK, I admit I didn't check the specific page but I based my answer on the question in the last paragraph.

In order to prevent the framebusting script on physoc.org from working, you can use the following surrogate script:

thank you so much for the surrogate script.. it worked exactly as I needed it to!

also, thanks for the quick reply, i really appreciate that!

one problem though, I like whitelisting many journal repositories because they are relatively safe but I was wondering if there was a less onerous way of restricting framebusting attempts like this? a script that adds a button to the noscript menu items?

of course, the wrinkle in all of this is that i am referring to whitelisted sites, as this is not a problem with untrusted sites. While simply not trusting them might be useful, there are many times when i need the site whitelisted for functionality, yet i don't want it to framebust unless i am ok with that.....

to that end, i'd be just as happy with a button that asks me if i want to allow the redirect... if i'm not mistaken, noscript does that on some redirects... or was that Firefox... it's been a while

thanks again!

skaai wrote:to that end, i'd be just as happy with a button that asks me if i want to allow the redirect... if i'm not mistaken, noscript does that on some redirects...

There are several ways to make a redirection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_redirection#Technique and there is the NoScript feature "Forbid META redirections inside <NOSCRIPT> elements" and the Firefox feature "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page".

Ultimately the best tool to compliment NoScript and completely and utterly break ANY access or refreshing or linking to another site is RequestPolicy (for those who don't know or want to use ABE to achieve the same thing). However, a small noteworthy warning, IT WORKS TOO GOOD for noobs. There is a bit of a learning curve and some initial attention, proactive evaluation and paying of attention and broken content to deal with until you have it tweaked for the sites you use regularly and get it to the point where its perfectly set up and new sites will continue to pose this little annoyance as well, but if you can learn to deal with NS breaking stuff on first load, using RP is not that much more difficult to adjust to, except for the minor difference that NS cuts with a scalpel, RP cuts with a machete.

I personally use NoScript (first line of defense), RequestPolicy (second line of defense for anything getting passed NS which aint much - but helpful with third party crap that is often harmless but still annoying), and finally Adblock Plus (filtering any little crap that gets left behind or removing annoyances or specific scripts that just bug me personally and clean up the interface a bit). You use these three and ACTUALLY learn how to use them properly, especially with ABE in NS making things alot more powerful and granular, you are untouchable and can have the guaranteed most secure browsing - period. But I have to say, its not easy, its annoying and it takes time to get it to how you like it, but a little pain is worth it, no?

BTW, specifically to your point (in case you missed it in all the above), it will NOT allow squat to be forwarded or refreshed to anywhere for any reason in hell, regardless of the method - unless you have allowed it to do so, how is that for using a machete, but ABE is a more precise scalpel for a less invasive technique. Or you can just surrogate every single site you use and go that way, a pain in the long run.

thanks again for the quick response....

Though for some reason, i lost the information during one of the synchronizations between my machines and have decided to backup my prefs file separately to repair this problem when it happens.
i don't know what that is but I'll leave that for another question because that terrible sync behavior seems to be a major problem with noscript and FF4 sync right now anyways as it seems to be at least three separate problems: synchronizing preferences, manually importing white/blacklists, loss of config information between synchronizations
and that is with the latest build of noscript and the switches set to NOT sync as stated in another article!
ill open a new topic to explain it further in the next day or so... but i'll see if anyone else hasn't already described the same thing