3 ms·

Glad i never used it, it always appeared fishy to me. And not only because of the fact that 90% of its users had barely a idea what the extension was supposed

by herbst 10y ago

Glad i never used it, it always appeared fishy to me. And not only because of the fact that 90% of its users had barely a idea what the extension was supposed to do other than magically deciding what bad and what good JS is.

angry-hacker 10y ago
The scary part is that it is bundled with Tor browser! The author really is shady. There are plenty of alternatives around.
- herbst 10y ago
  Damn you are right, i forgot about that. Makes the whole situation a little more serious i guess. Gonna check if they already discussed this and otherwise file a report. Edit:// Reported, if someone wants to add their 5c: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19280 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19280
marios 10y ago
NoScript blocks all JS by default. At least, that's what it does on my browser. The only pages that load JS here are the ones I have explicitely added to the whitelist. The rest gets no JS (or Flash or Java for that matter), unless I add it (most of the times this is temporary). It claims it can detect XSS attacks but that's not the main reason I have it installed. I've used NoScript for the past 5 years or so. I've tried disabling it and running only with uBlock (AdBlockPlus previously), but the truth is that in my case it simply doesn't work. At any given time, I have 20+ tabs loaded (more than 100 just sitting there), and there's just way too much JavaScript cruft on most sites out there. NoScript is the middle ground between completely disabling JS and having Firefox consume too much RAM for no apparent reason. If a site requires more than 2-3 external sources of JS to display any useful information then I usually just close the tab (and then I yell at the kids playing on my lawn). More on topic though, I'm not affected because I run on Linux, and uBlock catches the ad anyway. Has anyone notified the author that his site serves malware ?
- torgeek 10y ago
  good point. i did not. also you are clearly part of the 10% that know why. most installations ive seen did not use the whitelist approach and assumedbit ships with a good blacklist. btw: chrome unloads tabs. especially pinned ones seem to be WAY less ram heavy when unused. i dont know about firefox tho.

by herbst 10y ago

angry-hacker 10y ago

The scary part is that it is bundled with Tor browser! The author really is shady. There are plenty of alternatives around.

herbst 10y ago
Damn you are right, i forgot about that. Makes the whole situation a little more serious i guess. Gonna check if they already discussed this and otherwise file a report. Edit:// Reported, if someone wants to add their 5c: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19280 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19280

marios 10y ago

NoScript blocks all JS by default. At least, that's what it does on my browser. The only pages that load JS here are the ones I have explicitely added to the whitelist. The rest gets no JS (or Flash or Java for that matter), unless I add it (most of the times this is temporary). It claims it can detect XSS attacks but that's not the main reason I have it installed. I've used NoScript for the past 5 years or so. I've tried disabling it and running only with uBlock (AdBlockPlus previously), but the truth is that in my case it simply doesn't work. At any given time, I have 20+ tabs loaded (more than 100 just sitting there), and there's just way too much JavaScript cruft on most sites out there. NoScript is the middle ground between completely disabling JS and having Firefox consume too much RAM for no apparent reason. If a site requires more than 2-3 external sources of JS to display any useful information then I usually just close the tab (and then I yell at the kids playing on my lawn). More on topic though, I'm not affected because I run on Linux, and uBlock catches the ad anyway. Has anyone notified the author that his site serves malware ?

torgeek 10y ago
good point. i did not. also you are clearly part of the 10% that know why. most installations ive seen did not use the whitelist approach and assumedbit ships with a good blacklist. btw: chrome unloads tabs. especially pinned ones seem to be WAY less ram heavy when unused. i dont know about firefox tho.