4 ms·

Any reason you prefer NoScript to uBlock Origin's script blocker? Just curious...

• nine_k 10y ago
  ...or uMatrix with its fine-grained control.
• a1a 10y ago
  I don't think they are comparable. I run both. NoScript is a security suite – besides blocking java, webgl, flash, silverlight, javascript, etc – it has additional defenses against XSS, ABE, clickjacking etc. uBlock was to my knowledge never developed to securely stop scripts and deter drive-by attacks etc. It should be used for adblocking, not for security.
  • basilm 10y ago
    I switched to google chrome (Version 54.0.2840.98 (64-bit) today and was sad when I couldn't find Noscript on chrome extensions store. But then I found uMatrix (by the author of ublock origin). I think uMatrix is almost close to Noscript security suite (no xss, abe, clickjack protection though). But I still have firefox (this latest update) running side. I wish firefox would hardcode ublock origin + noscript into its core. So users can have all the privacy and safety by default. Most people in my town don't even understand what plugins are. But I try to install these two plugins for anyone who asks me for help. I also educate them by talking about these security techniques.
• noisem4ker 10y ago
  The fact that NoScript supports script surrogates might be a reason. That means less websites will break when not enabling scripts that are expected but not really necessary. http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/24/noscript-script-surrogates-explained/ http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/24/noscript-script-surrogates-... >When you visit a site in Firefox that loads the Google Analytics script on page load, NoScript intercepts that request and replaces it automatically with the replacement instructions (which basically tell the site that the Analytics script was loaded fine but does nothing in regards to user recording).