3 ms·
NoScript is identified as a "legacy" extension. But it's the only one I use or care about. Hopefully it will be rewritten to work properly? To me, NoScript is
by PhantomGremlin 9y ago
NoScript is identified as a "legacy" extension. But it's the only one I use or care about. Hopefully it will be rewritten to work properly?
To me, NoScript is sine qua non. It's the primary differentiating factor between Firefox and other browsers.
- binaryapparatus 9y agoThere is javascript.enabled key in about:config that _seems_ to be working as expected but setting it manually every time is a chore.
- moosingin3space 9y agoNoScript isn't about bluntly disabling JavaScript. It's a set of tools for managing what scripts can do and what scripts run.
- ReidZB 9y agoIt's being migrated: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati... There's also uMatrix as a replacement.
- wtallis 9y agouMatrix isn't a replacement for NoScript. uMatrix lets you do some javascript blocking, but has none of the other features of NoScript. Several of those features are not available from anything other than NoScript. Eg. I haven't seen any other content blocker implement anything like NoScript's surrogate scripts feature.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoNoScript also isn't a superset of the capabilities of uMatrix. Both can do things the other can't.
- moosingin3space 9y agoNoScript's author works on the Mozilla Security Group. As a result, this particular extension was one that was strongly pushed. The author will be releasing a WebExtensions version in time for 57. He maintains the legacy version for the benefit of Tor Browser (based on 52ESR) so there is no chance for breakage before Tor Browser moves to 59ESR.