3 ms·

One of the most brilliant features in the latest versions of Safari are per-website settings for ad blockers, notifications, location, etc. Between those two vu

One of the most brilliant features in the latest versions of Safari are per-website settings for ad blockers, notifications, location, etc. Between those two vulnerabilities and the general obnoxious useage of JS on websites, I’d love to see the addition of a per-website setting for JS. I would personally turn it off by default and only whitelist a handful of websites.

DamonHD 9y ago
This is what I already get with FF + NoScript. And yes, I am bored by sites that I visit for the first time that will not show me any meaningful content until I enable layer upon layer of JS. Just not necessary, nor is it safe.
- pmontra 9y ago
  Sometimes you can open the developer tools and hack the CSS, because some of those sites hide content with a display: none unless some JavaScript removes it. If it's a site you often navigate to, there are addons like Stylus that can make those changes permanent.
- duozerk 9y ago
  Same here (with noscript as well). Although I'll say it's hard to blame web developers for not considering the case where JS is disabled beyond a simple "you need Javascript to see this page" message (though even that tends to be the exception, not the rule), because noscript/umatrix users are probably in the low, low minority.
dredmorbius 9y ago
uMatrix, for everyone else. It's a bit fiddly, but you can set moderately sane defaults. Well, sort of. If websites themselves were far more sane, this would be far less a problem.
rickycook 9y ago
similar to noscript, there’s “JS Blocker” for Safari. it’s truly an excellent extension; significantly more powerful than noscript because it allows hugely customisable rules for loading only some scripts on some pages (eg https and *.cloudfront.com when loading console.aws.amazon.com), rules about canvas usage, XHR requests and a whole lot of other things. it’s the honestly the only reason i haven’t moved back to firefox, because by comparison noscript is just SO awful! http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/home http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/home
- osteele 9y ago
  Don’t you need to audit the extension source, and verify it matches the build (or build it yourself), to make sure it’s not exfiltrating data from visited web sites? I’ve been reluctant to install extensions, because I’d have to extend my trust set from the OS and Browser makers, to the extension author and the integrity of whatever system they use for their build.
cornyNetHandle 9y ago
Am trying out the brave browser at the moment, it does that pretty well, though for any site that doesn't just work in brave by turning on scripts for a page, I still tend to use firefox or opera, rather than enabling more things on brave.

DamonHD 9y ago

This is what I already get with FF + NoScript. And yes, I am bored by sites that I visit for the first time that will not show me any meaningful content until I enable layer upon layer of JS. Just not necessary, nor is it safe.

pmontra 9y ago
Sometimes you can open the developer tools and hack the CSS, because some of those sites hide content with a display: none unless some JavaScript removes it. If it's a site you often navigate to, there are addons like Stylus that can make those changes permanent.
duozerk 9y ago
Same here (with noscript as well). Although I'll say it's hard to blame web developers for not considering the case where JS is disabled beyond a simple "you need Javascript to see this page" message (though even that tends to be the exception, not the rule), because noscript/umatrix users are probably in the low, low minority.

dredmorbius 9y ago

uMatrix, for everyone else. It's a bit fiddly, but you can set moderately sane defaults. Well, sort of. If websites themselves were far more sane, this would be far less a problem.

rickycook 9y ago

similar to noscript, there’s “JS Blocker” for Safari. it’s truly an excellent extension; significantly more powerful than noscript because it allows hugely customisable rules for loading only some scripts on some pages (eg https and *.cloudfront.com when loading console.aws.amazon.com), rules about canvas usage, XHR requests and a whole lot of other things. it’s the honestly the only reason i haven’t moved back to firefox, because by comparison noscript is just SO awful! http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/home http://jsblocker.toggleable.com/home

osteele 9y ago
Don’t you need to audit the extension source, and verify it matches the build (or build it yourself), to make sure it’s not exfiltrating data from visited web sites? I’ve been reluctant to install extensions, because I’d have to extend my trust set from the OS and Browser makers, to the extension author and the integrity of whatever system they use for their build.

cornyNetHandle 9y ago

Am trying out the brave browser at the moment, it does that pretty well, though for any site that doesn't just work in brave by turning on scripts for a page, I still tend to use firefox or opera, rather than enabling more things on brave.