4 ms·

In my opinion NoScript is the single most powerful security tool for the home user. It's a shame they've rendered it nearly unusable with the new UI. I don't kn

In my opinion NoScript is the single most powerful security tool for the home user. It's a shame they've rendered it nearly unusable with the new UI. I don't know why it's a trend with developers these days to turn readable menus into oversimplified buttons/icons. I have to rely on tooltips just to work my Gmail and that's ridiculous.

amelius 8y ago
> In my opinion NoScript is the single most powerful security tool for the home user Unfortunately, it is also a great tool for breaking websites ...
- Causality1 8y ago
  True, but that's what the whitelist is for. Browsers are so complex these days that visiting a website you've never heard of before may as well be you running a random executable. Will your browsers security hold up if the website is hostile? Probably, in the same way the security features of your OS and/or anti-malware software will probably keep you safe from a random malicious executable.
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    I have ran malware on known sites due to faulty ads and some Java 0-day about 5 years ago. I never enabled Java in my browser again. I do wonder if having used NoScript would of saved me since it does block Java applets too.
  - amelius 8y ago
    The problem is that if you suffer from information-addiction, like most people nowadays do, the whitelist quickly becomes filled with every website out there.
    - tomatotomato37 8y ago
      I've actually had the opposite problem, I have yet to make a habit of saving my noscript (now umatrix) settings, so any time-saving of eliminating slow scripts is wasted refreshing it three times trying to figure out which cdn is the important one; and trying to selectively enable the scripts of a video streaming site is even worse. Still worth having it though, especially when you go to traditionally sketchy download sites and see it have a cleaner UI than the apple homepage with just a single download button.
      - tcd 8y ago
        See, this is where data collection would actually come in useful. Noscript can collect the information as to the most common settings for each website (say youtube) and apply them automatically. Would save the whole "temp allow" -> "refresh" whack a mole game :)
craftyguy 8y ago
The UI works fine for me. > I have to rely on tooltips just to work my Gmail and that's ridiculous. Pick a better mail service that doensn't 'require' JavaScript? You're complaining about a thing that lets users control what sites are allowed to run and you're trying to use one of the most JS-heavy sites on the internet...
- vimslayer 8y ago
  The parent commenter was comparing the bad UI of NoScript to the bad UI of Gmail. Seems fair comparison to me if the UIs are similar. What does JavaScript have to do with it? People are quite capable of creating bad UIs with or without JavaScript.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > What does JavaScript have to do with it? Um, the article is about NoScript.. which (drumroll) allows users to manage Javascript on a per-website and/or per-source basis.

amelius 8y ago

> In my opinion NoScript is the single most powerful security tool for the home user Unfortunately, it is also a great tool for breaking websites ...

Causality1 8y ago
True, but that's what the whitelist is for. Browsers are so complex these days that visiting a website you've never heard of before may as well be you running a random executable. Will your browsers security hold up if the website is hostile? Probably, in the same way the security features of your OS and/or anti-malware software will probably keep you safe from a random malicious executable.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  I have ran malware on known sites due to faulty ads and some Java 0-day about 5 years ago. I never enabled Java in my browser again. I do wonder if having used NoScript would of saved me since it does block Java applets too.
- amelius 8y ago
  The problem is that if you suffer from information-addiction, like most people nowadays do, the whitelist quickly becomes filled with every website out there.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    I've actually had the opposite problem, I have yet to make a habit of saving my noscript (now umatrix) settings, so any time-saving of eliminating slow scripts is wasted refreshing it three times trying to figure out which cdn is the important one; and trying to selectively enable the scripts of a video streaming site is even worse. Still worth having it though, especially when you go to traditionally sketchy download sites and see it have a cleaner UI than the apple homepage with just a single download button.
    - tcd 8y ago
      See, this is where data collection would actually come in useful. Noscript can collect the information as to the most common settings for each website (say youtube) and apply them automatically. Would save the whole "temp allow" -> "refresh" whack a mole game :)

craftyguy 8y ago

The UI works fine for me. > I have to rely on tooltips just to work my Gmail and that's ridiculous. Pick a better mail service that doensn't 'require' JavaScript? You're complaining about a thing that lets users control what sites are allowed to run and you're trying to use one of the most JS-heavy sites on the internet...

vimslayer 8y ago
The parent commenter was comparing the bad UI of NoScript to the bad UI of Gmail. Seems fair comparison to me if the UIs are similar. What does JavaScript have to do with it? People are quite capable of creating bad UIs with or without JavaScript.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > What does JavaScript have to do with it? Um, the article is about NoScript.. which (drumroll) allows users to manage Javascript on a per-website and/or per-source basis.