Other > Non-Avast security products
Pale Moon NoScript 'crisis'
Asyn:
--- Quote from: DavidR on May 15, 2018, 11:38:05 AM ---1. I don't see the point of doing that, when there are other options that cover much of what NoScript does.
2. Considering we are already on Firefox ESR version 52.8.0 (32-bit), come August 2018, we will have passed ESR version 52.0. Since many will be on the mainstream version/s of firefox, Legacy add-ons are already dead. At a very rough guess I would say 80% or possibly more are Legacy add-ons on the Mozilla site.
3. When Mozilla announced the death of Legacy add-ons outside of the ESR version, I said it was the longest suicide note for a browser I had seen.
--- End quote ---
Hi Dave,
1. I haven't found anything as configurable/powerful as NoScript yet.
2. Agreed, but 80%+ of these add-ons were also (more or less) useless slowdowns... ;)
3. Well, many devs have updated their products meanwhile, so the most important ones are covered.
PS: We're getting slightly OT here, as Pol is referring to Pale Moon in this thread...
Avast Eagle:
--- Quote from: DavidR on May 15, 2018, 11:38:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: polonus on May 13, 2018, 05:41:03 PM ---One could still use NoScript by taking off the tag at "disable".
Support for the old add-ons in Firefox ESR 52 ends coming August (2018),
so the amount of Legacy add-ons will certainly deminish round that time.
<snip>
--- End quote ---
1. I don't see the point of doing that, when there are other options that cover much of what NoScript does.
2. Considering we are already on Firefox ESR version 52.8.0 (32-bit), come August 2018, we will have passed ESR version 52.0. Since many will be on the mainstream version/s of firefox, Legacy add-ons are already dead. At a very rough guess I would say 80% or possibly more are Legacy add-ons on the Mozilla site.
When Mozilla announced the death of Legacy add-ons outside of the ESR version, I said it was the longest suicide note for a browser I had seen.
If people can't get the add-ons that they need/want, then what attraction does firefox hold, not much. I liked the configurability and multitude of add-ons that attracted me to firefox, well than and IE was cr4p and I didn't like Opera.
--- End quote ---
Been trying to get as much feedback possible to why NoScript would be considered unsafe now.
Can you give me more detail? also what else you keep planning to use along the browser.
polonus:
The very reason that add-ons (extensions) like NoScript exist, is gaping holes in the browser, and the fact that less and less is to run on the server-side nowadays and more and more is to run inside the client (aka the browser in this case).
Misleading news and titles like: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/55n860/noscript_is_harmful_and_promotes_malware/
This could pop-up everywhere and is the real reason: the title should be Malware Delivery Networks (aka ADNs) are harmful and distribute malware, not the means to not having to meet them or being confronted with malscript.
Whenever ad-launchers cannot guarantee a malware free ad-experience, I will contiunue to use ad- & script-blockers just for that very reason, and no one from the industry can tell me that is immoral behavior.
The tenure goes on from javascript developers like: "really, why should we support you if you’re not willing to support us by displaying ads?". Ok, but self-regulation did not even help here, see the cybercriminal crypto-jacking boom.
Well I do not want mal-script, I want the script that you developed and others acquire retired as soon as it becomes vulnerable or outdated or left code. (example for a jQuery javascript libary here: https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%2Fjquery%2Fjquery-1.8.3.min.js%22/ and the number of webpages that might be affected and therefore should be blocked as unwanted 3rd party code links on potentially over 1700 websites -> example:
https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%2Fjquery%2Fjquery-1.8.3.min.js%22/ ).
Same storylines are being told about adblockers like ABP & Ghostery. I am not going to browse naked, because it better suits Google's or facebook's or whatever's core-business monopoly selling off all of my private data and later comes to micro-target me with tergeted ads based on their algorithms, I haven't asked for that.
The above is why NoScript became integrated for instance inside the tor browser,and the main reason for why it is frowned upon by the "forces that be", because it empowers you as an end-user and that should not be.
polonus
Avast Eagle:
--- Quote from: polonus on July 14, 2018, 02:30:12 PM ---The very reason that add-ons (extensions) like NoScript exist, is gaping holes in the browser, and the fact that less and less is to run on the server-side nowadays and more and more is to run inside the client (aka the browser in this case).
Misleading news and titles like: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/55n860/noscript_is_harmful_and_promotes_malware/
This could pop-up everywhere and is the real reason: the title should be Malware Delivery Networks (aka ADNs) are harmful and distribute malware, not the means to not having to meet them or being confronted with malscript.
Whenever ad-launchers cannot guarantee a malware free ad-experience, I will contiunue to use ad- & script-blockers just for that very reason, and no one from the industry can tell me that is immoral behavior.
The tenure goes on from javascript developers like: "really, why should we support you if you’re not willing to support us by displaying ads?". Ok, but self-regulation did not even help here, see the cybercriminal crypto-jacking boom.
Well I do not want mal-script, I want the script that you developed and others acquire retired as soon as it becomes vulnerable or outdated or left code. (example for a jQuery javascript libary here: https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%2Fjquery%2Fjquery-1.8.3.min.js%22/ and the number of webpages that might be affected and therefore should be blocked as unwanted 3rd party code links on potentially over 1700 websites -> example:
https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%2Fjquery%2Fjquery-1.8.3.min.js%22/ ).
Same storylines are being told about adblockers like ABP & Ghostery. I am not going to browse naked, because it better suits Google's or facebook's or whatever's core-business monopoly selling off all of my private data and later comes to micro-target me with tergeted ads based on their algorithms, I haven't asked for that.
The above is why NoScript became integrated for instance inside the tor browser,and the main reason for why it is frowned upon by the "forces that be", because it empowers you as an end-user and that should not be.
polonus
--- End quote ---
Ah ok i missunderstood the first post xD
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version