Good news for Chrome users - NoScript will be brought in...

[polonus]

Hi malware fighters,

Fx is gonna loose some of its shine, when JS in Google Chrome will have NoScript like features.
You can also control your content settings from the address bar. If there is any blocked item on the current web page, a small icon will appear in the address bar, and users can manage settings by clicking on it. This feature is similar to NoScript, where you can control settings from the status bar icon.

I hope to see this feature in stable version of Chrome soon:
http://techie-buzz.com/browsers/disable-javascript-images-cookies-in-google-chrome.html

polonus

[Hermite15]

Hi Polonus,

your thread title is a bit misleading. NS (the extension) isn't ported, as described in your post it's just an "everything or nothing" native feature present in Chrome latest dev version...that's not bad but still million miles behind the FF NS potential.

edit: adding a screen shot, that's what you get when scripts aren't allowed yet for a site, with two choices, allowing everything, or watching the Chrome message 

[Shiw Liang]

Hm...Noscript in Google Chrome still one thing needed for me hehe^^
it is WOT, since I've tried it I think it is very important in as browser for us to be aware of which website is bad and which website is good plus add on to download flash hehe I used to put some animes in my psp for my little bro...

[polonus]

Hi folks,

Well NoScript has not been ported yet to GoogleChrome, but WOT is not the last word either. Where we have a lot of trusted legit reputed sites being hacked and injected with malcode all the time, WOT may give it the all green while it could be just be suspicious at Unmask Parasites. With NoScript you know for sure you are secure, with WOT it is a good guess,

polonus

[CharleyO]

***

Results in WOT are like reading a newspaper ... it's yesterday's news.   


***

[DavidR]

It will take a lot more than adding NoScript (when it eventually happens), I really didn't like Chrome's lack of configurability on the two times I tried it. Speed isn't everything and its woeful lack of add-ons and configuration was enough to kick it back into the long grass and back to firefox both times.

[mkis]

***

Results in WOT are like reading a newspaper ... it's yesterday's news.    


***

I recently took a computer on a random mad ride through danger territory to test avast 5. In which time three trojans were blocked by avast 5 - that is blocked at browser rather than desktop, so my later checkup seemed to verify. No infections made it through (so much as I could find).

Anyway, WOT was going off, barking like a mad dog every time we neared 'trojan country' - same thing each time, WOT going off like mad (so I would delete close suspect page) and before long a trojan is blocked amongst same sites by avast 5.

At least the lightweight WOT is running in the same direction as my antivirus. Thats okay for starters, and may suggest good prospects for the future, especially for users untrained in malware detection.

Edit - sorry, slightly off topic

[computerfreaker]

***

Results in WOT are like reading a newspaper ... it's yesterday's news.    


***

I recently took a computer on a random mad ride through danger territory to test avast 5. In which time three trojans were blocked by avast 5 - that is blocked at browser rather than desktop, so my later checkup seemed to verify. No infections made it through (so much as I could find).

Anyway, WOT was going off, barking like a mad dog every time we neared 'trojan country' - same thing each time, WOT going off like mad (so I would delete suspect page) and before long a trojan is blocked amongst same sites by avast 5.

At least the lightweight WOT is running in the same direction as my antivirus. Thats okay for starters, and may suggest good prospects for the future, especially for users untrained in malware detection.

Edit - sorry, slightly off topic

Maybe a good start, but IMHO WOT is so problem-riddled.
I've installed, and quickly uninstalled, it twice. Both times my results were identical: it drastically slowed my Internet connection and the results were rarely helpful (or accurate). Some legit sites, for example, got poor reputation ratings, while torrent sites got excellent reputation ratings. After a couple of days, I got sick of the inaccuracy and got rid of it.

I'm with CharleyO, with one minor addendum: "Results in WOT are like reading a newspaper ... it's yesterday's news. And the guy doing the newspaper story is frequently completely wrong on the viewpoints he expresses."

[mkis]

Is WOT really that wrong? To my way of thinking, the program seems to carry enough advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. Even if it is yesterday's news.

I know that with WOT the option to participate is in the hands of the uninformed masses as opposed to informed technicians, but I dont think it is possible for most people to keep their computers up to the standards that technicians are accustomed to. Experience with WOT can help people to learn a bit more about internet safety because WOT is simple to use, and for people like me, easy to teach and helpful in enabling users to take a hands on role in internet security. And after all, we are mostly not techs in the computer world at large, techs are outnumbered by a huge extent. So we do have to trust in the uninformed masses to do right to some extent.  And WOT is something we can start with. I thought over time the momentum gained and the volumes of ratings achieved in WOT would swamp attempts to abuse (short term blips) as well as herd mentality drifts into popular misconceptions (long term errors).

But WOT is certainly not the last word.  And yes, is yesterday's news.

I have never had a problem with its resource use, nor functionality issues of any kind, but not as if I've checked it out closely. I also use Browser Defender and Finjan off and on (mostly in different computers).