How does one simple subhuman use Noscript ? is there a fucking

>>58607945
Go back to your cuckshed Pajeet

File: 1484966712434.jpg (29KB, 720x478px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x478px

>>58607945

>disable scripts globally
>go on any page you visit frequently
>permanently enable scripts one by one until it works
>keep any scripts that aren't required for the website to function disabled
>do this for all websites you frequent
>whenever you're on a trusted website that requires a ton of scripts like news websites just enable them all temporarily if you don't want to bother and revoke temporary permissions when you're done

It's supposed to break them. And you're supposed to whitelist sites that you decide to trust. If the creator of the site didn't make it mostly functional without the use Javascript then they fail as a web developer.
(also, you should purge the default whitelist of Noscript because it's full of botnet)

>>58608131

Alright thank you, since i'm trying to move from chromium to firefox do you recommend a version in particular Nightly build Dev or Normal release ?

>>58607945
Who still uses noscript?

Umatrix is basically the same their except easier to use.

>>58608173
GNU Icecat on Linux. If you're sticking to Windows, then I guess Palemoon. I wouldn't recommend any of Mozilla's versions on any system.

Noscript in itself doesn't do everything to keep your browsing safe. You will also need a cookie manager.
And something to manage cross-site scripts/other content. RequestPolicy is still fine for that purpose. Some people on /g/ will recommend uMatrix but last time I tried that one, it had fundamental problems...

>>58608307
>Some people on /g/ will recommend uMatrix but last time I tried that one, it had fundamental problems...
Such as...? It would be better to just use uMatrix since it takes on the function of both NoScript and RequestPolicy (Continued).

>>58608374

Alright is as hard to use Umatrix as Noscript ?

>>58608307

On the Install Gentoo Wiki they said that in terms of Security Palemoon is not really good is there a way to verify it myself ?

Because let's be honest Palemoon is more fast then firefox, Nightly Build is faster then the normal version but there is so much version that in term of privacy and security i don't know which one to pick, Ungoogle-chromium is still a botnet.

>>58608074
T H I S

But I use umatrix instead.

>>58607945
This addon was proven to be malware.
>>58608307
There's nothing wrong with default firefox if you take 2 minutes configuring it to your liking.

>>58608388
It's easy to use.

>>58608374
It may just be me being retarded, but I couldn't set uMatrix to globally disable everything. By default it leaves everything allowed and tasks you with manually disabling stuff. Which is the exact opposite of what it should be doing. I'll admit that I didn't spend too much time trying to fix this. After messing around with it and failing to reverse this backwards nonsense, I just returned to the old Noscript+RequestPolicy combo.

Anything obvious I missed?

>>58608483

Can i have the source I'm interested ?

>>58608374
Noscript does more than blocking scripts

You can use it in the strictest mode and disable all javascript by default but that can be daunting for normal people. An alternative to that is disabling javascript only if it comes from a third party source. Not quite as secure but if you only browse a handful of sites and rarely go to new sites it will be very convenient and it will still stop the main threats you have to worry about.

>>58608568
go mess around with it again and actually read the instructions on it's github, you can block everything if you want to
>>58608577
yeah such as?

>>58608665
All right then, I'll give it another go.

>read the instructions on it's github
Will do. I'm glad to hear there is a way to do it.

check

>>58608483
>This addon was proven to be malware.
Seconding source.

>>58608665
Anti XSS and ABE protects against clickjacking and CSRF
https://noscript.net/features

>>58609094
Umatrix can block XSS and has cross site request spoofing too, what's your point?
Also firefox has anti clickjacking support built in, you don't need some outdated piece of shit like ABE or some grease ware like noscript that comes with ad scripts whitelists built in.

>>58609155
Muhmuh umatrix, it's fine anon i' use both anyway.

>>58609235
Muh umatrix what? i'm just stating facts, if it was umatrix or another addon i'd say the same.
Why use something made by some sketchy greaser who got so mad he felt pressured to defend his shit on umatrix's github cause people are dropping his addon and even though gorhill didn't say anything about noscript.

File: salad.jpg (41KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x427px

>>58608074
>trusting news sites ever

>>58607945
use umatrix

>>58608074
and usually what you temp allow is 99% blocked by ublock anyways

>>58608074
>enable scripts one by one
scripts? i can only see domains
you can still enable the domain you're visiting and have a cpu lag, there should be an option for single scripts, perhaps lists like adblockers do

>>58608482
>umatrix instead
isnt it all included in ublock?

>>58609855
>what you temp allow is 99% blocked by ublock
no it isnt, there are many sites that run useless unefficient javascript that dont have anything to do with ads or tracking; at least on stock ublock install

are you referring to some custom list that blocks most scripts too?

File: mfw.png (60KB, 261x233px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 261x233px

>>58607945
It's easy. When you visit a page, you can temporarily allow everything but Google stuff. I do this to prevent tracking by that stupid ad company which disguises itself as a search engine.

>>58608131
Wrong.

If your site doesn't use restful APIs then your site is non semantic garbage that belongs in the trash.

>>58608074
Sounds like a lot of fucking work when you could just use ublock filters + custom filtering some problem domains/scripts.

>using noscript
>using software who's developer actively tries to infect his users with malware when they visit his site

wew

The web is JavaScript now faggots.

Stop being faggots.
If you want to block shitware scripts just use an adbocker like ublock

File: 2017-01-22--1485136508_1280x800_scrot.png (181KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x800px

>>58610347
Kind of, as in I could block specific elements, but umatrix has an easier UI than what ublock has built into it. I'd have to block each specific element with ublock, vs umatrix in pic related...

ublock in advanced mode does not provide the same features as umatrix, gorhill has an FAQ item explaining why this is the case.

>>58610744
what

>>58607945
There are predefined lists built in, retard

>>58608074
>visit 1000s of websites
>spend ten minutes configuring scripts on each website to make it work
>get the same level of privacy and protection as ublock origin with the correct lists enabled

No script is the install gentoo of browser addons.

>>58610930
Noscript has whitelists by default and some of them are ad scripts on noscript's site.
The funny thing is that if you visit his site with noscript and umatrix on, umatrix won't be able to block those whitelisted ad scripts cause noscript overrides whatever umatrix says and completely controls firefox, i seriously believe that italian greaser did it on purpose so you can't use them together (you shouldn't be using noscript anyways though).

If you care about them breaking, then why are you blocking scripts?

>>58610784
The same language that made Runescape is now king over the internet, complete with obnoxious ads that have the potential to infect Windows users. How surprising.

File: 1483629388020.jpg (25KB, 289x320px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 289x320px

>>58608074
>>whenever you're on a trusted website that requires a ton of scripts like news websites
hahahahahah. hope you get what you deserve. consult pic.

also, NoScript is the biggest waste of time ever. JS is now baked into everything and 90% of websites won't work without it. So, you'll be spending a minute fiddling with this shit every time you open some site because nothing will work,

these minutes add up and using the internet will seem like a giant chore.

>>58611311
>correct lists
please spoonfeed me

>>58608483

Thirding a source on that claim, Cap'n.

>>58612991
I dont have this problem because I
A)Dont visit garbage websites that are completely and entirely broken without JS
B)Dont give a shit about pointless "deseign" bullshit that breaks witout JS whilst leaving the actual content fine

>>58613795
goddamn those typos

My keyboard is fucked, sorry.