Critiques pour NoScript Security Suite
NoScript Security Suite par Giorgio Maone
Avis de Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 13446037 de Firefox
Noté 3 sur 5
par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 13446037 de Firefox, il y a 8 ansWebExtension is a big change, so former NoScript is dead and NoScript 10 is just a new extension.
Hopefully the developer will probably recover some advanced features of the XUL version, but it will take time we must be patient.
As today, there is no alternative on Firefox 57.
It seems that developer of the excellent ScriipSafe on Chrome Webstore doesn't want to port it on Firefox.
He could have done this for Microsoft Edge since a long time, and nothing has been done.
And surfing without a script controller is I M P O S S I B L E
.
I just don't understand why Mozilla team has not developed a basic embedded javascript manager as it was in the very good former Opera 16 (presto engine), so it could have let all the time to the third party developers to create a more advanced extension.
This is not acceptable, THIS IS A VERY BIG FAULT from Mozilla.
The main issue I could address now to the developer is :
1) no possibility to grant authorization to a full domain (this is a big difference with ScripSafe which lets the choice to the user)
Example : I want to authorize domain and all subdomain of the CDN provider Akamai, This si possible with scripsafe by using the "trust" option instead of "allow", it is not possible here
I want to authorize all Akamai because due to load balancing process the CDN server may change a lot, and so you still need to allow various subdomain. Maybe the developer could implement very quickly a joker system allowing to enter domains like :
*.akamai.net
*.hd.akamai.net
In first case we allow every subdomain of akamai.net
In the second case we limit to every subdomain of hd.akamai.net
2) No synchornization option
Ideally, NoScript should store the users data in cloud through the Firefox account as ScripSafe does in the Google Account.
But maybe it is not possible according to the Firefox account policy, so the workaround should be to be able to synchronize data to/from a local path on the computer.
One just have to create this path in a OneDrive or Google Drive synchronized directory...and this should be done.
I have several computer, each computer has several users session, this is just annoying to set up NosSript for each repeating always the same process. And when I set up a new computer, I must restart from the beginning.
With ScripSafe, this is very easy... the extension automatically download and upload to Google Accounts (one must activate such option).
If ScripSafe is ever ported to Firefox with the same functionalities, I drop NoScript
3) Slow GUI
As today, the NoScript GUI is I N C R E D I B L Y slow.
As a comparison ScripSafe is incredibly fast to display the distant hosts list
But this version is a kind of quick done dirty version, let's be patient, this will be probably fixed in the future, but developer must know that the situation is as today not acceptable. I also suspect that NoScript 10 slows down the browser
4) Inefficient filtering mechanism
In the former XUL extension, the filtering engine of NoScript was crappy as it was oftenly forgetting a lot of distant host.
So one needed sometimes to switch to "allow all scripts" to see these hosts, and go back to "forbide all scripts", and so we could set rules for theses invisible hosts.
As compared, ScripSafe was far better as there was not such issues.
Finally.... XUL NoScript is dead and this is a very good thing because the filtering engine of NoScript was outdated and the author didn't want to admit that.
Let's see now if this brand new Web Extension addresses such issues, I can't say at this moment.
Hopefully the developer will probably recover some advanced features of the XUL version, but it will take time we must be patient.
As today, there is no alternative on Firefox 57.
It seems that developer of the excellent ScriipSafe on Chrome Webstore doesn't want to port it on Firefox.
He could have done this for Microsoft Edge since a long time, and nothing has been done.
And surfing without a script controller is I M P O S S I B L E
.
I just don't understand why Mozilla team has not developed a basic embedded javascript manager as it was in the very good former Opera 16 (presto engine), so it could have let all the time to the third party developers to create a more advanced extension.
This is not acceptable, THIS IS A VERY BIG FAULT from Mozilla.
The main issue I could address now to the developer is :
1) no possibility to grant authorization to a full domain (this is a big difference with ScripSafe which lets the choice to the user)
Example : I want to authorize domain and all subdomain of the CDN provider Akamai, This si possible with scripsafe by using the "trust" option instead of "allow", it is not possible here
I want to authorize all Akamai because due to load balancing process the CDN server may change a lot, and so you still need to allow various subdomain. Maybe the developer could implement very quickly a joker system allowing to enter domains like :
*.akamai.net
*.hd.akamai.net
In first case we allow every subdomain of akamai.net
In the second case we limit to every subdomain of hd.akamai.net
2) No synchornization option
Ideally, NoScript should store the users data in cloud through the Firefox account as ScripSafe does in the Google Account.
But maybe it is not possible according to the Firefox account policy, so the workaround should be to be able to synchronize data to/from a local path on the computer.
One just have to create this path in a OneDrive or Google Drive synchronized directory...and this should be done.
I have several computer, each computer has several users session, this is just annoying to set up NosSript for each repeating always the same process. And when I set up a new computer, I must restart from the beginning.
With ScripSafe, this is very easy... the extension automatically download and upload to Google Accounts (one must activate such option).
If ScripSafe is ever ported to Firefox with the same functionalities, I drop NoScript
3) Slow GUI
As today, the NoScript GUI is I N C R E D I B L Y slow.
As a comparison ScripSafe is incredibly fast to display the distant hosts list
But this version is a kind of quick done dirty version, let's be patient, this will be probably fixed in the future, but developer must know that the situation is as today not acceptable. I also suspect that NoScript 10 slows down the browser
4) Inefficient filtering mechanism
In the former XUL extension, the filtering engine of NoScript was crappy as it was oftenly forgetting a lot of distant host.
So one needed sometimes to switch to "allow all scripts" to see these hosts, and go back to "forbide all scripts", and so we could set rules for theses invisible hosts.
As compared, ScripSafe was far better as there was not such issues.
Finally.... XUL NoScript is dead and this is a very good thing because the filtering engine of NoScript was outdated and the author didn't want to admit that.
Let's see now if this brand new Web Extension addresses such issues, I can't say at this moment.
2 387 notes
- Noté 3 sur 5par Air, il y a 8 joursVery useful on a computer, however, enabling it by default on a mobile phone will block many important features, including but not limited to any AI features and video browsing
- Noté 2 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19157064 de Firefox, il y a 15 joursCompletely breaks reddit on mobile, site becomes unusable. I only got it for help blocking reddits creepy tracking bs on this browser.
- Noté 1 sur 5par Cory Sanin, il y a 15 joursOne star for SidebarUtil.tab.js
Disruptive as hell and for what? Why do you need to know if I have a sidebar open? I don't even know what a sidebar is. Remove this nonsense. - Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19145735 de Firefox, il y a 17 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par And?, il y a 21 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par A Tea Daze, il y a 21 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par srzlt, il y a 25 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par jordan9543, il y a 25 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par vit55555, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 18218075 de Firefox, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par fiendkaka, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Shannon Sobeck, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Flyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19088604 de Firefox, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par kk, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19072892 de Firefox, il y a un mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par cwqing1973, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 14468519 de Firefox, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par rabbitshee, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19047433 de Firefox, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par A. Bilmanda, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Lazer Bear, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Sembler, il y a 2 mois