NoScript 安全套件 的评价
NoScript 安全套件 作者: Giorgio Maone
Firefox 用户 13446037 的评价
评分 3 / 5
来自 Firefox 用户 13446037, 8 年前WebExtension 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.
2,394 条评价
- 评分 2 / 5来自 Michael Rabinovsky, 2 天前No Script is an incredibly useful add-on. In the past, I'd have given it five stars; it now gets only two (see issues below). All in all, I'd say it's still better to have it than not, but that's only because there is no better alternative, and there is no difference between having to completely disable it on a page versus not having it at all.
First of all, it would have gotten three due to the issues I list further down, but it gets two because of a major functionality problem that makes it obnoxious to use, and by its admission, not private in private windows.
In the past, when you set it to trust top-level domains, it would automatically set them to temp trusted; however, for whatever reason, it now sets them to "custom," for me, which functions the same as untrusted, and changing it doesn't even refresh the page for you.
The default setting handling is a huge inconvenience, but that is not where the problems end. You cannot restore previous functionality by manually setting the top-level domain to temp trust. To enable scripts on the page, you must set it to trust, which makes it permanently trusted, and keeps a log of every page you visit in private windows. If you try to change it to temp trust and refresh the page, it goes back to "custom."
Besides that, the description for the extension is outdated. Not only does it still mention Flash, but it also claims no loss of functionality when you need it, which is not true. In most cases, enabling some scripts will return the functionality you need, but there are several reasons why that's not always the case.
Sometimes, certain scripts you need will be on sub-domains of the top-level domain, and they need to be enabled separately; however, NoScript doesn't show them because it thinks they are part of the main domain, so you have no way to make the site work without completely disabling the addon for the page.
In other instances, sites won't load all the scripts until they load some other domains. For example, a CDN containing vital scripts might not appear on the list because it's called after an analytics script has run. There is no way to know that unless you enable each script on the list, one by one. The domain doesn't need to be related; it's just something about how the page loads. - 评分 5 / 5来自 HunterMirror, 8 天前He notado en las demás reseñas, que las personas no parecen comprender el propósito de este addon. La idea es que bloquee los scripts, si una página se rompe por ello, es algo perfectamente esperable, no es culpa de la extensión perse, sino de quien desarrolló dicha página web, queda a tu criterio si lo quieres añadir a la lista blanca o no. Lo realmente triste y reprochable, es más bien que hoy en día hayan tantas páginas que quieran que actives los scripts si o si para poder usarlos, incluso páginas que no los necesitan para nada.
El abuso de los scripts y la manía de convertir las páginas web en "aplicaciones", es lo que ha causado que ahora usar el navegador implique un consumo cada vez mayor de RAM, sin contar los riesgos de seguridad innecesarios del uso de scripts, tanto para el usuario como para el webmaster/desarrollador. Así que por mi parte, prefiero que se rompan las páginas que sean, no les voy a activar los scripts si no son páginas que hagan un uso inteligente y justo de ellas. - 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18710229, 15 天前This add-on works as intended and has saved me from a lot of potential problems and annoying website antics.
- 评分 2 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 19157064, 1 个月前Completely breaks reddit on mobile, site becomes unusable. I only got it for help blocking reddits creepy tracking bs on this browser.
- 评分 1 / 5来自 Cory Sanin, 1 个月前One 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. - 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 19145735, 1 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 A Tea Daze, 1 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 jordan9543, 1 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 18218075, 1 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Shannon Sobeck, 2 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Flyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, 2 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 19088604, 2 个月前
- 评分 5 / 5来自 Firefox 用户 19072892, 2 个月前