On April the 1st (!) 2009 I had a phone call with Mickey Kim of Google. The Chromium development team was starting to design a browser extension API, and they wanted to know what kind of hooks were needed for FlashGot and NoScript to be ported on Chrome. I gave them detailed answers with references to related Mozilla technologies, and they promised to keep me updated with progresses.

Eight months later, Chrome extensions are here but NoScript is not among them yet, and people are asking why. The reason is very simple: Chrome is still lacking the required infrastructure for selective script disablement and object blocking.

Maybe Google plans to implement the missing stuff later, maybe they're still trying to figure out whether it can be done without enabling effective ad blocking, but in the meanwhile the pale AdBlock and FlashBlock imitations which have been hacked together by overwhelming popular demand, are forced to use a very fragile CSS-based hiding approach, ridiculously easy to circumvent.

Just install the most popular FlashBlock clone for Chrome and visit this page I put together in 3 minutes to see what I mean...

Update

Sam Hasler came to the rescue:

The top rated FlashBlock clone for Chrome does block your example page.

Of course, it took another 3 minutes to fix "the top rated" as well ;-)

58 Responses to “Why Chrome has No NoScript”

  1. #1 cartman says:

    Btw related Chrome bug report for content blocking is http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=6975

  2. #2 Piet says:

    Maybe they called you to find out what not to implement because they didn't want ad blockers :P

  3. #3 Twitter Trackbacks for hackademix.net » Why Chrome has No NoScript [hackademix.net] on Topsy.com says:

    [...] hackademix.net » Why Chrome has No NoScript hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript – view page – cached On April the 1^st (!) 2009 I had a phone call with Mickey Kim of Google. The Chromium development team was starting to design a browser extension API, and they wanted to know what kind of hooks were... Read moreOn April the 1^st (!) 2009 I had a phone call with Mickey Kim of Google. The Chromium development team was starting to design a browser extension API, and they wanted to know what kind of hooks were needed for FlashGot and NoScript to be ported on Chrome. I gave them detailed answers with references to related Mozilla technologies, and they promised to keep me updated with progresses. View page [...]

  4. #4 johnolilly at 12/10/09 05:31:07 | Exectweets says:

    [...] Pro Tweets Giorgio on why NoScript is only for Firefox right now. http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ johnolilly - Thu 10 Dec 17:31 0 [...]

  5. #5 Sam Hasler says:

    The top rated FlashBlock clone for Chrome does block your example page: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl

  6. #6 GµårÐïåñ says:

    This reaffirms what I have said for a long time and that is that although Chrome may be a novel idea, it is not nearly as complete a solution as people think and it smells of a half ass open source project pasted together with the intent of featuring and enhancing GOOGLE services. Why would they want something like NoScript to castrate their exploits and so on. There is no upside for them to allow it, they want the easy advertising and tracking and so on that they are pushing on people. It will be a long time before Chrome is a serious player.

  7. #7 Giorgio says:

    @Sam Hasler:
    Not anymore :)

  8. #8 pirlouy says:

    Don't you think it's Webkit actual limitation which prevents from having content policies like what Gecko offers ?

  9. #9 Peter Kasting says:

    Giorgio, I don't know where you got the impression that we're trying to avoid enabling "effective ad blocking". Work on resource-granular content policies is proceeding on http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16932 and various other bugs. It's hard to do right (e.g. without slowing anything down). Please don't assume maliciousness when we don't have every feature implemented at the same time.

  10. #10 Giorgio says:

    @pirlouy:
    No I don't. Current Webkit don't have them, but there's nothing Webkit-specific preventing them from being implemented.

    @Peter Kasting:
    Maliciousness? I didn't assume anything :)
    That's not my impression. Even if that was a concern, you could always enforce some "global exception" for AdSense or deliver ads in Chrome's chrome. I was just voicing the "maybes" that many people wondered about (I get dozens of emails each week about NoScript for Chrome...)

  11. #11 Chrome Extensions Are Cool, But They Can’t Match Firefox | Programming Blog says:

    [...] scripts — like Firefox’s NoScript or FlashBlock. As NoScript developer Giorgio Maone points out on his blog, “Chrome is still lacking the required infrastructure for selective script [...]

  12. #12 Steve Dunham says:

    I believe that http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21541 can be leveraged to implement ad-blocking (once it is fully implemented). It looks like it will allow extensions to define lists of patterns and whether to block the url completely, block only cookies, etc.

  13. #13 Tom T. says:

    Peter Kasting and others:

    No accusations of malice are necessary. There is a universal problem when any person or organization has an inherent conflict of interest: You cannot expect people (or organizations of people) to act against their own best interest.

    Google is in the business of selling advertising and ad-related services. NoScript can block these. So there is a conflict of interest in Google enabling the blocking of its revenue base.

    Given that the above is Google's revenue core, what I wonder is why *anyone* would trust a browser made by an advertising company. If DoubleClick introduced a browser, who would use it? How many people know that in 2008, Google bought DoubleClick, formerly the largest Internet ad agency in the world, and the subject of multiple complaints of invasion of privacy? Google owns DoubleClick. I cannot imagine why *anyone* would use a Google browser (or "Desktop", or toolbar, etc.)

    The conflicts between Mozilla and Google are already of concern to this writer. Fortunately, NoScript plus browser tweaks (eliminating the search bar, the vetting of URLs by Google, etc.) can overcome them. Giorgio Maone is very kind to donate his time to port NoScript to Google in the interest of providing whatever protection is possible for those who will use Google Chrome browser for whatever reason.

    Please note that the above is my own personal opinion, and not that of NoScript, Giorgio Maone, the NoScript Support Forum, nor any other person or entity but myself.

  14. #14 Chrome Extensions Are Cool, But They Can’t Match Firefox « SYNERGY says:

    [...] block scripts — like Firefox’s NoScript or FlashBlock. As NoScript developer Giorgio Maone points out on his blog, “Chrome is still lacking the required infrastructure for selective script [...]

  15. #15 Porque Chrome no tiene NoScript | Shadow Security says:

    [...] Raul Batista – Segu-info Autor: Giorgio Maone Fuente: Hackademix.net [...]

  16. #16 Anon and Proud says:

    The following is not intended as criticism of Google. Their operations are as valid as the next company's.
    Looking at Google's extension developer's forum policies - published here
    https://chrome.google.com/extensions/intl/en/program_policies.html
    I see the dead hand of tight management already in place, which sort of gives the lie to any hand-waving from Google about Chrome being anything remotely akin to the, to say the least, rather more anarchic Firefox extensions community.
    Which is not, of course to say that there isn't a place for a fast browser with lots of toys to play with for the eager enthusiast who likes quick results. The way the development is getting boosted by users reminds me very much of the early new generation mac marketing by apple: sort of like here's a shiney thing for geeky users that they can customize the looks out of but real easy, unlike the clunky old drab IE.
    But with this kind of heavy signalling about what a hacker may or may not do with the Google toys:
    "We will respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. For more information or to file a DMCA request, please visit our copyright procedures at http://www.google.com/dmca.html. [...]
    We don't allow products or services that violate third party terms of service, or products or services that enable the unauthorized download of streaming content or media." - Google is clearly already set up to facilitate helping big corporates rather than individual users.
    Strong user control will I doubt ever be a priority for Chrome. Which come to think of it is also a bit like apple: here's a wonderful ready-made jewel, which you can polish a bit but keep it the way we sell it and only on the hardware that we want it with. Nice to see Google using linux for development though and I hope they get a little Open Source attitude rubbed off on them in the process.

  17. #17 Justin says:

    what about Opera browser, can it implement a NoScript addon?

  18. #18 An-n says:

    Justin, Opera doesn't need it, it can block/turn off java/flash/javascript/plugins per site or globally out of the box.

  19. #19 Giorgio says:

    @Justin:
    Opera is not easily extensible (userscripts aside), so answer is no.

    @An-n:
    Opera lacks many of the security and usability features provided by NoScript, e.g. clickable placeholders for blocked objects, anti-XSS filters and anti-clickjacking protection.

  20. #20 Aerik says:

    I have more issues with Chrome, even the beta with the support for (so far very crappy) extensions.

    First, if you block ads and annoyances with a hostsfile in Windows (only OS I can speak for), it really slows down Chrome. It persistently tries to resolve the loopback address to a fault. I've compared it to a resetted firefox 3.6b4 profile, and it's not even close. Firefox will quit a connection to the loopback address much faster and therefore load a page much faster than Chrome. It's really quite poetic that this bug has nothing to do with javascript, while it's mainly javascript performance that Chrome boasts.

    Second, it's near impossible to have a secure session in Chrome. Every time you navigate from one page to another, the 's' in 'https' disappears, breaking your SSL connection -- even if you clicked a link in which the url was HTPS !! Sure, you say that 4 beta has STS, but that's only on paypal. Other than that, trying to do secure work online in Chrome is just impossible. And are cookie set over https marked as secure, like in your secure cookie management? who knows? Even without any extensions, Firefox will persist a secure connection to a domain as long as you are there. With noscript, force tls, blocksite, request policy, and adblock plus, only firefox can provide a truly secure session with, say, your bank, or paypal.

    Chrome is open source, they say, but actual accessibility to it's features is almost non-existent. So on top of my complaints, there is also this 'why there is no noscript' issue. Not only can you not disable images or cookies on a per-site basis, you can't disable images one way or another at all! Or javascript. Or flash, any plugin, really. They're all always on, all the time.

    The only compliment I can give it is that it has some XSS blocking that is working against some of the basic javascript XSS submitted to reddit.com/r/xss ; however, it still works on the image-based XSS. Noscript can take care of both.

    I'm using Chrome to make this comment because I'm checking out how it performs on some other things right now, but I'm not enjoying it, I'll tell you that much.

  21. #21 Tom T. says:

    @ Aerik:

    "First, if you block ads and annoyances with a hostsfile in Windows ..., it really slows down Chrome. It persistently tries to resolve the loopback address to a fault."

    http://hackademix.net/2009/07/01/abe-warnings-everywhere-omg/

    Giorgio gives a number of reasons why using the loopback address, 127.0.0.1, is not a good idea for a Hosts file. After that discussion, I changed mine to 0.0.0.0, and all is well. I don't know whether that would speed up Chrome (and don't care), but please read the discussion there for the other advantages of changing your Hosts redirection address.

    You probably already know what I'm about to say, but for the benefit of any other readers using Hosts files: The fastest way to do this is to open Hosts with Notepad, use Edit > Replace, and replace 127.0.0.1 with 0.0.0.0 > Replace All. This will take about 10 seconds with 15,000 or so entries. When done, "save".

    Then you must go back to the top and restore the following:

    127.0.0.1 localhost

    which must *always* be the first entry. Save and exit.

  22. #22 Aerik says:

    @Tom T. : telling me about giorgio's thoughts about 127.0.0.1 has nothing to do with this thread.

    It doesn't matter what the loopback address is, only what you enter for domains to be redirected to in the hosts file. It could be anything at all, and Chrome will still try to resolve a connection to it way longer than it should.

    I already use 0.0.0.0 just because it's an invalid IP that can't hurt anybody and because it's the shortest, saving on size. I was doing this before Giorgio made that post.

    the problem had nothing to do with what the loopback address is, only what chrome does about it.

  23. #23 Testing out Google’s Chromium…. « Thoughty's Blog says:

    [...] huge reason not to use Chromium however, is that it can not have something like NoScript by design. Adblocking can be done with Privoxy as a workaround, but it is not quite as usable as a real [...]

  24. #24 Meine Links der Woche (VIII) | Linux und Ich says:

    [...] hackademix.net: Why Chrome has No NoScript… Google Chrome für Linux ist ja jetzt in einer offiziellen Beta-Version erschienen. Doch trotzdem dass nun endlich auch Plugins möglich sind, gibt es immer noch bescheidene Möglichkeiten Werbung zu blockieren. Giorgio Maone, der Autor des Firefox-Add-Ons NoScript, erklärt in seinem Blog warum es noch kein NoScript für Chrome/Chromium gibt und was das mit den beschränkten Werbeblockern zu tun hat. [...]

  25. #25 Arkh says:

    @An-n
    Can you easily (in two mouse clicks) block google analytics on a website while still enabling the website's own javascript with Opera ?
    Last time I checked the answer was no, but it may have changed.

  26. #26 Aerik says:

    It's gotten worse. Upon uninstalling chrome, I went into my firefox to discover that Chrome had installed a global plugin, "google update."

    Googleupdate.exe always being in my taskbar raising cpu was already a pain in the ass, and I thought I had taken care of it. Apparently not.

    I can't disable and remove this plugin. It's worse than the .net framework microsoft tried to put in.

    I've gone to every help site I can find, tried every query, and everybody tells me I need to delete a /program files folder and /application date folders that arent't there, and delete registry entries that are also not there.

    Google insists that if I've removed all google apps from my pc, there should be no googleupdate anywhere. I'm calling bullshit.

    On top of that, I'm finding very poor answers about uninstalling global extensions from firefox.

    So do you know what I tried? I backed up my firefox profile piece-by-piece and examined my prefs for the plugin. Nothing was found. Fine.

    Then I completely removed firefox from my system and tried again. I downloaded a new installer of 3.6b4 from mozilla.com . I install it. Guess what? Even before restoring any of my profile, GoogleUpdate plugin is there,enabled, doing who know's what.

    This is quite a problem. Can anybody help?

  27. #27 vitamine c says:

    The Chromium development team was starting to design a browser extension API, and they wanted to know what kind of hooks were needed for FlashGot and NoScript to be ported on Chrome. I gave them detailed answers with references to related Mozilla technologies, and they promised to keep me updated with progresses.

  28. #28 Why no one should not use the „Iron“ Chromium fork « Thoughty's Blog says:

    [...] that ad-blocker works. It is true that Chromium does not have an integrated ad-blocking system (and seem not to like to have one anyway), so this might be the only real upside of the project (on a side note, I think easy to use is what [...]

  29. #29 Sorrow says:

    For some peculiar reason, v1.9.9.26 seems to be the latest version, yet I only receive v1.9.9.22 whenever I use NoScript.

    I've tried Checking for Updates, looking at the About menu to see which version I have, and nothing I do will update to v1.9.9.26.

    Unless, of course, it has something to do with the newest Firefox 3.6b5, which was released today.

    Or, it could be that v1.9.9.23 - v1.9.9.26 is covered already in v1.9.9.22

    Help please, Girgio? Thanks.

  30. #30 Alan Baxter says:

    Checking for Update doesn't find NoScript 1.9.9.26 because AMO hasn't finished vetting it yet. You can get it from http://noscript.net/getit or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/722

  31. #31 Tom T. says:

    @ Aerik:

    "the problem had nothing to do with what the loopback address is, only what chrome does about it."

    I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to "loopback" as that term is commonly understood and defined in RFC:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopback#Virtual_network_interface

    "All TCP/IP implementations support a loopback device, which is a virtual network interface implemented in software only and not connected to any hardware, but which is fully integrated into the computer system's internal network infrastructure. Any traffic that a computer program sends to the loopback interface is immediately received on the same interface.

    Correspondingly, the Internet Protocol (IP) specifies a loopback network. In IPv4 this is the network with the CIDR prefix 127/8 (RFC 3330). The most commonly used IP address on the loopback device is 127.0.0.1 for IPv4, although any address in the range 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 is mapped to it."

    I didn't realize that Chrome would continuously retry non-existent addresses like 0.0.0.0.

    I apologize for not realizing that you were referring to any address in Hosts as a "loopback address", rather than the more strict definition above.

    As for the googleupdate.exe, I've never had it, but here are some possible workarounds, in no particular order. (@ Giorgio, is a preview pane not feasible here? Thanks.)

    I assume you've already searched and found googleupdate.exe and simply tried deleting the file? I did this for a friend who accidentally let MS install the "Notification Tool" -- we just went to windows\system32 and deleted the exe. Not a complete "uninstallation", but it solved the problem. Or just do a search for "google" and see what files show up in the search.

    1) Block it in your firewall, so at least it can't access the Web.
    2) Run msconfig and see if it's in startup tab; if so, uncheck.
    3) Open Task Manager and stop the process. Ignore the complaints/warnings (at your own risk , not mine, please :)
    4) If you can't find the recommended registry entries, search the Registry for googleupdate. If that doesn't locate them all or solve the problem, search just Google. I've removed every reference to Google from my Registry, and guess what? The machine still runs! :) (NOTE: I didn't bother with the ones related to IE, since I never use IE.)
    5) Certainly check HKLM\Software for Google, as well as HKCU\Software.
    6) Certainly check under both HKCU and HKLM: \Software\MS\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run for anything vaguely Google-ish. Delete.
    7 (Said these were out of order) Start > Programs > Startup (or whatever your menu path is to Startup) Anything about Google? Or \Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Start Menu\Programs\Startup

    That's all that comes to mind at the moment. As always, before doing any of the above, *back up all valuable data, installers, etc.*, make a System Restore point, and preferably, a full-disk-image backup. Offered in the hope of helping, but with no warranties, express or implied. Use these at your own risk, or if unwilling to do so, then please do not do these. Good luck.

  32. #32 pat_boy2008's Blog » Firefox vs Chrome says:

    [...] lacking the required infrastructure for selective script disablement and object blocking.” (Hackademix.net). So becuase of this some extensions like Adblock or FlashBlock can be easily [...]

  33. #33 Mark Strelecki says:

    Just weighed in at the Chrome blog website and reminded the Google developers that if NoScript/AdBlock functionality AT A MINIMUM is unavailable, then I will NEVER use it or the OS derivative thereof. Maybe the user tracking and advertiser concerns really do mean that it's OK to "Do Some Evil - Just Not a Lot".

    Never thought I'd see this day. All my best wishes to Giorgio Maone, now and always, from a True Believer in Atlanta, GA. USA.

    Ciao.

    MARK STRELECKI

  34. #34 K-Man says:

    I would love to try out Chrome.

    But I'm not going to until NoScript is available for it.

    I hate the naked feeling of surfing without NoScript!

  35. #35 Gerald J says:

    K-man and others waiting for noscript for Chome, you might have a long wait. Google is in the business of sellings ads, so don't they have a lot of incentive to NOT block the very ads they are selling?

    Thanks to Giorgio and all the other commenters here who have given me some good insights and helpful information regarding the browser situation. I would like something faster than firefox with noscript but I'm not willing to sacrifice security to get the speed, though I'm wondering how much I really need the XSS and other features Opera is lacking that are present in noscript. I only see the XSS message when using paypal which isn't very often, too bad opera can't block that threat.

    But I agree Chrome is out of the question without a better solution than is currently available. And I'm not holding my breath for Google to jump at the chance to block their own ads.

  36. #36 mathiastck says:

    Unfortunately the ability to selectively disable scripts opens up a lot of security flaws.

    Mind you, NoScript is always one of the top 3 plugins I use. I also like tab mix plus and download them all. Hell I like download them all so much I implemented it in Android :)

    But remember how much trouble you caused when you got angry at another developer?

  37. #37 mathiastck says:

    Yeah shouldn't you just release your own webkit distribution, rather then try too hard to be put on chrome?

    And you will have to trick me pretty well before I click on evil.*.* or *.evil.* or *.*.evil. ie (a.a.a where a= (*||EVIL))!= i want to click.

    Have you tried clicking on your evil page from Android?

  38. #38 Google Chrome sense trobar a faltar els complements de Firefox – El Nostre Racó says:

    [...] Firefox té una extensió anomenada NoScript. Aquesta extensió permet fer una llista blanca dels llocs webs dels que permets l’utilització de javascript. A Chrome no hi ha res semblant, ja que Chrome no té el que es necessari per la deshabilitació selectiva i bloqueig d’objectes. [...]

  39. #39 Gabriel says:

    You guys all assume that just because you personally install ad-block and no-script that the majority of people also do the same and it's simply not true.

    Google providing support for someone to build an ad-block plugin or no-script plugin will actually hurt them very little because the majority of people out there will not install them.

    It's most likely that support will come and that they provided an early solution that is designed to be script/css friendly rather than forcing the populace to learn a new language to programming environment. And in doing so lacked some of the more mature features the gecko scripting engine has provided for sometime now.

    Have patience and quit trolling. Jeez.

  40. #40 Thibault says:

    Great news guys : since version 5.0.317.2 dev for windows google chrome has now built-in javascript, cookies and plugins blocking, based on a blacklist (block javascript on this site and allow all the others) or a whitelist (block every javascript except from www.yt.com --in this case it allows all embedded js, probably including syndication ;) in www.yt.com).

    The settings are in the new "content" button into "under the hood" tab.

  41. #41 Gnat says:

    @Thibault

    meh...

    From what I've read, Chrome 5 still lacks individual control of script and object blocking.

    In other words, if you whitelist xyz.com, then ALL scripts on the page at xyz.com will run, even those from another domain.

  42. #42 Google Shows Security Focus in New Extensions For Chrome at ITSecurity says:

    [...] even Google would tell you that the Chrome extension architecture isn't completely baked. Giorgio Maone complains in this blog about how it lacks the hooks necessary for him to implement his NoScript plug-in, popular on [...]

  43. #43 inhumangeek says:

    @ Tom T (#13)
    "Given that the above is Google’s revenue core, what I wonder is why *anyone* would trust a browser made by an advertising company... I cannot imagine why *anyone* would use a Google browser"

    Well how about because we don't see it as a problem? OK, we all hate advetising, especially if it's completely irrelevant to us, but if Google can direct the adverts so that they are of relevance then that's not a bad thing. If my browsing habits are tracked then I don't really give a damn!

  44. #44 T says:

    i think the script that gets blocked most from my noscript is google analytics. I am also not switching to google chrome until it has no script.

    there does seem a conflict of interest there. although i could also see some people allowing google analytics to pass through. but i think in the end google might prefer to have a larger market share that includes those, like me, that would be blocking their stuff anyways in firefox. i'm not sure exactly how chrome is supposed to make profit. and to be honest, i'm not really sure how firefox does either. that's kind of lost on me.

    but that we block adds in chrome rather than firefox i don't think would bother google, and in fact, i think they'd prefer we block them using chrome.

    so enabling no script for chrome is in fact in their interest because it will make more people use chrome.

    sure those people will be blocking adds, but who cares. they're already blocking them anyways.

  45. #45 Donn Edwards says:

    Perhaps Chrome 5 has fixed the problems you are complaining about, but I have a good ad blocker installed in Chrome 5.0.335.1 - it's called AdThwart and it blocks most ads. I also have Flashblock installed and it blocks most of those annoying flash animations. The only thing it doesn't block is YouTube, because I asked it not to. Your example page is blank except for a Youtube clip.

    The only extensions from Firefox I miss are FoxClocks and DownThemAll

    I stopped using NoScript in Firefox a long time ago because it broke too many sites.

  46. #46 KL says:

    As a security feature No Script has little relevance when you have Sandboxie.

    Chrome I believe has its own sandbox, but I would think Sandboxie is better.

    If you combine Chrome own sand box and sandboxie then even the most paranoid must see that as far as security goes No Script is surplus to requirements.

  47. #47 Surfs up « OddCog.com says:

    [...] available Chrome content blockers use an easily circumventable CSS hiding approach that can be coded around in about 3 minutes which isn’t that surprising when you consider that Google make a sizeable amount from adverts [...]

  48. #48 My daily readings 06/08/2010 « Strange Kite says:

    [...] [2]: http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ [...]

  49. #49 hackademix.net » Before you ask... (No NoScript on Safari) says:

    [...] Unfortunately, Safari 5’s support for extensions looks even more limited than Chrome’s. [...]

  50. #50 hackademix.net » Yet Another Adobe Flash Unpatched Vulnerability Actively Exploited in the Wild says:

    [...] on the “FlashBlock” extensions for your security is not a good idea, neither on Firefox nor on Chrome: these toys are great against annoyances, but too easy to circumvent to be [...]

  51. #51 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | Education says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension called [...]

  52. #52 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest - Trotting Weasel says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension [...]

  53. #53 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | Nikkipedia.org says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension called [...]

  54. #54 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | Best Firefox Tutorials, Tips, Tricks says:

    [...] Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve [...]

  55. #55 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | My Social Life says:

    [...] selectively block Javascript οn ѕοmе sites (уου саn read thіѕ post аnԁ thіѕ thread fοr more details). I’ve bееn browsing [...]

  56. #56 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | Latest Softwares in the Internet Today says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension called [...]

  57. #57 How To: Permanently Disable Google Instant and Google Suggest « David King says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension [...]

  58. #58 How To Permanently Disable Google Instant & Google Suggest | Programming Blog says:

    [...] no good way to selectively block Javascript on some sites (you can read this post and this thread for more details). I’ve been browsing around and found this extension [...]

Bad Behavior has blocked 2910 access attempts in the last 7 days.