Comments on: Why Chrome has No NoScript http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ Giorgio Maone's answers to the Web, the Universe, and Everything Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:54:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: hackademix.net » Before you ask... (No NoScript on Safari) http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-23071 hackademix.net » Before you ask... (No NoScript on Safari) Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:08:38 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-23071 [...] Unfortunately, Safari 5’s support for extensions looks even more limited than Chrome’s. [...] […] Unfortunately, Safari 5’s support for extensions looks even more limited than Chrome’s. […]

]]> By: My daily readings 06/08/2010 « Strange Kite http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-23070 My daily readings 06/08/2010 « Strange Kite Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:30:57 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-23070 [...] [2]: http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ [...] […] [2]: http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ […]

]]> By: Surfs up « OddCog.com http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22837 Surfs up « OddCog.com Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:47:22 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22837 [...] 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 [...] […] 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 […]

]]> By: KL http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22634 KL Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:34:10 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22634 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. 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.

]]> By: Donn Edwards http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22358 Donn Edwards Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:42:06 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22358 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. 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.

]]> By: T http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22197 T Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:26:12 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-22197 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. 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.

]]> By: inhumangeek http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21961 inhumangeek Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:42:09 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21961 @ 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! @ 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!

]]> By: Google Shows Security Focus in New Extensions For Chrome at ITSecurity http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21564 Google Shows Security Focus in New Extensions For Chrome at ITSecurity Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:15:51 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21564 [...] 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 [...] […] 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 […]

]]> By: Gnat http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21562 Gnat Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:34:06 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-21562 @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. @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.

]]> By: Thibault http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-20976 Thibault Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:41:02 +0000 http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/#comment-20976 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. 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.

]]>