On 25 August 2016 at 03:14, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[...]
At which point, you may as well have not bothered with using NoScript,
in the first place. Sure, this half measure has stopped some of the
nonsense (the other things that would also have loaded), but you're
still exposed to the risk that many people are trying to mitigate
(whether that be privacy, hacking, or simply having your computer grind
to a halt under the burden of many badly programmed scripts).
I tend to go through the annoying route, of temporarily allowing likely
looking scripts, one by one, until either the page works, or I'm so
annoyed with it that I abandon it.
If there are sites that I want to regularly use, I consider permanently
allowing the scripts that were needed to make them work. But don't
always do so. It's slightly less of a risk if they're self-hosted than
coming from a third party. But that could be faked, they could be
proxying a third-party script through their own domain.
I used to use NoScript up until a couple of years ago when loading
pages took extra time *because of* NoScript which is just irritating.
So I ditched NoScript (which over the years became *too much*) and
switched to other methods to block troublesome javascripts, to cut the
story short, nowadays I use uMatrix[1], it's much lighter on resources
and more intuitive to use IMHO. I've seen various reports of others
using uBlock Origin (developed by the same author of uMatrix), but
personally I settled for just using uMatrix.
[
1]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/