I wasn’t saying I was worried about being infected more along the lines of just wondering about possibilities. Also to David yes Hitman can be aggressive however I just use it as a checking tool as it is quicker than running a scan with MBAM. Also I use No-Script and Firefox but really only for times when I need to google something for just normal everyday stuff (Such as Youtube and such) I prefer Chrome as it happens to be much quicker. Firefox also has a few compatibility issues with Youtube that have caused glitches also it seems that Firefox’s performance is slowed with No-Script.
I’m part of the minority here along with Dch48. Since a few of the websites I use on a regular basis use scripts so I fail
to see any use for NoScript. I do, however, disagree with his preferred browser. IE is way to slow for me.
IE9 and now 10 run just as fast as any other browser on all of my machines. IE8 was definitely slower than Chrome but that is in the past. I wouldn’t use Firefox if they paid me to.
so let me guess there is no module/plugin/extension for IE10 capable to reach even bit of functionality like noScripts, notScripts, ScriptSafe ?
I mean after all these years I seen tons of things like bugs, cookies, social, w/e tracking (e.g. Ghostery) plugins for IE(7 to 10) but not single one trying to reach usable “on user decision” functionality over scripts
No because that would place the computer back into your hands, because IE equals the underlying OS, just like chrome on google and there you cannot reach deep api level either, it just has not been opened up to open source developers…
This was the main reason to use another browser than IE, but one has to keep IE updated and fully patched to better secure the whole of the Windows OS that way.
IE has come a long way from their insecurity days similar to the insecurity we have entered to see now now for quite some time with Oracle’s Java to just give an example.
NoScript is a good solution because it is a solution that never fails for script security, not even for script insecurities that has not been invented yet.
Who does not like NoScript, well to start with - all those that wanna encrypt and obfuscate javascript for devious reasons from script hacks on profile tracking to enable circumventing ad-blocking up to right-down malware launching from redirects, iframes etc. etc. NoScript is never running behind the facts, as IE is doing for every new vulnerability that has not been patched…until that has been patched or being blocked…activeX …
Let’s state it properly. No Script blocks all attempts to run script. The decision for the exceptions to run a script are now the responsibility of the the user. To rephrase that statement, No Script puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the user. If the users is diligent and does research as to the validity of the script which was blocked by No Script, then using No Script is a good thing. If No Script is used by the average user who doesn’t ever check anything or, doesn’t know how to do the research, then the only thing No Script will have done is delay the execution on the script.
Therefore, No script is good for those that use it as intended but it doesn’t do anything for the average computer user except making the use of computers even harder for them.
I started out using IE many years ago, and every time I went to a website I got the message that there were errors on the page. This was so annoying I started using Netscape, it just displayed the page the way it was supposed be, and there were no error messages. Then I moved on to Firefox.
I tried using IE8 and IE9 but they were so slow loading pages, that I just gave up and stuck with Firefox.
I have tried IE10, and I have to admit, it is as fast as Firefox loading pages, but as far as I know it doesn’t have the plugins or extensions available in Firefox.
The extensions for Firefox that I use are, Better Privacy, it deletes Flash cookies, Ghostery, it blocks tracking cookies, and NoScript.
NoScript is very easy for the average user. All they have to do is whitelist the websites they trust, like local and national news websites. their bank website, and places they shop online.
NoScript provides protection when you are using Google or Yahoo searches, when you have no idea of what type of website you will be taken to.
Well, bob3160. That is not exactly as I see it. And a lot of the workings of NoScript are therefore misinterpreted by you, probably because you do not use it on a regular basis or not at all.
A lot of these user decisions are already worked out in NoScript as it is being blocked by default before that user decides to toggle to unblock part of the site. Yes, bad scripts are blocked anyways by Giorgio Maone the guru and maker of NoScript (and are thorougly discussed on the official NoScript forum) - so this does not need any user intervention and stays so for blocked or not.- the baddies have no chance, really. The main line of crap and bad malcode comes from third party code, not from the main site itself. Unblocking the main site (that is when the site is not malicious by design) will be necessary only to allow some functionality. Whenever the site is known to the user there are less problems trusting the main part of the site and the rest can be neatly blocked or allowed per session as some further functionality is needed. Evaluating and using NoScripts blocking/unblocking is not exactly needing rocket science and can be handled by everyone with a bit of insight in safe-hexing. But a lot of this discussion is not needed when a site comes pre-blocked by for instance the by avast! shields (have them on under all circumstances) and Google Safebrowsing or WOT etc. So for all that remains NoScript is a necessary extra layer of in-browser security that is full-proof…I thank Giorgio Maone for giving it to us, and I cannot understand why IE never even had one script blocking extension developed?
Damian
P.S. For Google Chrome we have a similar extension in ScriptSafe. Love to have that as well…
using NoScripts blocking/unblocking is not exactly needing rocket science and can be handled by everyone with a bit of insight in safe-hexing.
Precisely my point. [b]The average user doesn't have insight and certainly doesn't practice safe-hexing. [/b]
Statistics unfortunately bear this out. I never said that NoScript wasn't a great tool. I simply said that it's not a tool that will do any good for the average user.