Do i need No script extension in Firefox if using Avast Internet Security?

[system]

I would like to know if it would be any benefit to use the No Script extension for Firefox 3.6.9 while I’m using the Avast Internet Security.
As I understand it the script blocker included has no user settings in Avast.
I do not want to duplicate things.
Thanks.

[system]

Different animals, these two are.

NoScript is a universal script blacklist that you modify as you go, either temp allowing scripts or permanently whitelisting them, depending on how far you want to take it. It also has additional protection against other online attacks also.

It is also much more initially invasive than the Avast! script shield, as it needs 100% more user input. If you give NoScript time and are willing to “make friends” with it, you will forget it is there most times, and be better protected for it. If not, it will be your worst enemy, crushing your browsing experience.

These two are not redundant though, this is good layering of protection, as any scripts you allow will still meet Avast! script shield.

[Lisandro]

The problem is that once in NoScript whitelist… everything passes from that site, while avast Script Blocker always scan the site for infected scripts.

[system]

Thanks, Avast is doing a great job keeping me out of trouble so far.
I’ll look into no script a bit further before I use it.

[system]

@Tech post:3

The problem is that once in NoScript whitelist… everything passes from that site, …

Just from the main site you allowed – all third-party sites feeding content will be blocked unless you allow them–especially if you have NoScript’s Options > Settings locked down (i.e., forbid all active content, plugins, etc. for untrusted sites)

@Tech post:3

… while avast Script Blocker always scan the site for infected scripts.

http://www.avast.com/internet-security#tab2 ???

Script Shield
Detects malicious scripts hidden in internet web pages and prevents them from running and hijacking or potentially causing damage to your computer (Internet Explorer only, 32-bit only).

[system]

@Jon_T post:5

Script Shield
Detects malicious scripts hidden in internet web pages and prevents them from running and hijacking or potentially causing damage to your computer (Internet Explorer only, 32-bit only).

Well, I never noticed that before. The “IE only” part, I mean. I was aware of the lack of 64bit capability.

[Lisandro]

@Jon_T post:5

Script Shield
Detects malicious scripts hidden in internet web pages and prevents them from running and hijacking or potentially causing damage to your computer (Internet Explorer only, 32-bit only).

Yeah, forgot that. Only IE 32 bits.

[Lisandro]

Script Blocker cannot work with Firefox: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=14879.msg125840#msg125840

The browser extracts the scripts from the page and passes them to Script Blocker. It scans them for viruses and if everything is OK, the browser continues execution. There’s no whitelist… and the scanning itself shouldn’t affect the execution in any way.

@igor post:5

Honestly, the Script Blocker is rather an obsolete feature today - almost everything that avast! Script Blocker could detect will also be detected by avast! Web Shield (and much more). The only occasion where Script Blocker has an advantage (against Web Shield) would be running the malware from disk - but during browsing, you are completely protected by Web Shield, there’s no need for Script Blocker.

In particular:

1. If the file doesn’t come from web, but rather from disk (i.e. if you load an infected web page from disk, which includes browser cache - even though in that case you must have visited the site previously anyway), then it cannot be detected by Web Shield, of course.
2. In very specific cases (and I am not aware of any at the moment), it’s possible that the Script Blocker detects a malicous script after decryption (if WebShield doesn’t detect the encrypted parent)
3. Script Blocker works even for encrypted connections (HTTPS), where Web Shield doesn’t see the traffic.

Script Blocker gets the data [to be scanned] from the browser itself - so, that’s the source here. Of course, the browser may have performed some decryption in between. That is certainly not the case for Web Shield or Standard Shield that get the raw data from web or disk.

The data flow is basically something like:
Internet → WebShield → Browser → Script Blocker → Scripting engine (Windows or back in browser again)

So, Script Blocker gets different data - after they were partially processed by the browser itself. This may have removed some encryption layers, for example.

[system]

Hi wsx123

For the first week I had No Script - Kept Thinking… What have I done? :
What on earth have I installed this Firefox add-on for?

But I stuck with it - & - I’m glad I did! 8)

How I try to imagine the way No Script works…
Rather than websites just being one website ( Like we think of them being. )
Websites are very often made up of layers.
Maybe 2, 3 … or … even more.
The bad Virus people might even try to add a layer themselves :o
So…
No Script - Allows you to only Allow the layers that you want and need.

I’m still no expert when it comes to No Script and all of it’s settings.
But How I Use It Is Like This…

1. If You Trust The Main Website - Allow (The website you are actually visiting! )
2. Mark All The Others As - Untrusted ( All other things that No Script asks you about. )
   Then…
   If by chance there is something that doesn’t work on the page - Example : Video
3. One Thing At A Time - Temporarily Allow ( Just until you find out which one it is that you need to allow. )

No Script does take a bit of getting used to.
But it’s one of those things…
That you’re just about to Scream - & - Then how it works just all clicks into place

Hally

[system]

@Tech post:3

The problem is that once in NoScript whitelist… everything passes from that site, while avast Script Blocker always scan the site for infected scripts.

hmm…Tech, the Avast script shield only works with IE
(and a few programs, but not Firefox)

edit: okay I see now you realized that