/tech/ - Technology★

NoScript is kind of useless. I haven't touched it since I found uMatrix.

>>825481

Same here. I often see people praising it, and just think 'what I'm not understanding?'

>>825481

This

Just disable "1st-party" scripts and you have the exact same functionality.

Off-topic but IMHO uMatrix shouldn't even exist as a plugin: it should be built in like the dev console and called "Site Permissions".

>>825512

Plugins were a mistake anyway. Most of them should be built-in (like custom styles, SSL enforcement or userscripts). But that's where we are at.

>>825513

I think it's the opposite. Browsers should do literally nothing other than render html/css/js. Everything else should be a plugin.

>>825504

tor browser gets fucked over though

>>825524

you can still use add-ons in tor browser. just uninstall no-script and stick umatrix in.

>>825523

That's weird. Usually we expect our software to do everything we need by default. That's the standard expected from text editors, file managers, drawing software, etc. Why should browsers be different?

>>825526

because a browser already wants to be all of the above. less is better

>>825525

Enjoy your unique fingerprint

>>825526

Because other software is fairly self contained, you use it for a very specific purpose and that's it. Interenet browsers on the other hand are like an extension of your computer, so they should be customizable like your computer.

>>825526

Don't mind >>825523 because he is confusing the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" with the Lunix philosophy of "do it yourself, dependency hell plugin edition".

Hell yes ad blocking and script blocking should be part of the web browser just as the ads and scripts are part of the web page. Duh.

>>825531

Gee I sure want to trust my security and privacy on Jewgle and Communiszilla. Actually nevermind I forgot I can use a shitty browser that doesn't support half the internet nor any of the plugins I want instead.

>>825525

Sorry I should have been more clear what >>825528 said was what I was going for. You already attract a lot of attention by using tor so the last thing you want to do is make yourself anymore uniquely identifiable than necessary.

>>825532

>good stuff is bad depending where it comes from

With that mentality will you distrust AES and SHA because they come from the NSA?

>I don't trust them, Mozilla, Google, to protect my privacy

Fine but that wouldn't affect the technical aspect of them implementing ad blocking in their browsers: if it's good it's worth using, if it's bad it's useless and everyone will know.

>I am helpless, there are no alternative browsers

Except for the 1 gorillion forks and sporks based on Firefox and Chromium? Come on be reasonable /b/ro.

>>825542

>>good stuff is bad depending where it comes from

Do you really think Google will let you block all of their script and ads without sneaking some jew oil inbetween?

>>I am helpless, there are no alternative browsers

Nice reading comprehension.

>>825526

>text editors don't use plug-ins for things like search, transform, and import/export, along with external script apis

>filebrowsers don't use plug-ins for alien filesystems, metadata, and preview functionality

>drawing software like Photoshop and Illustrator aren't by far the most dependent on plug-ins

IMHO browsers shouldn't even have JPEG/GIF/PNG/etc image codecs distributed with the binary, let alone (invariably outdated and slow mirrors of ffmpeg's) video codecs statically linked. Feels too much like 8-bit PC days when your printer had to be directly supported by the drivers built into your word processor to work.

>>825479 (OP)

Didn't the noscript dev cheated their users beforehand, when they made the all ads turned into white list? top Kek.

>>825479 (OP)

Wasn't this compromised a while back?

WE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE GIORGIO MAONE BRO

WE TOLD YOU DOG

>>825571

Ha! I didn't know about this. What a scumbag.

This also refutes Mozilla's "logic" in removing XUL. Any and all software can be malicious.

>>825578

Well they've greatly improved the security of Firefox by putting each extension into their own sandbox. This means the extensions will theoretically have zero ability to affect anything outside of the sandbox.

>>825578

That was over a year ago. WebExtensions wouldn't be able to do such a thing because they're sandboxed.

>>825598

>>825603

But they can still be malicious themselves. As can all software. It should be the user's responsibility to control what gets run on their computer. Blocking or forcing the "signing" of addons just puts that control into someone else's hands.

>>825637

Yes. Let's remove root permissions and give users total control over their processes and programs. That works so well, doesn't it?

>>825641

The option of sandboxing is nice, sure, but making it mandatory for all addons is retarded. In your analogy, that would be like completely walling off the root account unless you installed a special jailbroken kernel fork.

>>825641

You still run a bunch of shit as "root". I mean, you boot the system, right? And it can do anything then.

Besides, a program doesn't need root permissions to be malicious. What prevents me from writing a python "game" that also deletes your home directory?

>>825642

>>825643

Never said permissions and sandboxes made systems unbreakable. However, they make it harder for malicious software to attack.

Root access is only given for very specific tasks. No program should have more permissions than it needs to function.