uMatrix, the brother of ublock is far superior than NoScript and Scriptsafe. It blocks virtually all scripts.
µMatrix: Point and click matrix to filter net requests according to source, destination and type.
I like µMatrix, but how is it superior to NoScript?
(At blocking executable web content, obviously, not features µMatrix has that NoScript doesn't.)
>open botnet
>>47001714
Stop making me feel guilty for still using NoScript + RequestPolicy + ABP.
Policeman is the Firefox alternative.
>>47001714
>µMatrix: Point and click matrix to filter net requests according to source, destination and type.
Is there a way to filter based on 3D mapping?
For example, say I want to allow script from example.com but ONLY if they're being loaded from foobar.com.
>>47001774
Click the box in the upper left and change it from an asterisk to something else.
>>47001769
I'm too dumb and lazy to figure out Policeman.
>>47001769
The UI needs work, but it's a pretty fine-grained addon, extremely lightweight too, only 200KB
OP Here:
It's an upgrade of HTTPS Switchboard so read the documentation on how to use uMatrix at
https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/How-to-use-HTTP-Switchboard:-Two-opposing-views
>>47001814
It's pretty much the same thing as uMatrix, but higher on the autism count.
Once you figure out how shit works, it just werks.
Do you use Noscript and Policeman or just policeman only?
Why not simply use uBlock to block scripts?
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-default-deny
>>47001868
Just Policeman.
>>47001877
Because there are more things out there than javascript and iframes.
I only use noscript to turn off javascript because mozilla retardly removed the feature in firefox
>>47001856
Only drawback compared to uMatrix is that it doesn't block cookies, but since Firefox has a built in whitelist for cookies I guess it isn't needed.
Still it would be more convenient I guess.
>>47001714
yeah, I'm fine using noscript.
>>47001884
ok just have to learn how to use it now
>>47001714
To bad it requires chrome
>>47001714
>It blocks virtually all scripts.
You mean like NoScript already did?
Fuck off.
Wait, I thought policeman was a replacement for requestpolicy/ghostery/disconnect. Not noscript, since noscript handle a lot more that just toggling javascript or whatever have you.
Noscript is a script blocker.
Policeman/uMatrix/Requestpolicy(in order of granuality, left to right) are REQUEST blockers.
They do not do the same thing, but it's very similar to virtually anyone.
I use policeman for FF and uMatrix for chrome, and for me policeman > uMatrix every day.
Just be thankful that Firefox and Chrome both got uBlock and good element blockers.
Policeman - Firefox only, harder to use, more detailed.
uMatrix - Chrom* only, easier to use, less detailed.
That's pretty much it, you won't notice much of a difference between them unless you're searching for stuff with elements like websockets on purpose.
>>47002054
Policeman does all of that too. Except for blocking inline scripts, but personally I don't see a way how a script that doesn't have access to anything can pose a threat.
>>47002220
If you got uBlock? Can't that block inline scripts?
>>47002220
It can't, at least not in Policeman's case, I asked the dev and he said that they're harmless, and IF by any chance the script tries to talk to the browser, Policeman will block it even if it's delayed or something.
>>47002248
It would be great if there was a way to selectively block execution some of the inline scripts and allow the rest of them.
>>47002248
if a inline script tries to 'talk' to the browser it's already a executable script, it's no wonder it would get blocked by policeman, it's a server > client > server request as most of them are.
normal inline scripts just run on the server side, these things don't even get cached, much less get downloaded and executed, so there's no real way for Policeman to stop them.
There's no real reason to either.
>>47002349
>there's no real way for Policeman to stop them
Then how does noscript do it?
>>47002376
By modifying the HTML directly.
>>47001751
>muh botnet maymay
ebin simply ebin :^)
I got this crazy idea.
What if, What if Mozilla makes addons writable in Rust and C in Servo?
>>47002349
>>47002376
>>47002391
You people are talking about different fucking things.
Holy shit /g/ is bad at technology
>>47002220
message=hello<script>changePassword("iAmAhugeFaggot", true, false, maybe, "faggot69");
>but personally I don't see a way how a script that doesn't have access to anything can pose a threat.
>ok
>>47002454
Pretty pointless, I can see a few performance critical addons needing the speed, but 99% of them can get away with the portability and simplicity of js.
Though I really woulnt' mind a Vimperator written in a high performance language.
>>47002478
You know, some website might tell me to jump off a bridge, doesn't mean I'd do it.
I'm still using HTTP switchboard, is there any reason why I should move up and use umatrix?
>>47002793
Because your stupid
>>47002872
>your
>>47002478
And which password might that be? The one that it needs connections to access? Oh, wait...
>>47002793
Httpswitchboard is unsupported umatrix is basically a continuation.
>>47002349
>normal inline scripts just run on the server side
I'm sure your mother thinks you are a genius when you spout this nonsense.
>>47003190
My mom is the president you fucking asshole.
>>47003226
> normal inline scripts just run on the server side
> my mom is the president you fucking asshole
your future is gloomy
>>47003307
Nah, I can always ask my rich daddy for money If I want to.
>>47002220
i mean aside from that time some guy wrote a browser script that would install a rootkit on your computer (iirc it worked for all browsers on Windows).
>>47003368
>visit site
>download rootkit
>install rootkit on the fucking OS
Nice privilege seperation you got there, Microsoft.
