No-Script Blocked on Pale Moon?. Topic is solved

[Nightbird]

If NoScript causes problems, try YesScript. It works. The difference is that it handles only scripts, and makes a blacklist rather than a whitelist.

The next YesScript => YesScript2 is becoming / became a script blocker for any site (but with 3 states / no blocking / half / full), so for many people it will easier to use than NS.
https://github.com/log69/yesscript2
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... esscript2/

ps : this is a web extension
you can install it on Basilisk

[Skaendo]

why not ublock origin which has adblocking too and is kept up to date with palemoon(for now).

I personally don't like the way that ublock functions. I tried it and I often seen ads slip through before being blocked. If I'm running a adblocker, I expect ads to be blocked. Bootstrapped adblocking like with Adblock Latitude is a far superior method because the ads are blocked before they are known to the browser. The only superior way to block ads/anything from reaching your browser/computer it to add them to your hosts file, which I do, but I don't update that as often as Adblock updates its lists.

I bet nearly 60% of the rendering issues found on this forum are caused by noscript,

I have the Pale Moon forum allowed in NoScript, there is only one setting for the Pale Moon forum and I have never had an issue with the forums.

[cartel]

Is there a legitimate reason a person couldn't use noscript v2.9.5.3?

[coffeebreak]

Off-topic:

Time is running out with umatrix and ublock.

It's not running out for uBO any longer, Gorhill revised his decision.
(See here. And post by JustOff for details.)

If you use the most current release of uBO Updater, uBO will update properly.

As for uMatrix, my personal opinion: Older versions work very well.

[superA]

I don't use NS, so I just decided to install it and see (clean profile).
I went to APO and install version 5.0.6 (No warnings in this page).

SO IF IT IS KNOWN TO CAUSE SECURITY OR STABILITY ISSUES WHY IS IT IN THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE??

Looked in the addons page, NS was installed with blue dot and again, no checkboxes or warnings.
Navigated to a couple of sites, restarted the browser twice and finally close it and reopen it again.
No interruptions, no flags, no pop ups, nothing!

Is NoScript in the browser's blocklist, I cannot find out.

[nema32]

...and the implementation of is causing stability issues in the browser which have been known for a while, have been reported, and have not been solved by the NoScript devs despite their hundreds of releases.

Could you expand on this? From the warning, it sounds like more or less what you write here, a real stability issue as opposed to the extension doing what it is supposed to. In order to respond correctly to that dialog, I need to understand what the problem is, and "security or stability issues" isn't enough by itself. From other posts, it appears just noscript doing what it is supposed to, but the above quoted text seems to suggest otherwise. Which is it?

[Admin]

I went to APO and install version 5.0.6 (No warnings in this page).

Look at the big bold warning...

[cartel]

why not ublock origin which has adblocking too and is kept up to date with palemoon(for now).

I personally don't like the way that ublock functions. I tried it and I often seen ads slip through before being blocked. If I'm running a adblocker, I expect ads to be blocked. Bootstrapped adblocking like with Adblock Latitude is a far superior method because the ads are blocked before they are known to the browser. The only superior way to block ads/anything from reaching your browser/computer it to add them to your hosts file, which I do, but I don't update that as often as Adblock updates its lists.

ABL was a great alternative but had a severe performance impact compared to UBO.
I see ads try to sneak though, which is disturbing but a refresh of the page and they are gone.

Lets see what the answer is:
https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/c ... ts_of_ads/

[Admin]

...and the implementation of is causing stability issues in the browser which have been known for a while, have been reported, and have not been solved by the NoScript devs despite their hundreds of releases.

Could you expand on this? From the warning, it sounds like more or less what you write here, a real stability issue as opposed to the extension doing what it is supposed to. In order to respond correctly to that dialog, I need to understand what the problem is, and "security or stability issues" isn't enough by itself. From other posts, it appears just noscript doing what it is supposed to, but the above quoted text seems to suggest otherwise. Which is it?

There have been legio threads on this forum of people with NoScript installed, and having issues with websites despite it being completely disabled with extension controls. Which is it? Both. It is doing what it sets out to do, but is doing it overzealously so, breaking many websites. On top, the controls that are supposed to be there to actually get back to working states for websites are malfunctioning in Pale Moon.

In addition, the "more information" link provided, pointing to http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm112 has a very clear description of both problems.

Finally, please stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Level 1 is a warning level with recommendation to disable the extension. That is all. Nobody is forcing you to disable it, and you have your free choice to keep using it, or to accept the recommendation and use something else.
To prevent further repetition, I'll be closing this thread. Expect new topics opened about the same that have already been addressed to be disapproved or removed.