The latter has filters to block trackers and fingerprinting scripts.

Originally, I installed NoScript to follow the principle of least privillege and only allow the minimum set of permissions for domains that they require.

At first, it wasn’t a problem at all because I don’t visit that much websites, but occasionally I’ll have to visit some fedi links and it does require giving permissions often.

It’s just a good practice I picked up from the days of hardening my Linux system. Sometimes, though, I feel annoyed like in the case described above.

So, does it make any sense to keep using NoScript if my threat model doesn’t include dedicated attackers, who would target me precisely with custom-made scripts?

  • Lowlee Kun@feddit.deEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    I feel like these two are additive. A script could present a vulnerability without being an ad (and thus be on the blocking list on adblock) could it not? So feel like to accept the least amount of scripts is the way to go. However i understand the annoyance because sometimes i just want to visit a page without going through every single one of the many scripts. What i have started doing is to use a different browser from my default one if this situation arises. This browser is only having adblock as addons so when a page does not work and i dont want to fiddle with the setting i just visit via the other browser. Not an ideal solution, i know, but i think its better than getting rid of NoScript.

    I would love to hear better solutions though because i admit i am not an expert in anything.