Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NoScript Anywhere In Development For Android

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-if-only-it-worked-on-my-tv dept.

CaffeineAddiction writes "NoScript Anywhere (NSA) is the nickname for the next major iteration of the NoScript security add-on (NoScript 3), whose guts are being turned upside down in order to match Mozilla's Electrolysis multiprocessing architecture and implement a porting for Firefox 4 Mobile, available on Android and Maemo smartphones and tablets."

27 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. NoScript and VideoDownloadHelper on OPERA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why can't Opera get into any of this? And none of the cheap hacks: Opera needs to get on the bandwaggon, maybe with a cross-over tool so it can use Firefox Add-ons because everything in the Opera community just has a "cheapened" feeling to it when someone makes something they say has equivalent function of a Firefox plugin or Add-on.

    1. Re:NoScript and VideoDownloadHelper on OPERA? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What are you talking about? Opera has NotScripts. In fact, opera has almost everything, including a lot of powerful config options only available in Firefox via addons -- the one critical missing element (for me) is pentadactyl. If it had that I'd switch back to opera in a heartbeat (pentadactyl is why I switched to firefox, now I'm totally spoiled).

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:NoScript and VideoDownloadHelper on OPERA? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, nevermind -- I was distracted and failed to realize this discussion is about *mobile*.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    3. Re:NoScript and VideoDownloadHelper on OPERA? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Vimperoperator is basically a set of keybindings, not the complete UI makeover pentadactyl is.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
  2. Reminds me. I owe that guy money. by blair1q · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NoScript is probably the most useful thing on my computer aside from the browser itself. And without it, I'd think the internet and by extension the browser were awful, so the probability is approaching unity.

    Time to donate to the cause.

    1. Re:Reminds me. I owe that guy money. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget the shady stuff the maker of NoScript tried just 2 years ago. He silently killed part of AdBlock on comuters it was installed on, and obfuscated what he was doing. The shit really hit the fan before he started backpedaling and reversed his position. I don't trust the guy.

      http://www.techjaws.com/the-noscript-controversy/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
      http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/app-security/217201461

    2. Re:Reminds me. I owe that guy money. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      That reminds me I owe the Adblock Plus project a few ducats as well.

    3. Re:Reminds me. I owe that guy money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pff, I think NoCSS and NoGUI are more useful! Also, I can't wait until NoASCII works with Firefox 4, and I can finally surf by just looking at my trusty oscilloscope, without all that useless bloat!

    4. Re:Reminds me. I owe that guy money. by twilightzero · · Score: 1

      As noted above, it doesn't even approach the same functionality so I don't count it. Hyperbolic rhetoric still pumped. Flame on!

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
  3. Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by ronocdh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my experience, mobile Firefox is beautiful in its replete feature set, but I find it deplorably slow—much like how Firefox 3.x was on the desktop. I haven't played around much with add-ons for fear of even longer browser startup times on my phone. NoScript is a wonderful project, but I'd like to see a lot more speed improvement on mobile Firefox before I go signing up.

    1. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by idontgno · · Score: 2

      Well, as in all things, YMMV, but I've never had cause to complain about FF4's performance on my modded (CM7.0.3) HTC Desire CDMA. Fairly snappy, although admittedly a tiny but noticeable bit slower than Android's native browser, Whatchamacallit*. OTOH, FF4 doesn't make a horrible unusable hash of some of the websites I visit like Whatchamacallit does.

      Add NoScript and it becomes head and shoulders better than the built-in one.

      *Does it even have a distinct product name? I don't recall ever seeing it.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by CAFED00D · · Score: 1

      Firefox Mobile already has a highly-optimized, built-in flash blocker. So that's one less piece they'll have to port!

    3. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      on a mobile? i think i can hear the whooosh the thread made as it went over your head

    4. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      It's slow on the N900 due to the dearth of RAM. 256MB total, with notably less free on boot. You're instantly in a paging situation once the browser is up and running due to its memory usage.

      With 512MB of RAM it's quite nice, and does so well on the Nook Color I'm currently attempting to shove MeeGo 1.2 on.

    5. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Opera has a much lower footprint as well. Fenec's best attribute for me right now is adblock and user agent switcher, some sites really piss me off by forcing me to their mobile site that's basically just a link to their app.
      This 1000x, wtf is with everybody deciding my mobile browser needs to be redirected to m.url if I wanted to do that I would have typed in that url. Btw use about:debug on the stock android browser then select settings -> more to get to the user agent switch

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    6. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Dearth of RAM... a mere 256. In a fracking *cell phone*.

      I feel so old...

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by pspahn · · Score: 2

      wtf is with everybody deciding my mobile browser needs to be redirected to m.url

      This is due to a majority of mobile users preferring to use a site that is designed with their smaller screen size in mind.

      I would guess that in nearly every case, the owner of the web site knows more about their web site than random /. guy. Providing a scaled down version of the full page is a courtesy web site owners give to their users.

      You might find that constructing a large fence in your front yard does indeed keep people off your lawn, but it also partitions you off into your own little reality.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    8. Re:Add-ons in mobile FF? Yeah, right. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      The N900, and most modern smartphones, are much more than just cellphones.

      You can still get cellphones with less than 32MB of RAM, they just don't do much.

  4. Re:site-specific permissioning by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Applications Boundaries Enforcer. (Options -> Advanced -> ABE)

    Site *.googleapis.*
    Accept from *.whateveryoursiteis.com
    Deny

  5. Good English there ... by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

    "Implement a porting?"

    Sheesh.

  6. Untrustworthy developer. by Crasoose · · Score: 2

    I love Noscript, I don't like the developer. Because of this I've dropped Noscript from my extensions long ago. It seems everyone soon forgets about a developer who thinks he can mess with your other extensions without your permission. http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

    1. Re:Untrustworthy developer. by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      But what do you use in its place?

      (I just use a separate browser with JS turned off.)

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  7. Re:Overrated by MachDelta · · Score: 2

    Funny, I love it for that reason. When I go to a new site and see it has twenty different domains trying to load in ads, tracking, social garbage, and the like, that's generally a big clue that I want nothing to do with that place.

  8. Re:Switching User Agent is nice by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    I agree that FF mobile is slow to load. The only reason that I keep it around is that some sites don't display correctly on other browsers. I also like to be able to spoof the user agent so that I can see the full site.

    You can type about:debug in the standard android browser to enable more setting when you go to Menu > Settings, including a user agent changer.

  9. Re:site-specific permissioning by Coopjust · · Score: 1

    RequestPolicy works great in conjunction with NoScript. Don't know if it works with Firefox mobile (doubt it), but it's great for site specific permissions on the desktop.

  10. Re:Short memories by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    Well, he did apologize.
    That's more than we usually get when this sort of thing happens.

  11. not yet available? by catherine.iliana · · Score: 1

    privoxy the requests can be a more central approach to filter commercials. i am surprised: this long we see tablets but still no ad filter has been established