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?

  • Supermariofan67@programming.devEnglish
    15·
    1 year ago

    Strictly speaking, no, since ublock origin can also disable JavaScript on pages if you toggle the option. So aside from the question of whether doing so is necessary, noscript’s script blocking functionality is entirely replaceable with ubo, which also has more advanced support for filterlists, etc that you’re probably aware of already

    • darthTurtle89@eviltoast.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I still use noscript because I can use it to enable scripts individually. ubo only allows you to enable or disable scripts. I don’t know if it’s necessary, but I read that noscript makes fingerprinting harder since fingerprinting relies on scripts.

      • moreeni@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        uBlock blocks fingerprinting scripts completely. You can also enable scripts individually with it and thus remove the need for NS, which does the same but less