Browser blocking Adds / sites (noscript firefox)

jpaul

jpaul

jpaul

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
23,889
Hi,
what solution do folks use to give a minimalist rendering of web-sites without un-necessary adds and scripts running from other sites.
In particular on web-sites for online purchases, increasingly, some seem to make references to many sites and it is difficult to determine subset that allow basic site to work. (I have 8gb ram and a quad core but nonetheless)
I typically use Firefox with noscript add on (IE 11 often has problem rendering sites, even with no blocking mechanism, I find chrome too heavy on resources)

Some recent problems I have had

(a) Argos web-site for online purchases - no-script gave me the following list of
3rd party sites it needed to use per noscript. Which are needed ?

argos.jpg_zpscsx7opms.png~original


(b) Lloyds bank online banking
Their https site requires uses of marketing.lloydsbank.co.uk to function
requiring following noscript manipulation.
(this just seems delinquent to my mind - I complained online but could
not get to speak to right person ... other banks do not have these issues .. this is becoming a rant)

lloyds_zpscdabbsqk.jpg~original


Increasingly my mentality is do not do business with folks with poor web sites !

Paul

[images on overclockers do not seem to preview, or perhaps there
is a delay, so I am not sure this post is going to be correct first time]
 
You're making life very difficult for yourself by using NoScript. Have a look at uBlock Origin.
 
Ok thanks the pre-configured filters on ublock look interesting.
My motivation for blocking the scripts is also
- to be able to run a browser with 50 odd tabs open in a reasonable memory footprint.
[typically the only reason I have to re-boot laptop is that IE 11 after 3-4 days will start continuously consuming cpu,a percent or so a tab, I put this down to not having
a mechanism as powerful as noscript, the firefox session I save and restore at that
point has typically 200 tabs listed, of which maybe 50 are loaded]
- avoid viruses that scripts running from non-essential sites might introduce.
maybe I am paranoid, but have not had any disasters/infections on laptops I have owned. I have several firefox browser profiles a couple of which I use exclusively for
some online financial stuff (but maybe this strategy is not very effective/ill-conceived?)
 
Noscript could really do with the ability to automatically allow all sites from a certain site/tab - including ones not referenced on the initial load :s though not looked at the options lately if it has something along those lines.
 
yes that is still a problem with noscript, site will not load and you cannot find out why and have to inspect html or use inspector (often it is cloudfront
sites that causes issue - I had such a problem with mysupermarket )
inability to only enable sites on a particular tab is annoying too
(stupid amazon ssl-images-amazon.com that burns cpu but needed when you
want to see all your saved items - as soon as you enable it all amazon tabs reload
- rubbish/inefficient amazon code that others have already been commented on .... I suppose they want to promote people buying new laptops by wasting their cpu cycles)
 
Kia,
I have click-to-play courtesy of noscript and have the few plugins needed for the
sites I frequent, running JavaScript from non-essential sites is my paranoia, I believe
many of the microsoft browser security patches are (or were ?) for loop holes
where illicit code could be executed, so the noscript philosophy of 'it does not work until
you add it to white list' is appealing (I need some statistcis on how viruses are typically
introduced onto home computers)
saying that as a consequence of the host file and security options in IE 11 (which
I use for less secure browsing than firefox) quidco will no longer track !
[I have asked quidco they provide no diagnostic site where you can make a pseudo
purchase and meanwhile by a process of elimination establish security option that is preventing
quidco tracking]
 
Last edited:
Rroff
do you have a technique for using noscript to establish a 'good' whitelist; I try
enabling sites I do not already know are un-needed (eg doubleclick) one by one
trying to get site to 'work', but this is sometimes unsuccessful as need several
of them together for site to function, or worse firefox is not able to render the site
even if I temporarily unlock all sites.
 
Mei said:
yeh i like ublock its great for dummies like me! :)
Click to expand...

Same I switched to it recently and the "Block media elements larger than
XX kB" setting in particular has vastly improved many websites I used, currently set to 150Kb but easy enough to whitelist sites or enable individual pieces of content.

Some sites I've had it block up to 20 elements on ONE page! :D
 
Halfmad,
point well made - yes I think folks are building web-sites subsidised by media/advertising
providers whose code/plugins eat cpu cycles and memory
I would include the likes of the UK national newspapers sites times/guardian/telepgraph as
cuplrits here (even though Times is a pay site)
 
jpaul said:
Kia,
I have click-to-play courtesy of noscript and have the few plugins needed for the
sites I frequent, running JavaScript from non-essential sites is my paranoia, I believe
many of the microsoft browser security patches are (or were ?) for loop holes
where illicit code could be executed, so the noscript philosophy of 'it does not work until
you add it to white list' is appealing (I need some statistcis on how viruses are typically
introduced onto home computers)
saying that as a consequence of the host file and security options in IE 11 (which
I use for less secure browsing than firefox) quidco will no longer track !
[I have asked quidco they provide no diagnostic site where you can make a pseudo
purchase and meanwhile by a process of elimination establish security option that is preventing
quidco tracking]
Click to expand...

Direct attacks against browsers are incredibly rare, as far as the average Joe is concerned. APT is a whole new ballgame. The main target these days is plug-ins.

If I were you, I'd keep IE in its default state and use FF for 99% of your browsing. Use a virtual machine if you're worried about IE letting something in.
 
Kia,
thanks your target link justfies having a click to play on flash and silverlight
plugins who have weaknesses exploited, this is in conjuntion with diversion to
a malicious web server.
would the noscript white list be useless to prevent access to these sites ?
I think so, so it seems to me hosts file or firewall would have to be pre-configured to prevent access to these sites to avoid an 'infestation' if you had clicked to play.
Are the charactersistics of the 'Trend Micro security' software to avoid this kind of threat niche/high-end (does not seem to be a free home user version!)
 
jpaul said:
Halfmad,
point well made - yes I think folks are building web-sites subsidised by media/advertising
providers whose code/plugins eat cpu cycles and memory
I would include the likes of the UK national newspapers sites times/guardian/telepgraph as
cuplrits here (even though Times is a pay site)
Click to expand...

Try it with the Daily Mail website or the one I more frequently visit www.robertsspaceindustries.com yes some images may not load etc but the sites render about 10 seconds faster and scroll much nicer.

Honestly I'm not going back, this Ublock feature has completely won me over :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom