- by Firefox user 13173286, 6 months agoRated 3 out of 5It's a great tool for extra privacy/security, but it misses some settings like there should be an option to allow first party script [I need to allow google, to login to youtube etc, but that shouldn't allow google to script on each website...], or a list of incompatible sites, that can auto-allow script...
Also with the newest firefox or one of my extensions, noscript makes browsing really slow.
- by shafto, 8 months agoRated 3 out of 5Something weird started happening recently, the extension just hangs and I'm unable to open websites. Debug info of the addon repeats this line
Uncaught (in promise) Error: Could not establish connection. Receiving end does not exist.
The only way to fix this is to restart firefox. Disabling and enabling extension doesn't work (I could disable noscript and websites would start working, but then I'd have lots of scrips left unblocked).
- by Zippy8, 8 months agoRated 3 out of 5Like the reviewer VoxPop I too began to have issues with this extension - which I have used for several years - quite recently. It appears to be related to Firefox Sync as whitelisted domains disappear after I have used another PC upon returning to my main machine.
It has been an excellent, if occasionally labour intensive, addition to my online security but as of writing it frustrates as much as it protects.
- by Firefox user 16148634, a year agoRated 3 out of 5Funziona fin troppo bene. Di conseguenza, in una navigazione normale da "padre di famiglia" la maggior parte dei siti non funzionano in parte o del tutto, rendendo necessario disattivare e riattivare NoScript secondo necessità e con frequenza, compromettendo navigazione e appagamento.
Purtroppo sicurezza e soddisfasfazione sono due obiettivi non convergenti. Bisogna scegliere quale dei due è prioritario.
In ogni caso ringrazio Giorgio Maone per il suo ottimo lavoro.
Developer responseposted a year agoLe pagine "privilegiate" le decide il produttore del browser per evitare che le estensioni possano modificarle o "spiarle". Ad esempio modificare il comportamento di addons.mozilla.org potrebbe comportare l'aggiramento di alcune misure di sicurezza contro l'installazione di estensioni potenzialmente dannose non ancora controllate dallo staff editoriale. Lo stesso accade su Chrome per il Chrome Store.
- by Join2, a year agoRated 3 out of 5Lately when I look in the trusted list there are about 40 websites marked as trusted like: google-yahoo-hotmail etc...............I have not added these to the trusted list. So who put these websites in this list? Uninstall noscript and install again same problem. Cannot remove these sites, meaning I don't know how to. So untrusted by hand. What is this, some malware/adware?
- by assassini, a year agoRated 3 out of 5previously remembered permissions. but now no longer . so frustrating to have to allow trusted sites every time
is this a known issue
will it be fixed in future update
- by Andralon, 2 years agoRated 3 out of 5a script that is marked "trusted" on one page, is also trusted on every other page, which is the same as "trusted globally".
if "disable restrictions globally (dangerous)" is
"dangerous" (in the programmers opinion), why is the "trusted" not bound to the specific page?
- page A does work without script X
- page B doesn't work without script X
(e.g. doubleclick, googleanalytics, googlestatics)
why would i want to allow script X on page A?
- by davep, 2 years agoRated 3 out of 5Fantastic in theory, and often in use, BUT one major issue for me. It takes time to allow each part of each site that you "trust". When your work requires you to interact with a lot of web sites, that adds up. All good, EXCEPT that on a regular basis, NoScript simply "loses" those entries. My sites stop working, and I have to go in a do it again for each. Remember too that it's not a matter of "trust this site", as a great many have good and bad mixed together. I personally go to at least dozens of sites that involve 5-15 different scripting sites, and have to sort out on each which are good and which are necessary to get the data I need. So it's a lot of work, but worth it, as long as my work isn't randomly discarded. Fix this, it's 5 stars. With the problem, it's closer to a "necessary evil".
- by Rob , 2 years agoRated 3 out of 5Another user (mdontu) just detailed the same problem I have.
Usually this extension is absolutely great. I've been using it for years. However, for quite some time it seems to struggle with resetting large whitelists when Firefox is sync'd over multiple computers. Gets really frustrating when you have to re-whitelist sites that you know you have already whitelisted.
The problem seems to be getting worse. I think the developer may be aware of it, but this really should get addressed.
- by Simon, 2 years agoRated 3 out of 5Très bien jusqu'à maintenant mais depuis la dernière mise à jour automatique : j'ai perdu tout le paramétrage constitué avec soin depuis des années.... Or le module ne permet pas à ma connaissance d'en faire une sauvegarde. Vu la complexité des sites et les tâtonnements nécessaires pour savoir ce qui doit être autorisé ou non, c'est un défaut majeur.
- by mdontu, 2 years agoRated 3 out of 5Something went off this past week. Either with Firefox or the extension. I use Firefox Account on three separate computers, one of which I had to reinstall a few times. Now my list of trusted sites gets reset periodically (every few hours?). The rest of extensions seem do be doing fine, though, including the Multi-Account Containers which I know it uses the Firefox account to synchronize across installations.