Rated 5 out of 5 stars

The author makes a good point about paranoia. For normal people who do not visit porn/warez sites, this whole thing about the Net being full of malicious scripts waiting to wreck your PC, IS A MYTH.

In 5 YEARS of using Firefox with Javascript enabled, I have never had one single bad script or alert of one. This despite, visiting many websites each and every day. Where are these scripts that people are so frightened of? My antivirus software (Avast) and security programs that scan at night do not pick up anything.

The only reason that I need YesScript now is because some media sites I use, run at 100% CPU because of poorly coded scripts.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.6). 

um Yep Rated 1 out of 5 stars

" by bugmenot on April 18, 2009
Seriously, what's the point? Overconfident browsing won't do you any favors once you go somewhere you shouldn't have. Blocking something bad *after* you've exposed yourself to it is useless."

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.6). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I'd to say that babaob is an idiot.

You know if you want the best security over internet just rip off your ethernet cable, you won't ever be hacked.

I'll explain why YesScript is supperior to NoScript: NoScript just kill Scripts.
This is the reason, NoScript is just TERRIBLY inconvignent !

This software just stay here and the user doesn't have to spend time switching on and off to be able to connect to a web site.

If you want optimal security, to be anoyed and if ur a geek just use NoScript, otherwise I strongly recommand you to download YesScript !

This was made by someone thinking and not just screaming like babaob.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.6). 

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

I think somebody with half of his brain well-running can't say YesScript is better than NoScript : I will explain myself :
With YesScript you have a blacklist , so when the user when goes on a website identified as bad or dangerous and see it's dangerous he's very glad to say " Thanks to YesScript I avoided a Bad thing ! " . Now all of you , imagine that this same user goes on a bad website not identified by YesScript , it's very probable (porn , hack ... ) because a blacklist can't be full (think nowadays the number of websites existing over the world ! xD) . So , to return to his case , the user will think " Yeah ! it's a safe hacking (for example ) site ! Hahaha I'm the master of the world " : he will enter in this site , won't he ?
That's the main failure of this addon , whereas , if you're visiting the same site with NoScript , and you see (for example ) 15 javascript blocked , the page will probably (95% of cases ) open without them , so the user will conclude : " it's a bad sirte , I've to be careful ! What I wanna do , is it really more imortant than my safety : it will depend of the cases , the users' experience (see WOT addon ) and ....
What's more , with a weak or 2 of experience , I think a user can easily difference bad javascripts (which begin by adsomething , doubleclick .com , or advertisingstuff .com or else ...) and Noscript configured won't ask you for what to do in secure sites anymore !

So any , To concludfe with , Does anyone with half a brain can say yesCript is better in security than NoScript ?? ( It was a nice tale , wasn't it ?)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Very handy Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I love this extension; it does exactly what I want (I guess I'd rather be "naive" than paranoid and constantly aggravated and inconvenienced!). My opinion on NoScript aligns perfectly with that of Wladimir Palant. But this isn't NoScript, of course--it's YesScript!

A couple comments:

- I didn't notice the status bar icon added by YesScript at first, but it's handy.

- I wish the YesScript blacklist allowed for basic subdomain wildcards (implied or explicit). Currently, I usually have to add a domain as "domain.com" and "www.domain.com" to make sure it's always blocked.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

IMO, this is far superior to NoScript, even before NoScript started selling out to advertisers to allow certain sites with NoScipt's default settings.

It would be nice if it had advanced settings to only block certain things globally, instead of on a per-site basis.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

for naïve surfers Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Ppl choosing this addon instead of Noscript are naïve. As states by the developer himself, this is not a security addon. If you want your PC to be exposed to infection 1st & then clean up the mess, use this. If you want to play it safe, so you can click on any link & know you are protected, use Noscript.
Also if you like the way this works, you can do about the same thing, by setting Noscript to "Allow scripts globally(Dangerous)" to view the site without protection & then allow/forbid individual scripts afterwards

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Il faudrait pouvoir interdire des scripts de sites tiers. Rated 4 out of 5 stars

Français (english later)
Accepter javascript en général, mais l'interdire pour certains sites me semble un bon compromis pour ceux qui ne sont pas paranoïaques. En ce sens, je préfère la philosophie de yesscript à celle de noscript.
Yesscript fonctionne bien lorsqu'il s'agit de désactiver entièrement javascript sur un site.
Mais quelquefois, il peut être utile de laisser s'exécuter le javacript du site, mais pas les appels aux fonctions javascripts de sites extérieurs (par exemple googlesyndication qui fait ramer le chargement de la page ou des scripts issus de sites web qui ne répondent pas). Mais rajouter le site web extérieur dans la liste noire, n'empêche pas le site que l'on consulte d'essayer de l'appeler !

English :
To accept javascript in general, but to forbid it for several websites seems to me a good compromise for non paranoiac people. So, I prefer yesscript philosophy to noscript one.
Yesscript correctly works when you need only not to use javascript at all for a whole website.
But sometimes, it can be usefull to permit the execution of the website's javascripts, but not of external websites javascripts calls (for instance googlesyndication which makes page loading slowler, or some scripts comming from not responding websites). But if you add the external website in the black list, that will not prevent the site you whant to see tu try to call it !

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 2 out of 5 stars

needs right click for blacklist settings. needs to support blocking by domain. instead of hxxp://www.1234.com should be able to use *1234.com/* for example.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Useful and convenient Rated 5 out of 5 stars

This is a great addon. Since most of today websites use JS, it's very inconvenient to globally block all scripts and selectively allow website by website. If you has been used the Internet for 3-4 years, you most likely know which websites are risky. This addon is very suitable for browsing those risky websites that you want to visit from time to time.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Good Idea Rated 4 out of 5 stars

This add-on is far less destructive than NoScript which I found more of a hassle than a blessing, this is a good compromise which will allow you blacklist sites that you know to contain irritating JavaScript (i.e. image hosting sites that try and force pop-ups on you when you click).

Unfortunately the implementation isn't great, the status bar icon only lets you toggle the plug-in on or off for this page, with no option to bring up the list of blacklisted sites or see what sites scripts are running from on this page and block them. The filter also does not support sub domains or wildcards, requiring a rule for x.com and www.x.com etc. and only allows you to block entire domains rather than x.com/adscripts/.

A good idea and room for improvement. JavaScript in FireFox isn't insecure, Mozilla patches any vulnerabilities and it runs with very limited permission. NoScript is overkill.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

"Unlike NoScript, YesScript does absolutely nothing to improve your security." ... That's true. YesScript doesn't help your security whatsoever (unless you're warned in advance that.. No, forget it, it just doesn't.)

But it's a great extension for those who don't care about security. There are so many sites out there with really annoying javascript stuff going on and in my opinion you NEED to be able to block certain horrible things from happening.

YesScript will allow you to do that :-)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

What is it with all these moronic NoScript fanboys downrating YesScript because it doesn't offer security features (like it says in the description)? If they want a security tool, they can get one. Just not here. Jeeze.

I personally feel that FireFox does a good enough job securing itself, but this is a nice feature for websites that abuse their privledges of running scripts (like those so-and-sos that try and block firefox/adblock/etc for not displaying ads that you'll never click on).

It's nice to be able to go "Umm... how about no?" to a website that abuses scripting.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 4 out of 5 stars

"blocking all scripts by default is paranoia"

Hear hear! NoScript makes browsing the web a real chore, all I need is an extension like this that I can set to block particular scripts I don't like.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

YesScript is good but not for security! Rated 2 out of 5 stars

Just as WOT (Web Of Trust), YS (YesScript) is another wonderful Anxiety Drug.
There are 2 kinds of bad scripts. One is badly coded script but obviously harmless, one is malicious script, mostly well-coded. YS deals with the former while NoScript blocks the latter. Why the differences?
YS bases on users' keen eyes. But would a user know a malicious script when seeing it? Or YS would becomes a localized version of WOT? So a normal user browses a website and thinks: "Eek, this page works badly, let's block it". That's good, ugly website should be blocked for sure.

BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY HERE.

I rather say YS is good as a "subjective opinion-based script-blocking" but not as a security extension.

PS: Yes, NoScript is not for newbies since it's 'complex' and quite not a "ready to use after installing" piece. But it's quite not troublesome when browsing if you configure it properly from the start. Nothing is free, security comes at the cost of a little gray matter :)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.5). 

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Seriously, what's the point? Overconfident browsing won't do you any favors once you go somewhere you shouldn't have. Blocking something bad *after* you've exposed yourself to it is useless.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.4). 

Problem with dpi Rated 3 out of 5 stars

The options window for this addon gets messed up if you have a larger than default dpi display setting.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.4). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

It's perfect for me. Update it for 3.5 version please :-)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.4). 

*Almost* Could Replace NoScript Rated 3 out of 5 stars

The file is compact (10 times smaller than NoScript) and very easy. However, as many point out, sites we need to block are virtually always peripheral to the site we're visiting. This extension is more of a hassle than NoScript because we can't easy block 3rd parties. Just two small features would make it the real NoScript alternative:

1)click to blacklist 3rd parties (not just the current domain)

or

2)import blacklists (like filterset.g)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.4). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Really amazing. Please support firefox 3.1 b2.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.4).