similar to: off-topic: firefox & noscript

On 06/12/2015 11:25 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > jd1008 wrote: >> On 06/12/2015 07:28 AM, g wrote: >>> On 06/10/2015 03:56 AM, Always Learning wrote: >>>> I displayed, as a web page, a list of search results created in PHP, >>>> from MySQL. >>> i am still using 24.8.0 and do not have to contend with all the >>> bugs introduced by moz

On 06/13/2015 01:05 PM, jd1008 wrote: <<<>>> > Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist > that is not viewable by the user. > The whitelist tab does NOT list the hidden white listed > entries. and you know this how? i do not really believe there is a 'hidden whitelist'. it is more like there are sites that are used to check on sites you

On 06/12/2015 01:01 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/13/2015 11:11 AM, jd1008 wrote: >> All your browsing history, all cookies ...etc are open books >> as far as many javascripts are concerned. > > Javascript can use CSS attributes to see if you've visited a specific > URL, which is unfortunate, but that's a long way from saying that your > history is an open

I'm running NoScript because otherwise Firefox freezes up a lot. Recently I've had difficulty accessing a site. I suspect the reason is that it uses redirection in a way that frustrates my efforts to give it permission. To test the notion, I'm considering temporarily allowing script globally. How hard is it to reverse? Will I need to redo previous permissions one at a time? --

My belief is that this is not possible, but there are many extremely knowledgeable people participating on this list and I would like to know if it is in fact possible. I am running CentOS 5.3 (32 bit) fully updated. Browser is Mozilla Firefox v.3.0.7. I believe both times this happened, once yesterday and once today, I was surfing on the web site of my favorite singer/musical group; or in the

On 06/12/2015 12:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sat, June 13, 2015 1:22 pm, jd1008 wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2015 12:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:05:16PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >>>> Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist >>>> that is not viewable by the user. >>>> The whitelist tab does NOT

Hi! I have a server running CentOS 7.7 (1908) with all current patches installed. I think this server should be a quite standard installation with no specialities On this server I have fail2ban with an apache and openvpn configuration. I'm using firewalld to manage the firewall rules. Fail2an is configured to use firewalld: [root at server ~]# ll /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/ insgesamt 12

On 06/12/2015 12:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:05:16PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >> Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist >> that is not viewable by the user. >> The whitelist tab does NOT list the hidden white listed >> entries. > You mean the noscript.mandatory about:config entry? I looked at it on > my computer and

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, ken wrote: > On 09/20/2017 01:00 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: >> Previously when firefox went catatonic >> to the point that I could not even scroll, >> its CPU usage had gone to 100%+. >> Now top tells me that firefox, Web Content (with a space) >> or sometimes kswap... has process state D, >> uninterruptable sleep. >> >>

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, ken wrote: > On 09/24/2017 02:26 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote: >> From here: >> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/ >> ? >> > Yes. > > It can also be accessed from within Firefox -> Tools -> Add-ons -> > Extensions.? Then search for it, etc. Thanks. It works. -- Michael hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu

On Thu, January 22, 2015 12:27, Frank Cox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:36:24AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: >> If one has already done all that and, following the most recent FF update, all that is displayed is a video window with the Flash >> logo/Button in the middle. And regardless of how many times one clicks on said button no video will show or sound will emit, what

On Fri, June 12, 2015 2:03 pm, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:38:35PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >> I was just using that as an example of damaging javascripts. >> The current version of noscript no longer tells the number of >> javascrits that are blocked out of the total (per web site). >> In the older versions, I would dlete all entries in the visible

Hi all Which is the fastest way to gsub a 5000 char string. i.e. big_string = "i am so <script>..3000char...</script>big<noscript>...2000 char...</noscript> gsub me!!!" # If i run: big_string.gsub(/<script(.|\s)*<\/script>/i, '' '').gsub(/<noscript>/, '' '').gsub(/</noscript>/, '' '')

I posted Friday about this oddity. Now I've got more data, and what's happening is this: if I tell noscript to enable youtube and googlevideo in one tab, not only does it affect *all* tabs, but also affects another browser window opened from the first browser window. Anyone have any clues for a workaround fix? mark

I'm straddling the half-way point between samba and ldap. When adding a machine to the domain, functionally, it works like you would expect. You enter in the domain, enter your credentials, and reboot. The computer is able to function as a machine on the domain. I'm using the smbldap-tools as suggested in the wiki. Here's the script: add machine script = /usr/sbin/smbldap-useradd

On 11/01/2017 09:51 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote: > > I'm running NoScript because otherwise Firefox freezes up a lot. > Recently I've had difficulty accessing a site. > I suspect the reason is that it uses redirection in a way that > frustrates my efforts to give it permission. > To test the notion, I'm considering temporarily allowing script globally. > How hard

On Wed, November 1, 2017 10:51, Michael Hennebry wrote: > > I'm running NoScript because otherwise Firefox freezes up a lot. > Recently I've had difficulty accessing a site. > I suspect the reason is that it uses redirection in a way that > frustrates my efforts to give it permission. > To test the notion, I'm considering temporarily allowing script > globally.

Hello! Does anybody know of a Ruby implementation of a HTML sanitizer that prevents the attacks described on the xss cheatsheet? (http://ha.ckers.org/xss.html) I checked out the version Jamis wrote (http://dev.rubyonrails.com/ticket/1277), but that only covers the very basic attacks. Anybody? Just figured I would ask before, before I reinvent the wheel.. Ciao! Florian

On 06/12/2015 01:40 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/13/2015 12:11 PM, jd1008 wrote: >> Why do you make such statements without knowing the intrinsics??? >> How in tarnation do you explain this: >> http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=googleusercontent.com > > That site doesn't say anything about Java or Javascript. Or cookies > for that matter.

Always Learning wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 12:11 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > >> For example, all browsers execute the javascript called >> googleusercontent.com >> >> Please read this page: >> http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=googleusercontent.com > > In FF I use Ad Block Plus to block the world's biggest spying operation, >