Reply to post:

Facebook admits it does track non-users, for their own good

GIRZiM

>For my purposes, uBlock does nothing that I need that NoScript doesn't do, so there's no point in running both.

uMatrix stops them loading from the domain, NoScript simply prevents them from running.

This means that the server can note which scripts are loaded into your browser using an "if this browser and version and this and that or the other" and then record that "I know this about you".

So, if you're hoping that NoScript will prevent more than the excesses attendant upon running the script(s) think again. It won't, it'll only prevent the final 'payload'. In the background, however, the fact that those scripts were ever even requested is giving away an awful lot about you that you can't prevent with NoScript, only with uMatrix.

Conversely, when you load the 23 objects hiding behind an 'XHR' or 'other' label, you have no idea what they are and are giving them carte blanche to do stuff without even knowing what class of object they are - NoScript will, however, prevent any loaded scripts from running.

if your use case only requires that loaded scripts be prevented from running and any extra script-like functionality resulting from clever CSS manipulation is of no concern, then fine, NoScript is all you need.

If, however, you wish not to be tracked or compromised in any other way, you need to be making use of a lot more than simply both but, at the very least you need to be using uMatrix to block stuff at source, including cookies, CSS, images, media, scripts, XHR and 'other' objects before they even reach your browser - otherwise, you might as well not even bother with NoScript either.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019