Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 92963" data-source="post: 974241">Yes and NoYears ago when Firefox had to challenge IE6, adding NoScript was a huge security improvement. My personal preference at that time was to sandbox the browser (GeSWall, DefenseWall and Sandboxie like solutions) in stead of crippling it by disabling JavaScript. Nevertheless NoScript was and (today) still has security advantages.Because browsers got internal sandboxes and the Windows OS got better exploit protection, the added benefit of client side restricting the browser with NoScript, uMatrix (and uBlock 3rd-party blocking) has reduced substantially.With that in mind, kernel patch protection, UAC, core virtualisation, hardware based stack protection and internal browser sandboxes and . . . . .&nbsp; Google&#039;s ManifestV3 are logical steps on a path to a better and more balanced protection. After all it has little use to increase the security of a browser and allow extensions to create large holes in it.So the solution proposed by NoScript is &#039;old school&#039; thinking (like claiming that we have to patch the kernel to better protect it). So YES it was a specific reaction to NoScript, but NO, in the greater picture I intended to project this on security solutions (and extensions increasing security) in general which require extra permissions to protect you (that is why I preferred GeSwall and DefenseWall over Sandboxie in the past).I did not intend to insinuate that NoScript is less reliable.Hope this explains.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 92963, post: 974241"] Yes and No Years ago when Firefox had to challenge IE6, adding NoScript was a huge security improvement. My personal preference at that time was to sandbox the browser (GeSWall, DefenseWall and Sandboxie like solutions) in stead of crippling it by disabling JavaScript. Nevertheless NoScript was and (today) still has security advantages. Because browsers got internal sandboxes and the Windows OS got better exploit protection, the added benefit of client side restricting the browser with NoScript, uMatrix (and uBlock 3rd-party blocking) has reduced substantially. With that in mind, kernel patch protection, UAC, core virtualisation, hardware based stack protection and internal browser sandboxes and . . . . . Google's ManifestV3 are logical steps on a path to a better and more balanced protection. After all it has little use to increase the security of a browser and allow extensions to create large holes in it. So the solution proposed by NoScript is 'old school' thinking (like claiming that we have to patch the kernel to better protect it). So YES it was a specific reaction to NoScript, but NO, in the greater picture I intended to project this on security solutions (and extensions increasing security) in general which require extra permissions to protect you (that is why I preferred GeSwall and DefenseWall over Sandboxie in the past). I did not intend to insinuate that NoScript is less reliable. Hope this explains. [/QUOTE]

Verification