| 1 |
on 08/05/2011 08:44 AM Mick wrote the following: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a |
| 4 |
>> little inconvenience. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> By "little inconvenience" you mean that most webpages will not show up |
| 7 |
> properly? These days any page has a tonne of JavaScript in it and menus, |
| 8 |
> slideshows, etc. will not render without it. Because many designers or CMS' |
| 9 |
> engines do not provide graceful degradation, you end up looking at half a page |
| 10 |
> and thinking what else is missing. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I agree that security can have a price in terms of inconvenience, but I found |
| 13 |
> that I had to switch NoScript off after a while because it was becoming a |
| 14 |
> significant hindrance. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I will agree. I also have it almost "switched off" (allow scripts globally). |
Archives