| 1 |
On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> You've made an assumption there. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox |
| 5 |
> > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so |
| 6 |
> > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a |
| 9 |
> little inconvenience. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
By "little inconvenience" you mean that most webpages will not show up |
| 12 |
properly? These days any page has a tonne of JavaScript in it and menus, |
| 13 |
slideshows, etc. will not render without it. Because many designers or CMS' |
| 14 |
engines do not provide graceful degradation, you end up looking at half a page |
| 15 |
and thinking what else is missing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I agree that security can have a price in terms of inconvenience, but I found |
| 18 |
that I had to switch NoScript off after a while because it was becoming a |
| 19 |
significant hindrance. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Just my 2cs . . . |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Mick |
Archives