Who is the victor?
My more immediate question is, however, which one is safer?
Printable View
Who is the victor?
My more immediate question is, however, which one is safer?
Firefox + NoScript & AdBlock
Firefox (vanilla) > IE7
ff + noscript + adblock = a situation wherein the only security flaw is you.
I see. If then the only possible security flaw left is the user, what are the notable things to heed when applying the tools? Any specifics and recommendations?
Well, with a whitelisting tool such as noscript (and no ads via adblock), you just need common sense in choosing what things to allow.
Sure, let youtube.com run those embedded videos; but don't let pootube do the same (disclaimer: that better not be a real site ~:))
There's always the danger of browser exploits; but say what you like for firefox's open source development, they are fixed pronto :grin:
Hmmm, yes, that is logical (and even looks vaguely familiar to certain applications I used in the past).
How about allowances on totalwar.org? For example I attempted to use [Ctrl B] to bold text in the text editor but it didn't work. I then allowed totalwar.org with Noscript and it then functioned once again. But for example this ad at the bottom now appeared even if the Noscript menu shows an option to allow it (assuming it is then forbidden). Is then the following correct: if one allows a site in general with Noscript, individual forbidding options for ads are not possible?
Both recommended tools appear like great ones, but this particular usage I do not comprehend.
Noscript can allow/block sites globally.
Adblock deals with teh ads; if you see one, functionality to block it should appear in the right-click menu.
Your aid is appreciated.