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