browser - Is there a NoScript alternative for Google Chrome?

25
2014-03
  • Steve Wright

    I love using Google Chrome, but I don't like visiting sites that have embedded ads/pages that could have malicious JavaScript. Is there something like the Firefox extension, NoScript, for Google Chrome?

    • Answers
  • David Pearce

    Check out Privoxy. Lifehacker has a great guide on how to set it up.

    Privoxy supports stripping ads, Javascript and nasty pieces of HTML, as well as string-replacement for any web browser. I have used it in the past and I did not notice a speed difference.

  • Costin Gușă

    ScriptSafe has come out recently, and beats NotScripts.

    A simple extension that brings some of NoScript's functionality to Chrome while emphasizing simplicity and intuitiveness (no affiliation to NoScript):

    • whitelisting/blacklisting functionality and granular control
    • actually speeds up browsing because it removes a lot of unwanted content
    • ability to remove <SCRIPT>, <OBJECT>, <EMBED>, <IFRAME>, <FRAME>, <APPLET>, <AUDIO>, <VIDEO>, <NOSCRIPT>, and <IMG> elements, as well as webbugs
    • ability to block unwanted content (MVPS HOSTS, hpHOSTS (ad / tracking servers only), Peter Lowe's HOSTS Project, MalwareDomainList.com, and DNS-BH – Malware Domain Blocklist are integrated!)
    • ability to block click-through referrer data
    • "intuitive" icon that changes based on whether or not a page is whitelisted/blacklisted/bypassed
    • shows number of blocked/removed items in toolbar
    • shows blocked/allowed items in tab details popup (along with item type)
    • bulk import domains into whitelist and blacklist
    • option to temporarily allow a page/temporarily allow all blocked items
    • choose the default mode (Block All or Allow All)
    • option to preserve same-domain elements
    • option to disable automatic refresh of pages after whitelisting/blacklisting/temp. bypassing a page

    EDIT: It now takes advantage of the new Content Blocking API in Chrome 17 to block accurately and very, very fast. The above feature set is old, BTW, but I can't be bothered to update it. ;)

  • Rafal

    There's a great extension called NotScripts that is based on FF NoScripts

  • zmee

    Check out the response from the NoScript developer as to why NoScript has not been ported to Chrome:

    The reason is very simple: Chrome is still lacking the required infrastructure for selective script disablement and object blocking.

    As a result, you can either block ads or turn off all scripting/plugins - there is no way to white list some sites for scripting/plugins and block others.

  • MESLewis

    You can use a startup parameter for your shortcut to block java, java script, images, and plugins by appending one of the following to the end of your google chrome shortcut:

    Java : "-disable-java"

    Java script : "-disable-javascript"

    Plugins : "-disable-plugins"

    Images : "-disable-images"

    Taken from Lifehacker here.


    • Related Question

    Google Chrome as alternative to Firefox
  • jack.spicer

    I have been using Firefox for long time. Recently i had switched to chrome to find that its much faster than Firefox, but addons like greasemonkey, adblock plus, tweeterfox etc. keeps me wanting to use Firefox. Now I am confused between which of the two to use.

    Can someone provide some advice on how to be as productive in Chrome as when using FireFox?


    • Related Answers
  • John T

    The developer version of Chrome can ease most of your pain, as it can have add-ons. Google is working on an API currently to make this easier for developers much like Mozilla has done with Firefox. Most of the high demand add-ons have been pretty much duplicated and you can find them at MyChromeAddons.

    • GreaseMetal is basically GreaseMonkey for Chrome
    • This is a good temporary fix for AdBlockPlus
    • There is also a Twitter add-on someone made for Chrome.

    Although I'm still currently in the same boat as you, Firefox 3.7a1pre nightly build.

  • Dror Helper

    I've tried using Chrome and it felt as if I'm missing my right arm, without the addons I got used to as well as bookmark and password sync (weave/XMarks).

    Unfortunatly my Firefox has stopped working on my machine and I'm forced to use Chrome (IE is not an option).

    If I had a working FireFox I would not leave it at least not until Chrome gets better add-in support.

  • Legooolas

    Wait -- if there are extensions you can't live without and that have no javascript alternative.

    Chrome isn't released for Linux yet (although there is a developer preview, this only works on Debian/Ubuntu-based distros -- it definitely doesn't work on the RedHat-based distros for 64-bit machines yet).

    Chrome is only just getting going with add-ons and such, so if there are add-ons/extensions that you can't live without (other than adblock plus which can be replaced with a Privoxy proxy, or using one of the many javascript greasemonkey-ish scripts which can also be enabled in Chrome.

    Personally, I find that general browsing is so much faster in Chrome that I use it and put up with the lack of extensions, and use Firefox for just the very few things I really need it for (debugging web apps with Firebug being one).

  • Unknown Me

    I seriously doubt Chrome's ability to be an alternative to Firefox. The community support that we have for firefox ain't that easy to achieve. By the way Chrome hasn't yet even released a version for linux. Are developers supposed to work on Windows?? God save us then..

  • jim in austin

    Chrome isn't so much a browser as it is a proof of concept project. They are pushing a radically different architecture and vastly improved scripting performance that they want all browsers to adopt. Google is convinced this will enable new generations of increasingly larger and more complex applications existing totally in the cloud. And anything that moves more activity to the web puts money in Google's pocket. That the browser will be the basis of the new Chrome OS should tell you where this is all headed.

    Chrome itself is a typical Google app. If you enjoy their sparse functional style you will like Chrome. It is blazingly fast and stable. I use the developer's version which is a bit riskier than the beta or stable releases but not by much. However, if you need a lot of extras and add-ons in your browser you will probably be unhappy with Chrome at its present level of development.

  • Am1rr3zA

    I use both of them but Firefox still my default browser because when want develope a site firefox extension realy help me, but I like 1 thing in Chrome that have task manager and get realy less memory than firefox. I just have problem with size of memory that firefox get from the system.

  • Joseph Daigle

    I can't stand anything that slows down my web browsing experience. Firefox has turned into the "everything and the kitchen sink" type browser which defies its original project goals. Chrome is the new answer in my opinion.