Hacker News Reader

Comment by dredmorbius | Hacker News Reader

Most of those are on my /etc/hosts blocklist. Or would be were I aware of them. Worthless crap.

BTW: /etc/hosts + dnsmasq, for Linux, is amazing. (dnsmasq reads /etc/hosts and will block entire domains if listed as same).

View on HN

For Firefox users, is this better than NoScript for any reason?

I think it could make pages load marginally faster, because NoScript only stops scripts from executing, where a hosts blocklist would stop the scripts from ever being downloaded.

I think, not totally sure how NoScript works.

Nah, NoScript blocks them at load-time, too.

I can't say whether it's better or worse. It's different. With NoScript you still hit "remote" servers when it comes to other resources, like images.

For Firefox, the real comparisons are Request Policy and ublock (origin) in advanced mode (for chrome, umatrix). These do full third-party host whitelisting per domain. So every time you visit a website on a new domain, by default all requests to third parties are blocked. Then you spend a few minutes working out which ones are required.

By comparison, noscript simply blocks javascript from third parties. It does include a number of anti-xss heuristics though.

uBlock and uMatrix are two separate extensions. Both are available for both Chrome and Firefox.

Putting hosts (and domains) under control of /etc/hosts and dnsmasq means that there's little likelihood of traffic reaching them from your browser (though Web hosts could provide back-end data transfers).

It's also possible to directly address hosts by IP, though unlikely (Web protocols such as virtualhosts would fail).

I'm strongly favouring uMatrix for now. It takes some tuning, but you have fine-grained control over CSS, images, scripts, XHR, frames, and other bits, by domain or host.

Aggregators and CDNs confound things a bit (Akamai, Amazon's cloudy thing.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com