[CentOS] OT: Possible for Malware against Windows boxes to attack Firefox on Linux?

[Michael A. Peters]

Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Noscript will give you an idea of just how many sites run a script of some
>> kind. You will see a large part of sites just look different when the scripts
>> don't run, and some don't function at all. Not that it is a bad thing, it will
>> just make you think a lot.
> 
> Yes, it has made me think about the scripts on the web sites we visit.
> I am probably the most conservative surfer in the house.  The 4 sites
> I visit the most are all very reputable. They all have a lot of stuff
> which is flagged by NoScript.  The site which prompted this thread has
> a bunch of embedded youtube videos on the home page and a lot is
> flagged by NoScript there.

I whitelist my router, youtube, etc. and the domains for forums I visit.

I sometimes disable noscript when making purchases because some vendors, 
upon checkout, send you to a different domain for CC processing - and 
sometimes the lack of script screws that up (which is stupid, JavaScript 
should NEVER be required for CC processing - but alas, often it is - 
some web devs think they have to do everything under the sun with Ajax 
even when a virtually static page would be just as good).

That's the beauty of noscript - you can permanently whitelist a domain, 
temporarily whitelist a domain, temporarily whitelist all domains on a 
page, etc.

facebook is a real pita - I've bitterly complained to them and asked 
them to use only one or two servers for script serving but they won't 
fix it, so I rarely use my facebook.