Noscript not trusted by google dev policy

This issue has been tracked since 2022-02-06.

Hey there. Im posting this issue to inform you that google safe browsing flagged your noscript add on in the Chrome webstore.

It could be of course that you are not yet validated.

Love to hear your reaction.

Best regards

KOLANICH wrote this answer on 2022-02-06

Chrome users deserve what they get. They support the product designed in an unethical way (with such harmful standards as WebUSB and WebSerial and WebGPU and Client Hints, the list is incomplete) by a company benefiting from tracking users and showing ads. The only thing why Chromium and Chrome exist is that Alphabet needs to control the ecosystem to make sure browser vendors don't interfere with its business goals. By mere using Chrome you help Googlag in doing that.

hackademix wrote this answer on 2022-02-06

I can't see anything strange on the Chrome Store NoScript listing page, and I've just tried successfully to install it in two different Chomium profiles.
What should I look at, exactly?

Idlefase wrote this answer on 2022-02-06

@hackademix my excuses in advance to refrain from giving info right away.

If you go to your installed extensions and have enabled advanced protection in Chrome you will see a yellow triangle stating that safe browsing flagged this as untrusted.

If you read the support article it states that its either due to providing policy crossing content or due to simply not being approved by google. Which they plan to do a check with all chrome webstore devs.

It should not matter which Chrome profile you're using as long as its installed.

In the case that it isn't there ( aka global) it could be a case of our local copy. Since the pc it happend on was actually pwned and had a case of MITB in the past.

Just wanted to inform you in case of.

Idlefase wrote this answer on 2022-02-06

@KOLANICH i understand your point and i agree that the internet should be free and open source.

In the case of this issue, it was a shared pc in which the actual owners didn't have the time nor the knowledge to maintain a day to day computer. For the sake of them i optimized it for the average user.

Besides the point i am a huge hater of shellcode patched binarys and i want to refrain from having to reverse engineer every binary which i sadly for my school and administration tasks already have to do if i want to use my computer well.

So i will gladly accept what comes hassle free if i have the luxury.

KOLANICH wrote this answer on 2022-02-06

internet should be free and open source.

It is not enough. Both Firefox and Chromium are free and open source software. Their vendors are both are stained with unethical things, it's just Googlag is more stained. They both have browsers the way it is de-facto impossible to an average user to fix their wrongdoings written in native code (but some can be fixed). The companies have designed the build systems and the sofware the way they have to use expensive compile farms most of people wanting to fix something in the browsers just don't have. It is an entry barrier to make the market less competitive. Googlag uses such approach for a lot of their other products, the most notably, Android and TensorFlow.

To have the Internet infrastructure open, all the critical components should be designed the ways to eliminate/lower entry barriers as much as possible.


shellcode patched binarys

I don't understand what you mean under it. Could you elaborate, please?

More Details About Repo
Owner Name hackademix
Repo Name noscript
Full Name hackademix/noscript
Language JavaScript
Created Date 2018-06-30
Updated Date 2022-12-03
Star Count 573
Watcher Count 21
Fork Count 79
Issue Count 151


Issue Title Created Date Updated Date