Le site cdn.ravenjs.com est-il sûr ?

I was enthusiastic when I saw the first (and only) review at the moment. The mention of Open Source always tickles my trustbone, but I went to check myself. There's suspicious things here, and it seems there's no need for a page to load this from their, it could be installed locally from the un-obfuscated source-code. But most will just link to the minified (and this obfuscated, even if that's not the purpose) javascript file they provide. This makes me doubtful, is the minified source the same as the one at github? Because, to me it seems a brilliant method to spread hidden code, for whatever purpose, to provide admin tools as open source, but trust that today most designers just link to 3rd party library anyway - they may review the code at github, if their good, but I bet they don't try automated tool to check that the code is same (easy, minifying is just removing all the unnecessary spaces and make it a huge unreadable one humongous line of code, but the code is same), they just link to 3rd party site, even though the sensible thing for *many* reason if self-host this kind of stuff. 1st, their main page is way too simple and gives a crappy first impression. 2nd, all the plugin links point to 404 errorpage (missing - removed?) github projects) 3rd, it seems from their page they *really* haven't tried to make it have anything that gives the impression of a good professional tool with dedication behind. If your site is basically a download link, some broken links, short description that tells the most shortest description of what it's for without even going to it's actual features, without honestly any effort put on to make it seem like a viable choice. The site speaks of a project that is someones hobby; that he/she is not that interested to promote. This all gives me a weird wibe - but there's a github repo for the project, you can build it yourself, there's even a guide for it. It's not needed for anything by the end user, so I wont unblock it in NoScript - I doubt there's anything shady going on, but it is kinda weird; too bad for the author - had he self-hosted the script, it would run since I did accept the site I saw using it. I doubt there's nothing wrong with it, but I just think it's somewhat suspicious. That's what you get when you're not willing to make a proper website for your project. I don't want to hurt a proper FOSS project, but I choose to leave this blocked - it's no use for me, so the slightest suspicion is enough, especially with over 1000 tabs open I really have way too much scripts running, because modern sites are unnecessarily cluttered with them, all from external sources - and many are required for the site to work. In worst case the pages are blank if not allowed to use javascript, and that's really lame. Just my two cents. I don't really think there's much reason to fear this, just providing my view on this.

I was enthusiastic when I saw the first (and only) review at the moment. The mention of Open Source always tickles my trustbone, but I went to check myself. There's suspicious things here, and it seems there's no need for a page to load this from their, it could be installed locally from the un-obfuscated source-code. But most will just link to the minified (and this obfuscated, even if that's not the purpose) javascript file they provide. This makes me doubtful, is the minified source the same as the one at github? Because, to me it seems a brilliant method to spread hidden code, for whatever purpose, to provide admin tools as open source, but trust that today most designers just link to 3rd party library anyway - they may review the code at github, if their good, but I bet they don't try automated tool to check that the code is same (easy, minifying is just removing all the unnecessary spaces and make it a huge unreadable one humongous line of code, but the code is same), they just link to 3rd party site, even though the sensible thing for *many* reason if self-host this kind of stuff. 1st, their main page is way too simple and gives a crappy first impression. 2nd, all the plugin links point to 404 errorpage (missing - removed?) github projects) 3rd, it seems from their page they *really* haven't tried to make it have anything that gives the impression of a good professional tool with dedication behind. If your site is basically a download link, some broken links, short description that tells the most shortest description of what it's for without even going to it's actual features, without honestly any effort put on to make it seem like a viable choice. The site speaks of a project that is someones hobby; that he/she is not that interested to promote. This all gives me a weird wibe - but there's a github repo for the project, you can build it yourself, there's even a guide for it. It's not needed for anything by the end user, so I wont unblock it in NoScript - I doubt there's anything shady going on, but it is kinda weird; too bad for the author - had he self-hosted the script, it would run since I did accept the site I saw using it. I doubt there's nothing wrong with it, but I just think it's somewhat suspicious. That's what you get when you're not willing to make a proper website for your project. I don't want to hurt a proper FOSS project, but I choose to leave this blocked - it's no use for me, so the slightest suspicion is enough, especially with over 1000 tabs open I really have way too much scripts running, because modern sites are unnecessarily cluttered with them, all from external sources - and many are required for the site to work. In worst case the pages are blank if not allowed to use javascript, and that's really lame. Just my two cents. I don't really think there's much reason to fear this, just providing my view on this.

Helps Javascript developers trap exceptions in their scripts and provides logging to debug the errors. From the site: "Sentry provides open source error tracking for development teams that shows every crash in the user stack as it happens, with the details needed to prioritize, identify, reproduce, and fix each issue."