µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by gorhill, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. gorhill

    gorhill Guest

    Err.. That's what the huge power button is for, to whitelist the site you are on -- it's even written right under the button.
     
  2. Wroll

    Wroll Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    Italy
    Bad things happen when instinct is used. The big button I thought it was to disable the filters everywhere. Once I read on the SMS I received from my mobile provider that the roaming fees were 25 euro/mb instead of 25 cents/mb.
     
  3. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    Looks to be good. Anyone have any recommendations on which lists to use? I want the most of everything blocked without a ton of overlap, but I also do not want the browsing experience slowed down by having too many checked (as is the case with ABP - not sure about uBlock)
     
  4. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    I use this filters and get no slowdowns or Ads displayed:

    upload_2014-7-24_22-12-32.png
     
  5. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    Thanks. Do you use any of the multipurpose?
     
  6. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    No, I don't use any Social, Multipurpose or Regional filters. I suggest that you try different combinations and see what suits you best.
     
  7. gorhill

    gorhill Guest

    I actually strongly suggest the multipurpose. For instance, I saw Dan Pollock's was updated to include documented fingerprinting as per researchers findings. This is what I've been using since the beginning and frankly I really do not see site breakage. When it rarely occurs, I rather whitelist one site than live without these. Don't worry about performance (unless you are on low powered device I suppose), it's well optimized, and the parser discards duplicates (this explains why used count is lower than total count).

    to-forum.png
     
  8. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    I am certainly not on a low powered machine. I just want everything to perform as fast as possible.

    If I check all the multipurpose, I know I can uncheck all the ones fanboy ultimate covers, but are there any others that are redundant?
     
  9. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Thanks gorhill for sharing your settings. I will set it the same way and will see if I notice any change in performance.
     
  10. Nanobot

    Nanobot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Posts:
    473
    Location:
    Neo Tokyo
    Fanboy's Social Blocking is already included in the Fanboy's Annoyance List, thus it's redundant to have both these lists checked
     
  11. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    Great info. Great extension.
     
  12. Romagnolo1973

    Romagnolo1973 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Posts:
    565
    Location:
    Italy - Ravenna
    @gorhill I love yourextension, thanks.
    Just a question: if I use Fanboy Annoyance I can see 12.000 entries, if I use Fanboy Annoyance + Fanboy Social the number in Annoyance decrease, so i think in case of double items your great extension simply don't consider the same filter 2 times, I'm right? If so is another great reason for using it, so user can add some list without study what that list include, your extension does the job for us
    Update: I saw your reply in a previous page that solve my question:
    "It's zero because all the filters in it were already parsed and enforced, because other lists contains portions of the same filters. uBlock tries to detect and not load duplicate filters. I knew Fanboy Ultimate was redundant to the ones already in there, but so many users use it that I figured I should include it because it's familiar."

    Thanks really a must have extension in chrome
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2014
  13. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    I have disabled the pattern filters in HttpSwitchboard and have enabled those µBlock filters as per gorhill's
    screenshot (which includes Fanboy's Social Blocking List).
    Strange then, that when denying "b.static.ak.fbcdn.net" in HttpSwitchboard plus running µBlock, the facebook button placeholder is still visible HERE
    If I take the Adblock Plus filters:-
    ###button_facebook
    ||b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/zB6N8/hash/*
    and stick them in µBlock, the page is clean i.e. no placeholder for the gif image.

    Something else, updating in µBlock doesn't update this filter:-
    assets/ublock/filters.txt New version available

    Otherwise all is well.
     
  14. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Ocky, I can't see the facebook button on that site. However, I'm right now testing µBlock 0.3.0.0-rc0 where Raymond made changes regarding the used API. With older versions I also saw some leftovers on some sites but no longer with the new version.
     
  15. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Belgium
    What are the chances it will sometime be available for Firefox ?
     
  16. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Low for the foreseeable future.
     
  17. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Belgium
    Damn, that's too bad. Having this puppy on FF could very well make serious headlines. (And a serious signal to the ABP-developers(-marketeers) that they better lower the tooting on their horn)
     
  18. gorhill

    gorhill Guest

    Currently the expected behavior for versions prior to 0.3.0.0. HTTPSB doesn't support collapsing of blocked elements, and uBlock doesn't see the requests that were blocked by HTTPSB. This will change with v0.3.0.0 (which I will publish today I guess), as now uBlock will be able to see all the requests, including those that were blocked by HTTPSB, and thus will be able to collapse the blocked elements (a feature not found in HTTPSB).

    Ok I just checked and I see I forgot to update the checksums, so the file is downloaded and discarded because uBlock sees the file as corrupted.
     
  19. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    I found that enabling "Fanboy's Anti-Facebook" which I had previously not enabled (all others per gorhill's screenshot were enabled), solved the conundrum.
    Loaded the unpacked version 0.3.0.0-rc0 and it is perfectly stable here. Thanks gorhill and tlu.
     
  20. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    741
    Location:
    United States
    I use 'poper blocker' separately anyway. I never see pop ups.

    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/poper-blocker/bkkbcggnhapdmkeljlodobbkopceiche
     
  21. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
  22. gorhill

    gorhill Guest

    Well just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, the popup blocker in uBlock works according to the filters. So if there is no filter for a popup, it won't be prevented from opening.
     
  23. AutoCascade

    AutoCascade Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Posts:
    741
    Location:
    United States
    I had seen that after I posted that. I'm surfing right now with poper blocked disabled and its been pretty quiet on the popup front with ublock by itself. Very impressive.
     
  24. Sampei Nihira

    Sampei Nihira Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    3,345
    Location:
    Italy
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2014
  25. On a regular basis I check to see whether some "malware" extensions are of any use. Older blocking tests of testing services showed that it was a numbers game (with Ms and Chrome leading the pack of AV's and Avast and Bitdefender leading the AV's).

    In the past bitdefender's traffic light was the only which blocked an entry which was allowed by chrome. Raymond also did some testing after my first post and confirmed that there was not much blocked.

    Today I tried the new Avira beta extension and after the first malware entries being blocked by Chrome's safe browsing feature, AVira Browser Safety started to kick-in on a regular base. So my testing was not was wrong: but my conclusion was, so J_L, I stand corrected on this.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.