µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

I originally was using adblock with noscript using both with their default settings.
Letting adblock deal with the ads and i was blocking scripts with noscript on a site to site basis.

I have noticed that ublock seems to perform both functions on its own so i removed noscript and now use ublock on its own.

Thanks.

 

uBlock behaves differently than NoScript in this case: when you block a site (red cell), you will block scripts but also everything else: images, css, etc., stuff that NoScript was not blocking, as it was blocking only scripts for a site. So the results will be different, whether this is deemed good or bad is personal preference.

 

Thank you very much raymond for taking the time to explain everything.I have decided to use your excellent extension and i wish you well in all future endeavours concerning your add-on.

Thanks.

 

Ublock no longer working on twitch.tv

Adblock plus adblock and adguard all do.

 

Anybody feel like pointing me at some instructions on how to create custom lists in uBlock, or more specifically, how can I create the same type of YouTube experience with uBlock that I can get with ABP?

 

Click the "+ add" button for whatever list you want here: https://youtube.adblockplus.me

 

Yes to both questions.

 

So simple. Thank you for that.

 

I like the new ability of element picker a lot . Its lot easier to create wild card based filters.

Here are example filters i have created to block avatars with breeze

Of course one can easily merge both the filters into one by looking at it

 

If you want more filter lists, there is this -

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Filter-lists-from-around-the-web

 

Mee too. I replaced both with just a single addon. Ofcourse i use default deny mode to be more thorough (for which one needs to be more patient with unblocking the stuff if sth does not work)

 

This behavior is changed now with dev3 build.
Domains will only be blocked iff there is a filter matching the domain name. You can read about it here

 

Thanks, hm.

 

Running uBlock now on it's own in FF since i am getting the hang of it, with dynamic, static, my filters and element picker where applicable.

Thanks for that tip. Using that is like creating an untrusted list in noScript. Also thanks to all the techies that created this great tool and others who gave and are giving good pertinent info on how to tweek uBlock for best results.

 

I am going to be bold here and ask what are the differences in using ublock and noscript.?

What does ublock do that noscript does not and vice versa.

Im currently using ublock on its own with filtersets and my own ruleset which i have accumulated as i have browsed.

thanks.

 

Default-deny is so beneficial, it can't be said enough. Worst case where someone does not have the patience to find the proper rules to noop for a given site, it can be disengaged with one click on the 3rd-party cell, plus an extra click if one wants to make the rule stick -- this would bring uBlock to its baseline functionality, a plain ABP-like extension for that one given site.

Yesterday I got yet another good example of why default-deny is the way to go, after I clicked a link on Hacker News. This article:

http://bgr.com/2015/03/30/meerkat-vs-periscope-analysis-journalism/

The page shows up as broken, but one click to noop wp.com at the bottom of the list, and the page rendered just fine, and the article could be comfortably read. However, the amount of 3rd parties on the page, obviously unneeded to properly render the page, is impressive: 26. And of course un-blocking these would causes more 3rd-parties to be pulled in etc.

wp.com is a common domain name which needs to be noop'ed when using default-deny in order to un-break pages, so one could just set a global noop for wp.com and this one will be out of the way forever. Had I done this, the above page would have rendered just fine the first try.

Anyway, just emphasizing the benefits of default-deny.

 

ublock will install in Pale Moon, but is not fully functional. No icon shows. You may have to change your
user agent string to reflect a newer version of Firefox.

 

This is what I recently wrote in a private conversation with another Wilderssecurity member:

1. Noscript is a script blocker which doesn't block, e.g., cookies and webbugs. µBlock, however, blocks all network requests for domains blocked through Dynamic Filtering. Consequently, it provides a better protection of your privacy than Noscript alone.
2. It's very easy to create fine-grained rules in µBlock. Example: You can block Facebook in the global dynamic filtering rules column and create a local noop rule for facebook.com only in order to make sure that Facebook won't track you. Or you can globally block google-analytics.com and create local allow rules on those sites which do not work without it. This is not possible in Noscript: If you whitelist Facebook or google-analytics, they are allowed everywhere - well, unless you create rather complicated rules in ABE. I had done that in the past - and believe me it was a very tedious work.
3. Noscript on the other hand offers some unique features, e.g., an excellent XSS filter (even on whitelisted sites) and protection against Clickjacking. Those features are still enabled if you allow javascript globally. Thus, it's probably worth a try to use both extensions together by following the steps here (or allow scripts globally) particularly if you use µBlock in default deny mode. So you'll have the best of both worlds.

EDIT: I would like to read gorhill's opinion on what I wrote here. Do you agree, Raymond?

 

I believe another way this can be accomplished in Firefox is just to "Disable" (not Remove) the NoScript plugin. You are then asked is you want to disable just script blocking -- or all protections. Obviously, you select just script blocking.

 

Are there any other "items" that are common and notorious for "breaking a site -- in other words, the first ones that should be nooped in order to unbreak a site? If there were a short list, it would probably be helpful to a lot of us.

 

I'm using uMatrix but definitely for my surfing needs, the following very common domains have been globally allowed in my ruleset:

brightcove
2mdn.net
kaltura.com
disqus.com
googlevideo.com
ytimg.com
ooyala.com
maps.google.com
maps.googleapis.com
twnmm.com

 

Here are the domains i did noop globally -

-- i tried to categorize as best as possible, so one can easily review add according to their needs -

 

harsha_mic's post lists a lot of good ones which I overlooked in my ruleset. So having a second look, here are more:

fwmrm.net
9c9media.com
akamai.hd.net
cdn.gigya.com
cdnjs.cloudflare.com
cloudfront.net
ggpht.com

 

@gorhill no answer received, so trying for second time

Would it be possible to add a NOOP third party for everything to https://* websites in the whitelist section?

IMO this would increase the usability of third party script/frames blocking for average users.

Gr Kees

 

It's possible if somebody fork and do it. I don't plan to implement this.