µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Q: Why use uBlock in advanced user mode?
A: To block third party scripts and iframes (increases security according to Noscript/Umatrix fans)

Q: Why use uBlock third party filters when in advanced mode blocking third party?
A: No idea, uBlock stops 99% of the trackers/ads in this mode.

Q: Why use uBlock as third party blocker in stead of uMatrix?
A: uMatrix is more granular (two dimensional matrix), but uBlock is easier to use (e.g. one dimensional addblock exceptions in My filters)

Q: why use uBlock in uMatrix moron's mode
A: because I am a moron

Chrome, start with
--no-referrers = Don't send HTTP-Referer headers (still a valid start command switch?)
--no-pings = Don't send hyperlink auditing ping (still valid?)
Chrome settings
- Send do not track
- Block third party cookies, allow for session only
- Javascript set to block by default, allow from domains [*.]NL and [*.]COM
- Flash set click to play
- Added Startpage as search engine

uBlock options
- Advanced user mode
- No third party filters (no cosmetic filtering)
- My Filters (allow third-party for NL HTTPS domains only, overrides My Rules)
@@||www.*.nl^https$third-party,script
@@||*.nl^https$third-party,script
- My Rules (block third party scripts and frames, allow common rich media content)
no-cosmetic-filtering: * true
* * 3p-frame block
* * 3p-script block
* 1st-party * allow
* googlevideo.com * noop
* jwpcdn.com * noop
* vimeo.com * noop
* vimeocdn.com * noop
* youtube.com * noop
* ytimg.com * noop

 

3rd party filters will block blacklisted items on domains that are nooped. It will also block other items from blacklisted domains (images...). That's two reasons why 3rd party might be useful.
How much faster is browsing when 3rd party filters are disabled? Is speed difference noticeable?

 

Speed difference is measurable, but it is not or hardly noticeable.

I don't want to dismiss your arguments, because I don't have experienced them. Your explanation is valid, but in (my) real world usage I have not experienced omitting third part filters as an disadvantage, this might be explained by:

a) When I set a per site third party (NOOP) exception, I only set it for a specific site, meaning other third party is still blocked, so unless the content is hosted on the site of the advertisement or tracking company, I will not notice any difference (third party block still blocks everything I want to block).

b) Since exception setting is content driven, what would be the odds of me not wanting to see media content (pictures/movies/etc) on the site I allow (or NOOP)? The opposite is more likely IMHO. I have not seen animated gifs or unwanted advertisements slipping through (by setting a site specific NOOP, because I want to see the content).

These are all the permanent site specific exceptions rules (google Maps, Linkedin en some news sites) I use

• google.nl kh.google.com * noop
• google.nl mt0.google.com * noop
• linkedin.com licdn.com * noop
• telegraaf.nl tcdn.nl * noop
• volkskrant.nl vk-cdn.nl * noop
• cnn.com turner.com * noop
• washingtonpost.com posttv.com * noop

 

I've been trying both ways (with and without 3rd party filters) and having filters enabled blocks much more content on some sites that I visit. On some sites even a lot of first party stuff gets blocked. I guess it all depends on sites one is visiting.

 

Yeah, it blocked automatically with my Umatrix rules which is block all globally except image+css globally, then I seen the < * 9d63c80da.pw * block > so I disabled uMatrix to see if Ublock Origin would block it and it did not. I am not worried about it for me, because uMatrix took care of it for me, I am worried about the regular uses who will not be able to block it if they don't know how, and maybe it leading to malware or etc. But I did click on it since I am on a Chromebook, and strict blocking blocked the ad from loading.

 

Hey Guys
new to the forum, and recently stumbled upon ublock (origin) and umatrix.
I have been wanting to substitute my current bloated and cumbersome setup with these blockers.
Can ublock (or umatrix) replace the addons below?
1. noscript
2. request policy
3. random agent spoofer
4. better privacy
5. cookie monster
6. https everywhere
7. self-destructing cookies

I am especially dependent on noscript (obvious reasons), better privacy (LSOs), cookie monster (fine-grained control over cookies).
I used to love request policy but its no longer compatible with firefox 38.
I have also been considering Policeman, but can't really tell how similar/different it is from request policy or ublock.

I am really using too redundant addons, which ones can I safely get rid of?
thanks guys for any piece of advice
cheers

 

In my case, at least, several sites require ajax.googleapis.com to work properly.

 

Yep, most of the sites I visit do, I have it allowed globally in uMatrix just the script box.

 

For example one below:

 

Yes, but that breaks many sites in my experience. A per-site switch like in uMatrix is preferable.

 

Good approach

@Sampei,

couldn't you use a global noop rule or even a per-site noop rule instead? At least this way static filtering is retained

 

In some websites "ajax.googleapis.com" should always be locked.
For example the site below:

http://film-stream.org/

Look what happened in the past with "ajax.googleapis.com" active:

 

Ahh that site again I found if I block anything ad132.com I don't get the pop-ups, even with ajax.googleapis.com allowed. At least in your first screenshot the plug-in is halted with your browser's restrictions, but of course I understand the benefit to blocking it outright.

 

The pop-ups are encoded in the page source:



To not display the pop-up is also possible to insert the filter under

||www.aznotizie.com

 

Thank you.

 

If I remember correctly, this isn't possible, considering there is no feature built in to Chrome??

Are you using an extension to disable HTTP-Referrer headers?

 

No a start switch, like --incognito see http://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/

 

Thanks Sampei. I had forgotten about the procedure to generate the new tab pop-up. This is a really tricky one to block without first knowing what to block. Actually blocking ajax.googleapis.com does not work for me. The new tab pop-up opens on the first mouseclick. The saving grace, I guess, is the aznotizie.com video won't play with the uMatrix settings I have in place. If 3rd party active content is blocked by default, one should be pretty safe, I'd think.

 

Nothing happens with my uBlock settings. What should happen, when you surf to this site?

 

Click on anywhere in the plain blue background and I get a new tab opening to aznotizie.com. Otherwise, nothing happens for me either until I click there. chromium even warns it blocks a pop-up. It's one of those cases where the link isn't in plain view. As Sampei illustrates, it's encoded in the page.

 

Welcome to the forum Valkun;

UBlock and Umatrix as a combination can replace those extension, or make them redundant.

Umatrix;

-Has the ability to provide fine control over what has the privilege to run, ie 3rd party and first party CSS, image, scripts, plugins, XHR, frames Cookies and can replace No script, request policy, cookie monster (in a different aspect), self destructing cookies (in a different aspect). By different aspect i mean umatrix does not block cookies from entering, but more importantly it does not let any cookies leak out data. Umatrix can also be instructed to delete session cookies and cache when exiting browser or in a given time frame.

-Umatrix has the ability to spoof the user agent randomly, it also has the ability to enforce strict https and block all hyperlink auditing, but these need to be enabled in settings.

Ublock;

-Cannot replace betterprivacy, cookie monster, https everywhere and self destructing cookies. Ublock does not have the ability for total control at the same level as umatrix as it lacks cookie management and other advanced features such as strict https hyperlink auditing, user agent spoofing, cookie deletion and cookie blocking.

If you use dynamic filtering which is an advanced feature, then you can have similar fine control over 1st party and 3rd party only (like umatrix but limited) minus other features that separate ublock from umatrix. Arguably ublock with dynamic filtering can replace noscript and request policy pending the level of control you are after.

In my opinion these two extensions are the only things you need in terms of privacy and security.

I suggest you read up on the following and read the Ublock and Umatrix threads here at wilders,

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki
https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki

regards.

 

Yes.
You can block pop-up previously, but then the website is no longer usable.

 

Oh, gotcha, thanks for the reply.

 

Thanks for the welcome and clear explanation.
So I could replace the extensions I have been using, thats good to know. All of them except Better privacy I guess? Because I cant find andy info about umatrix dealing with LSOs.

Yes I am using umatrix together with ublock set for dynamic filtering. As per authors suggestions I only use block all for 3rd party and frames and not scripts, and switched off malware domains.

There is still a lot i dont know and am not sure, but first I will read what I can about the extensions.
Thanks again