µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

From https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing

And further down, there's this:

Looking forward to the unbranded version

 

thanks
looks like we have time until november this year

EDIT
regarding unbranded and other versions:
firefox is starting to confuse me more and more, first my rage over pocket integration, now this extensions signing and unbranded versions. smh.

 

They are both signed. The first time they were signed, the "-signed" suffix was added automatically by Mozilla. Since then both uBlock and uMatrix have been updated and they went back to use their normal name, but they are still signed. So any add-on currently having the suffix "-signed" simply means that they have not been updated yet since they were first signed. All add-ons on AMO are signed.

 

thats good news, and thanks for the clarification. I guess mozilla's way of implementing this is even more confusing than I thought

 

Deploying uBlock Origin for Firefox with CCK2 and Group Policy

 

v1.0.0.0:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.0.0.0

 

@gorhill getting deserved appreciation over at Pale Moon forum for the latest dev build. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=7960&start=60#p59179

 

still shows up in the malware domains section for me? what gives?

 

Yeah it's amazing for him to support Palemoon! Much appreciated.

 

I need a helpin' hand ...

I just cannot find how to proceed to create a dynamic filtering rule that would perform the following :

At this time I have these rules foy Youtube.com :

• 
  http://www.youtube.com']www.youtube.com * 3p block
  http://www.youtube.com']www.youtube.com ggpht.com * noop
  http://www.youtube.com']www.youtube.com googlevideo.com * noop[/B]
  http://www.youtube.com']www.youtube.com ytimg.com * noop

What I wish is to allow only http://www.youtube.com/watch? to access googlevideo.com * noop

I just can't figure how to proceed. I'd be truly grateful, thanks

 

If I'm correct, dynamic filtering only works for domain hostnames only, no specifics.

 

That seems to be the point indeed. I'd have to manage a static filter, but in this case I ignore how to build it, seems just impossible when it would be so easy with another add-on, "Policeman" ...

 

Only block third party-iframes in uBlock and add a block rule in My Filters (using adblock syntax) for third party HTTP Scripts: hxxp://*^$script,third-party

THIRD PARTY SCRIPTS ARE STILL BLOCKED FOR HTTP

THIRD PARTY SCRIPTS ARE ALLOWED FOR HTTPS, NO MORE HASSLE WITH LOG-IN'S AND SECURE PAYMENTS

DOWN SIDE:
You need to ALLOW in stead of using NOOP, when defining exceptions, but that does not makes any difference in this setup, since all ads and trackers of third-party are blocked without using third party filters (reason for NOOP-ing is when using filters of easylist et cetera).

UPSIDE:
Since uBlock origin does not has an option to filter third party pixel tags, nor anti-fingerprinting features (like uMatrix), you won't be noticing any difference in privacy (even when you would enable all filters available in uBlock origin). So increased useability and performance with simular anti-ad/tracking functionality (when you start Chrome with --no-referrers --no-pings switches).

--
Edit: changed errors in text

 

I completely fail to see the real, concrete benefit of blocking googlevideo.com for www.youtube.com while allowing googlevideo.com specifically for www.youtube.com/watch.

 

That's the purpose of EasyPrivacy, which is selected by default.

 

Whatever the reason it's always interesting to know how to accomplish a given aim.
Concerning the reasons and considering that there will always be users who seem to advantage the pertinence of the question over the answer, here is the scheme which lead me to test authorizing googlevideo.com on youtube watch pages and not on youtube itself :

I've noticed yesterday morning that Youtube had modified several things on the way videos are brought, mainly :

Clicking on a video opens it in the same tab of course but the scripts I have for handling the video are inoperative : one script for full-page video, another for video resolution : both as if they didn't exist.

Now, if rather than clicking on the video's thumbnail I either right-click and choose "Open Link in this tab" or "Open Link in new tab" or middle-click to have the video run in a new tab, above issues vanish and scripts are rendered correctly.

From there on I tried to figure out the culprit. Googlevideo.com was a test among others. I only wished to experience different scenarios in order to define the cause of the issue.
At this time it seems the issue is elsewhere. it remains. Googlevideo.com is not the culprit. The point is Youtube handles a video in its own regard (which includes blocking user's scripts) when the video is called by a click but fails to when the video is either opened in a new tab or opened via right-click...

Hope this fulfills your curiosity.

EDIT : I've found a workaround by running another script which seems up to now to invalidate Youtube's odd (new) handling of videos opened via simple click : YouTube Link Cleaner.
Seems to work up to now ...

EDIT2 : above mentioned script works indeed but only from YouTune's main (home) page : if I choose a section (Sports, News etc.) then the script fails!

This no longer belongs to this thread. Admin, please feel free to move wherever you consider the best. Issue is odd but being focused on becomes a topic in itself.

 

EasyPrivacy contains
!-----------------General tracking systems-----------------!
!-----------------Third-party tracking domains-----------------!
!-----------------International third-party tracking domains-----------------!
!-----------------Third-party tracking services-----------------!
!-----------------International third-party tracking services-----------------!
!-----------------Individual tracking systems-----------------!
!-----------------International individual tracking systems-----------------!
!-----------------------Whitelists to fix broken sites------------------------!
!----------------Whitelists to fix broken international sites-----------------!

Can you show me documentation on sizing $image (say 1x1 pixel tags or 3x3) or other privacy concerns like canvas fingerprinting, because I looked through EasyPrivacy blocklist and could not find it.

I am not expecting Adblock or uBlock would protect me against these sophisticated tracking mechanisms. But it is not okay to pretend that uBlock would protect against these types of trackers.

Don't want to offend you, but the anser 'that is the purpose' looks like that is the intended purpose, but fails miserably without these mechanisms. You are to much of an expert, not to know that. Why that strange reply?

 

Can you show me some examples on .com/.org sites, where uBlock fails blocking these canvas fingerprinting/pixel tags? Perhaps Request Logs?

I would like to verify the below claims. and see myself which types of tracking mechanisms it fails on my custom uBlock Origin settings (i.e., default lists + all lists under multi purpose + global 3P Script & IFrame block). I have only uBlock Origin installed.

 

If trackers are set on blacklisted sites they would probably be blocked? Or am I missing something?

 

I was referring to a protection mechanism that would filter out (third-party) pixel tags (e.g. 1x1 gif's), that is something different as filtering on sites. That is why Gorhill's reply is so strange. It is true that the purpose of Easyprivacy is to block trackers, but it does not protect against those advanced trackers.

 

Even blocking images in uBlock settings (3rd or 1st party) wouldn't stop them from loading?

 

Where can I specify that I want to block only 1x1 sized images?

 

IDK in in on long term blacklisting pictures by their size is good idea. They will just move to 2x1 and bypass that rule. Also I believe that picture has to be downloaded before extension can see what it's resolution is. Though, I might be wrong .

 

Playing catch up is the point I am making: not only with technology, but also with legislation. Due to the last the ad-tracking world will devide in two:

1. Advertisement channels which adopt the self regularitory rules, will always be third-party, so uBlock already provides protection without the blacklists (Easyprivacy adds nothing because all the blacklisted sites will always be a third-party).

2. Advertisment companies whch use dodgy mechanism to evade these rules, won't be stopped by blacklist based type of sulotions (adBlock/uBlock third party filters). Nice of uBlock origin to stop WebRTC, but there are more. The pixel tag was just one example, here is another example (for @harsha_mic to try). No use fighting today's privacy with yesterday's solutions.

Realism is something different as critism. I applauded the work of Palant to develop a free ad blocking protection. When free came with the cost to allow acceptable adds, I applauded the work of Gorhil to provide free for free. But the tracking companies not willing to adopt self regulation will always be looking for means to bypass restriction. When fanboys want to believe differently: dream on.

 

Well, I am not in front of a computer.
So, verified this on my mobile, I am able to block it only by blocking 1 party scripts.
How is it blocked on uMatrix?

So, this canvas finger printing can be blocked by denying script execution. And it is more easy to block these if it comes from 3 party. (Which I do already ).

And no one is saying that all kinds of tracking (especially finger printing) are blocked by uBo. How ever I am curious to see pixel tracking examples in real sites...