µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Did it and removed the string that you posted and the ad is still gone!

 

I will install that extension. Thanks

 

That's what I meant by controlled.

Cool.

That is how I viewed it, but wanted to make sure since I'm only knee deep at this point. It was also partly an attempt to encourage you to support "user-defined scriptlets enabled while developer defined scriptlets are disabled or not updated between extension updates" scenarios. Not because I question your abilities or intentions. Only because that is more supportive of scenarios where a user wants to minimize the potential for a third-party to pseudo-push active content into [secure] pages.

Edit: rewording to add the bold part. Also, there might be more flexibility in such regards than I appreciate at this point. If so, hopefully I will learn of it.

 

Anyone who has experience in webdesign, how do I find the correct info about the video player and what it needs to play in the html source code of this page? The player does work, but it takes 12 seconds to load so I'm thinking maybe something else needs to be allowed?
here's my current rules

 

I wouldn't know, but if you insist on viewing a website this awful with its nearly 100 domains connecting (when you temporarily allow everything in uBlock), I think the easiest way to handlle such a site like this with your uBlock settings (mine are the same) is to noop the Local 3rd-party script cell for this site.This way you are allowing the 3rd-party scripts, yet still enforcing Static filtering on them, while still fully blocking iframes. I really hate websites like this one, although I've seen worse, where > 100 domains connect if everything is allowed. When I see this kind of nonsense, I steer clear of the site permanently.

 

@Overkill
The best and smartest guess is to noop 3rd party scripts for that specific site imho.
If you really want to go the difficult route, the video is triggered by a deeply nestled script which eventually end up at the script at up.anv.bz, which loads the content. When scripts are nested (triggered by other 3rd party scripts), the domains for these simply don't show up in the uBO interface when you have 3rd party scripts blocked, since it blocks the first called scripts, after which the nested ones inside them don't ever get loaded. (and logically never appear in the uBO UI).

 

I understand what you mean and I have nooped 3rd party scripts and frames on certain sites but sometimes I find that some trackers are allowed (they show green) if I do that, so that's why I go the harder route and I like the fact that it's kinda educational lol.
BTW, I know that the static filtering is still in place and I also know I can simply block any allowed domain globally via dynamic filtering
I hate how much crap is on that site, but it's my favorite local news site

 

Thanks DOS, I know what you mean...I loaded tmz with no filtering and it had over 100 trackers and only 30ish with filtering enabled

 

Most here realize it I hope, but: given all the cookie, account, etc syncing and information exchanging that goes on these days, even temporarily allowing everything could do permanent harm. On the other hand, if it is done in a well/fully isolated environment it can be very useful for identifying things that aren't being caught by third-party filters and/or your own block lists. It might be beneficial to have a separate thread for sharing information about heavily infested sites and lists of the third-parties we've seen.

 

I like that idea

 

Can somebody help me blocking the ads in www.freewarefiles.com?
Thanks in advance

 

*$websocket,domain=freewarefiles.com
||upnorma.com^

I will add them to uBO's filters.

 

Thanks, you are the best

 

@Overkill answer already given by @DOSawaits when know that the site is safe:just (temporarely) NOOB third party

 

Will do

 

How do I block these ads below where it says "trending" on facebook?

 

Can you guys perhaps check if streaming quotes work on Yahoo Finance, and could uBlock be somehow interfering with it? On my system, it sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn't. And I also wonder when uBlock will have the ability to block HTML5 Video.

https://finance.yahoo.com/

 

Does uBlock ignore FTP? Testing ublock_origin-1.9.12-tb+an+fx+sm.xpi with FirefoxPortable_49.0.1_English.paf.exe and this page code:

Code:

<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>FTP Test</title>
<style type="text/css">
table {border-collapse:collapse;}
table, th, td {border:1px solid black;}
th, td {padding:6px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table>
<tr><th>Scheme</th><th>Type</th><th>Result</th></tr>
<tr><td>HTTP</td><td>img</td><td><img src="http://http.blockme.example/FtpTest/img1.png" alt=""></td></tr>
<tr><td>HTTP</td><td>script</td><td><script src="http://http.blockme.example/FtpTest/script1.js"></script></td></tr>
<tr><td>FTP</td><td>img</td><td><img src="ftp://ftp.blockme.example/FtpTest/img2.png" alt=""></td></tr>
<tr><td>FTP</td><td>script</td><td><script src="ftp://ftp.blockme.example/FtpTest/script2.js"></script></td></tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The scripts just do a document.write("Hello World!");. I see the FTP requested image and script being retrieved and the communication with ftp.blockme.example not being reported anywhere:




Is there any trick to get FTP blocking working?

Edit: Searched for an issue report and found one from Feb 2016, responded to by someone other than gorhill, saying FTP scheme is not supported.

 

you can provide data and websites thru ftp same as http but it has limitations due data rate or connections which is regular setting on a ftp-server. at least there is no real usage for html via ftp, pointless.

 

FTP can be blocked via nsIContentPolicy in Firefox/Gecko apps. So we have that and extensions which use it for now. I haven't tried to code or test for it, but glancing at material on webRequest it seems like FTP may be blockable. If that holds true then why wouldn't uBlock handle it?

I don't know, but one potential explanation that comes to mind: it just doesn't fit into the structure that was designed for HTTP/HTTPS. If that is the case then the limited usage might also make special handling practical. Would a simple:

FTP: Allow All, Allow Top-Level Only, Deny All

work well enough and be easy to slip in? Just thinking out loud.

 

Is it possible to globally block pop-ups like on this site?

http://chocolateandzucchini.com/

 

Is it possible to do this:

example.com > allow inline scripts
example.com/work > block inline scripts
example.com/food > block inline scripts

basically block everything inline scripts related on example.com/* except the main domain.

 

You can't create rules on per page basis only on per hostname basis. To accomplish what you want, you would probably need to use uMatrix.

 

That wouldn't work in uMatrix either, it's also hostname-based.

Only way I can think might be a static filter: ||example.com/*/$inline-script