µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

No that I know of. You can whitelist whole site but not specific element.

One cosmetic suggestion: in extension settings, change log link could point to page with new change log (post 0.2 version).

 

hi Dave, gorhill implemented pop-up blocking feature yesterday, after i come up with a site, where build-in blocker does not work properly.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/58
and
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/65

Please test your sites and see how ublock works.

Thanks, Harsha.

 

If you want comments on Fox News, disable Peter Lowe’s Ad server list, there is something in there preventing the comments from loading.

Edit1: Eventually, with issue #68 fixed, another solution would be to find and whitelist the necessary blocked requests which breaks the comment section, without having to disable the whole list.

Edit:2 Actually, I will find and create an exception filter to fix the comment sections, the blocker should not break the site with out of the box settings. Issue #69.

Edit2: Fixed. Go in the About tab in uBlock's dashboard, and there should be an item in need of an update. Force an update by clicking the Update button at the bottom. After this, comments on foxnews.com should work without having to disable Peter Lowe's list.

 

Yes, I planned to offer this, to create (block or allow) filters based on what was allowed/blocked, I didn't formalize it by creating an issue. Will do so you can track progress.

Edit: issue #68

 

I would like to find the problem but I have no working Netflix account. You could try disabling Peter Lowe's list, in which case I expect uBlock to not behave differently than ABP.

 

Excellent, thank you very much! Very happy with ublock, but then again as a die hard Httpswitch board user, I'm starting to see that anything with gorhill attached to it is pure gold

 

I've noticed that uBlock and HTTPSB ad filtering is different somewhat particularly when it comes to element hiding. Will improvements on uBlock be backported to HTTPSB? (I tried to use HTTPSB with no-script like settings coupled with ad filtering but the result was different from using HTTPSB no-script + uBlock combo.)

 

The pattern-based filtering part of HTTP Switchboard will be removed, and uBlock is the way to get back the pattern-based filtering. I've finally come to this decision yesterday, after having languished over it for days. Trying to keep and fit pattern-based filtering into HTTP Switchboard is destroying it. It's currently losing users.

It's already split internally I will just make the split more visible, while removing a huge amount of developing work ahead, and avoiding spftware destruction by mean of bloat and over-complication.

I know many do not see it this way, but at the risk of sounding arrogant, from my higher point of view as the developer, HTTP Switchboard is currently suffering from people thinking they can use it as a more friendly blocker. My decision is made, this is what I think is best for me, the users, the extensions, and this is it. The only question is whether I create a new HTTP Switchboard fork, so existing users can stick with the one which is on its way to bloatville.

uBlock works already well with HTTP Switchboard. I suggest you install uBlock, and uncheck all the pattern-based lists in HTTPSB (EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc.) uBlock is currently more advanced internally with regard to pattern-filtering engine (further optimized, support more filter options, etc.), and UI-wise. Trying to fit all the new stuff in HTTPSB is madness, because all that new stuff has consequences on the existing code, and I would be the one dealing with all the issues arising.

This way I can spend my time coding great stuff instead of spending my time patching up stuff and struggling to explain how matrix- and ABP- filtering interacts together in HTTP Switchboard. Also, uBlock will already currently show you the only requests not blocked by HTTP Switchboard (see this). The fact that both extensions are separate also makes them candidates for working in parallel (each is a separate process), so worries about overhead etc. is completely unwarranted, adding to this that the code is very efficient.

 

Makes sense to me! In a broad way, your train of thought parallels the existence of ad blocking and script/plugin control we have had in Firefox for some time (2 well known extensions.) It's worked well there and will do so in Chrome with your work. Thank you for your hard work!

 

All fine and dandy to me. I've been using HTTPSB along with uBlock the past week and all is well so to speak. kinda mirrors a NoScript + Adblock Plus setup for Firefox.

 

Noticed you added the tags, thx

After some testing I dare to say that there is not much use in enabling malware filters when you have Chrome safe browsing enabled (phising and malware). Maybe it is better to add some anti-ad lists in the default setting, or ask some questions at extension installation (have Chrome safe browsing on?, do you use social networks? etc). This ofcourse to keep it the most effective AND efficient blackist block-extension.

 

What if I have those settings in Chrome disabled? Are malware filters efficient?

 

This is great news, Raymond! This issue was actually a major concern I had. I'm very glad that you changed that.

 

For µBlock, is there any advantage in using a combined list (Fanboy Ultimate) over individual lists (EasyList+EasyPrivacy+FETL+FAL)?

 

I wondered the same because the list has 0 used out of ?, so I;m not sure if it's as trustworthy as (EasyList+EasyPrivacy+FETL+FAL)

 

Well at least you will be having public available malware filters active. Why would you disable chrome's safe browsing, the block list is stored on local PC, only executable downloads are checked in the cloud as far as I know (but please correct me when I am wrong). So unless you are downloading hacks there is not much privacy concern to disable chrome's build in protection.

Using uBlock's malware lists in combination with the 1806-block trick (switch it ON and OFF through execution a registry file) could be an alternative to chrome's reputation scanning (chrome downloads executable, then removes it as an invalid download, see pic text in Dutch: Failed - Blocked). Simply switch download executable block off, before you want to download a program.

 

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.

 

Yes I disabled Chrome built-in protection because of privacy concerns. I believe most data is stored locally but I don't know how much is sent to Google's servers when Chrome is checking visited web pages.
I'm not concerned about files download. They can't be executed from download folder, so I don't think I need to use 1806 trick.

 

See https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/ Besides the log they keep (which every browser/search engine does), when you disable all "assistance" and "experience improvements" there should not be much to worry about (meaning you are disclosing a lot less than most do, but more than when using anonymous browsers/services).

 

I just wanna say a big thanks for your product, keep up the great work!

 

May I request for easylist's unobtrusive/acceptable ads list be included as a 3rd party filter?

 

Already declined by Raymond.

 

Tnx tlu. I didnt know I could put the list on Your list. Shame shame^^

 

Raymond,

Is there something you could do wit the SSL blacklist in plain IP's of https://sslbl.abuse.ch/blacklist/

 

I have to look into this. The current parser already can parse ABP-like or hosts file-like lists. To add yet another variation might be pushing it.