µMatrix - the HTTP Switchboard successor

Can you check here https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/releases
µMatrix 0.8.1.0
https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/585534?v=3&s=40 gorhill released this Nov 22, 2014 · 13 commits to master since this release

Changes:

• Per-scope switches

Closed as fixed:

• "Gray" Listing is blocking sites instead of neither allowing nor blocking
  • To prevent users from deleting the important * * doc allow rule, it is now hardcoded into the matrix filtering engine.

 

Yes I see that, thank you for the link. Guess I can now delete it if wanting to do so since it is made redundant. Myself I prefer explicit better than implicit though, so letting it stick there

 

I have been beating myself up trying to get videos on ESPN working. Ghostery correctly identifies 'freewheel' and 'conviva' (sp?) neither of which ever shows up on uMatrix.

 

Weird, I can not make it work, but I came to the conclusion that µMatrix is not for me. It's not exactly the same but Ghostery works quite smoothly on Opera 26. I'm also surprised that other script-blockers like Script Defender, ScriptSafe and ScriptBlock are not working as handy as script-blockers for Opera 12.

 

Yeh... sometimes that happens with obsolete browsers... Doh!

 

Can you explain what you mean with this? To clarify, I'm saying that script-blockers for Opera 12 are handier to use than the ones for Opera 26, in my opinion of course.

 

I am not into sports, but I think this is the site you are talking about: http://espn.go.com/

I would dedicate a special session/sandbox for sites like this. And have matrix filtering disabled for that scope. And have uBlock blocking 3rd party iFrames.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering

The videos seemed to work.

Note: I have unchecked from uBlock some lists that are as hosts files in uMatrix.

 

That's the way to go.

Just when I thought I was out it pulled me back in!

 

Using the combo uMatrix and uBlock they work for me as well. I've got several Malware domain lists unchecked in both extensions since i am already using Chromium's built-in phising and malware protection. Also, it is necessary to allow some "undesireable" content for the site: *.fwmrm.net and *.ooyala.com. That's just the way it is often with these content heavy sites, to view them properly.

 

I never saw the connection between Ghostery's 'freewheel' and uMatrix's 'fwmrm.net'.

My ESPN videos are now there when I click on them. Yea!

 

Why using µBlock ?
In µMatrix, you have to whitelist "fwmrm.net" other column. You also have to whitelist espn.com frame/other.
I don't think using µBlock dynamic filters is a good solution when you have µMatrix.
Tbh, I don't think using µBlock dynamic filters is a good idea in general. I'd rather install µMatrix to handle 3rd party stuff. But that's my opinion.

 

You're right, and even Gorhill has suggestions when using uMatrix with uBlock:

-https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/Using-%C2%B5Block-with-%C2%B5Matrix

 

This is news to me what this pilou42 guy is posting. That uMatrix and uBlock are imcompatible? Coming from same developer.

I have read that page and if I am missing something the filters that are as hosts file in uMatrix should be unchecked.

There comes many times sites like that sport site when it will become too much a problem and nuisance when wanting to see videos working and not easy to make work with uMatrix settings. I certainly want to block at least the iframes. And be somewhat happy with my Sandboxie protection when needing to disable matrix filtering.

 

They're not incompatible - far from it. It is just suggested by Gorhill (Raymond) that Malware Domain lists be un-selected in uBlock if they are selected in uMatrix. Certain sites require active content that may be blacklisted by default according to the hosts files the user has selected. In these cases, one can simply whitelist it for the specific hostname(s) that require it.

One also needs to consider that the more filters selected, including the "Enable phishing and malware protection" in Chromium, the more aggressive the blocking will be by the combined efforts of both the extensions and the browser. This is going to provide better protection against potentially or notoriously harmful active content, but it will also indisputably make viewing certain sites properly a more challenging endeavor for the end user.

 

Posting something like that is just misleading, as I thought too, but needed to respond. It gave false information. If that guy meant what he sayed later in that, it does not make his post right. Anyone reading that could have been mistaken.

Thank you wat for the reply.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't bother with using those malware blacklists.

 

Maybe it's mentioned somewhere in these forums, but I'd really like to know which filters can be disabled in the uBlock and uMatrix extensions when Chromium's phishing and malware protection is enabled, just so most of the unnecessary overlap can be avoided. That and what might be the best combination of efficiency and protection filtering method when using these two extensions in Chromium:

1. Chromium's phishing and malware protection enabled with selected filters in uBlock and uMatrix?
2. Chromium's phising and malware protection disabled with selected filters (more filters enabled in this case) in uBlock and uMatrix?

 

I don't enable Chrome's phishing/ malware protection either. Basically, anything that uses a blacklist or heuristics for security I don't bother with. I like the blacklist for thing slike ads and that's about it.

 

Interesting approach. I have now disabled Chromium's filtering and enabled a few more filters in uMatrix, going with my option 2.

 

I can't really imagine many attacks doing much to my system, and of the ones that could. I feel that blacklisting would be the least effective way of dealing with them. No reason to waste the memory on it.

 

Makes sense. Running at a lower memory footprint is one of my objectives as well, especially with the ageing hardware in use on my different setups.

 

I agree that blacklisting makes it almost impossible to whitelist many sites like that sports one.

 

Yeah sure ! I never recommended not to use µBlock. I said it's easier to use µMatrix to handle 3rd party stuff.
I use both (µMatrix does 99% of the job; µBlock has just personal filters with some css rules for some sites).


BTW, I'm rather disppointed by hosts files. There are a lot of false positives. A hosts file should never prevent a website to work. Fortunately µMatrix allows to whitelist easily, but without µMatrix, it's a bummer (I planned to use a hosts file on Android but I won't).

 

Yes, Chromium bug, which has been fixed now -- not available in stable though.

 

However there is a serious (IMO) memory leak buy in Chromium 39, which i very detrimental to an extension like uMatrix: see https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500

It affects all extensions. I tried with Ghostery, which has a heavy DOM for popup UI, and repeatedly opening the popup UI does leak also bad. It doesn't look like the Chromium devs make a big deal of this, despite the bug being detrimental to the whole browser. I invite users to star the issue, maybe this will make a difference.