µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Is it possible that uBlock slow down browsing compared to other adblockers?

 

No, it's actually more efficient than other adblockers. And as a matter of fact it's faster depending on which blocking mode you're using.

 

Yes, I agree. I get best results with Medium mode. Hard mode is a little to aggressive for me.

 

If I compare uBlock (Origin) to AdBlock Plus (the only other adblocker I've experienced) all I can say is that I have noticed no area where uBlock would be inferior, be it in speed, in RAM or in CPU usage. Moreover as we all know uBlock figures as well in the category of block all 3rd parties-type applications such as RequestPolicy as in that of HOSTS file integration as in what it is primarily spotted as, an adblocker (terminology refused by gorhill, the developer, "uBlock Origin is not an "ad blocker", it is a wide-spectrum blocker, which happens to be able to function as a mere "ad blocker".
uBlock Origin has been for me the add-on revelation of the year. An essential, the first add-on I'd call upon a new profile install. A gem.

 

Well said @PallMall
I cannot have said it better.

I use it on various machines. In one I use it primarily as simple image blocker

It's an highly configurable multi purpose blocker

 

Great job again!!!

10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested for Best Performance

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-best-performance/1/

 

Thanks for the link. It completely aligns with Raymonds test he did a while ago.

And the other thing I like about it is other than its efficiency is , its configurabilty.

 

Always a pleasure to notice that our choices are confirmed in their pertinence by independent sources' testings.
May also be reminded that Adblock Edge, a fork of Adblock Plus, has been discontinued by its developer : Reason: Discontinued in favor of Ublock Origin, a general purpose blocker, that not only outperforms Adblock Edge but is also available on other browsers and, of course, without "Acceptable Ads Whitelist"
We're really on the right track with uBlock Origin.

 

I've found an issue with uBlock: it blocks a sourgeforce page as a "badware" risk.
Actually the page is about a directory sync tool for linux, called Synkron.

Maybe a false positive from that list?

 

Download sites that pack adware, etc... with program installers are included in badware risks filter of UO. Few sites are in this filter like download.com, sourceforge, softonic, etc...
This is good for average users IMO... experts can decide to continue or not with the blocked site.

 

It's not at all an issue but published in uBlock0' Dashboard / 3rd party filters / uBlock filters - Badware risks under ||sourceforge.net^$other
$other means that when uBlock shows access to the page as blocked, clicking on Disable strict blocking for sourceforge.net Temporarily will open the page normally (at the user's risks).
If you click on uBlock0' Dashboard / 3rd party filters / uBlock filters - Badware risks link, you will have a page describing the contents (sourceforge.net included) and the reasons.

 

I have been using this excellent extension for a few months now with firefox.Is there a tutorial on how to configure the behind the scenes module as i notice that when first installed it was blocking my extensions from updating etc.I have finally managed to allow my extensions to update ,i see that it is turned off by default,should this in fact be turned on...?

Thanks.

 

uBlock - Wiki & uBlock - Advanced with plenty of descriptions, among others. uBlock Origin gitHub pages are really very well implemented.

 

Thank you kindly pall mall.

 

This is strange. by default, behind-the-scene requests are whitelisted, especially to cirumvent these issues, and the browser to work properly..

 

No behind-the-scene network requests are blocked with default settings, because:

• Behind-the-scene scope is whitelisted by default (appears as "behind-the-scene" in Whitelist pane in dashboard).
• Even if one removes "behind-the-scene" from Whitelist pane, a user still need to enabled Advanced user mode.
• Even if one enable Advanced user mode, it is unlikely that the default filter lists will cause enough blockage in the behind-the-scene scope so as to cause Firefox to be unable to update extensions.

So many conditions -- not present with a new installation -- have to be fulfilled for uBlock to interfere with Firefox's proper functioning.

 

I've seen on the Wiki tutorials, references for + and -, 0-9, etc...
I am wondering how to handle a site that has a + and a - in same column? I have provided a screen cutout...



My first thought is that nothing can be done, since the - is originating from the same source as the +...

EDIT: Damnit, found some instructions in "The Logger" section... pwoah how intense!

------------
Also, I hope I don't get castrated for asking this question... lol...
The whitelisted entries, is there a reference somewhere or does somebody have a definition for what purpose they serve? The Wiki listing has a TODO next to Whitelist, so it is yet to come... It doesn't really bother me, but I noticed there is an Opera reference, and I do not have Opera installed... just curious.

Thanks in advance for any replies...

 

uBlock Origin will be getting more exposure as it will be featured on the upcoming
'Security Now' podcast. Episode #523 Sept.1, 2015.
https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

'Security Now' records live every Tuesday at 4:30pm Eastern / 1:30pm Pacific / 20:30 UTC.
https://www.twit.tv/shows/security-now

 

Awesome article, linking it on security list for sure soon!

 

Another mention, this time from Emisoft: "Ublock Origin is an open-source extension available for Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. It is well-known for it’s light resource use as compared to its competitors." Sadly, it links to the other uBlock:

http://blog.emsisoft.com/2015/08/26/how-ad-blockers-can-improve-your-online-safety-and-sanity/

 

Been looking to this show for years, very professional, honest, and lots of great advice & lot of stuff to "know".

 

It must be a mistake because the article refers to uBlock Origin when indeed it links to a uBlock (#2) page I didn't even know existed (Project maintained by Chris and his "Please donate to help keep uBlock alive!" on that very site). I'm not sure everyone is aware of the uBlock story but journalists should be, even when their name is as sweet as Emisoft Blog's author Carla (mama mia).

 

What does "allow access to file urls" mean & is it safe to allow for ublock origin?

 

Looks like it concerns uBlock for Chrome. Never saw this on the Firefox add-on.

 

What version of browser/uBlock Origin is this? uBlock does not ask to run on "file://..."-like URLs, so your browser should not offer you the option. I don't see this here.