µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Earlier in this thread I posted about µBlock not blocking Facebook buttons, but I noticed that Ghostery is also not blocking them anymore. Does anyone have an idea why? I'm currently using ABP to block them, or are these buttons not used for tracking, perhaps I'm missing something? A few examples where you can see the buttons:

http://www.pcmweb.nl/nieuws/woensda...cast-2-nog-steeds-de-beste-slimme-gadget.html
http://www.techzine.nl/nieuws/42417/toekomst-van-yahoo-onduidelijk-mogelijke-verkoop-op-komst.html
http://www.technewstoday.com/24821-nintendo-nx-cannot-challenge-ps4-will-make-way-in-2016/

 

Strange, using Ublock and I don't see any Facebook buttons on any of those websites.

 

"Ability to not load cosmetic filters (saves lot of memory)." https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/What-uBlock-can-and-can-not-(currently)-do

Does the amount of memory saved go up the more tabs you have loaded?

 

So, how do you do this? Do you have to use Advanced User (Dynamic Filtering Mode) and just globally block 3rd Party iFrames?

 

in uBlockO you need to add "Fanboy’s Social Blocking List" under 'Social' to the filter list

 

Step 1: Select uBlock's All the Filter Lists
Step 2: Select EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe’s Ad server list‎,Malware Domain List‎, Malware domains
Step 3: Enabling 3rd Party IFrames, as you have mentioned it..

 

Will check this out. To be honest, I came to the conclusion that I don't really trust Ghostery, I wonder if it's really blocking stuff, and who knows if Ghostery is actually tracking you? And I just noticed that ABP seems to be hiding these buttons, instead of blocking them. Or do they perhaps replace buttons?

See screenshots.

 

Does the auto update work for you guys? Every so often i'll check my lists/settings and some are orange so I have to manually update.

 

I update them manually once a week. Usually only few filters are orange, but I didn't take notice if they are always the same...

 

“I'm just going to leave this here”
https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html


https://redmorph.com/img/Results.png https://redmorph.com/img/POST_Results2.png

 

Has anyone tried Redmorph?

 

uBlock0 performs pretty well in this contest which tests the participants with their default configuration. But there are various additional filterlists in uBlock0 already available, and you can manually add many more. Not to mention the possibilities of Dynamic Filtering. In short: This contest is telling us not even half the story.

 

Yes, they are automatically updated every 3 or 4 days I think. It works for me.

 

Damn, just for Chrome...

 

Tried the new 1.4 release candidate, surfed to the website mentioned in the popunder example, expecting something like this.

~ Removed Off Topic Image As Per Policy ~

My wife was using own own laptop next to me, try to explain that! LOL

 

Yeah!! Guess there should be small warning in the release page. @gorhill Can you please add a warning sign! So, that people might not be in the tricky situation

Nice Test! (i.e., steps to reproduce the test are clear for every one).

Yes, we can think of this configuration as very easy mode of uBlock. There are various other blocking modes to configure accordingly, and can be see how uBlock behaves in different blocking modes...
One has to remeber in that test is that, Disconnect, Ghostery were set to strictest configuration possible!!

Also, i came across RequestPolicy Continued wiki, where they mention, how uBlock Origin can be configured to work as RP, here!!!
For me using firefox, only just this extension seems to do the job! Nothing more needed.

Anyways, will check on Redmorph over the weekend though!

 

Noop rules...

 

From the page https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html searching for 'Tools used' you can read: "Ublock Origin v1.3.3 – default filter lists and rules, default configuration."

So it is the so called easy mode. But yes with adding more static filters or using medium filtering mode we can get more things filtered out.

Also in case of adding too many static filters and them causing the pages to break, we can use dynamic filtering allow rules to bypass static filtering without having to disable uBO on such sites. Myself i use just the default install static filters (easy mode) and use the medium filtering. It keeps things simple and easy.

 

Yese, you are right! I might have confused then.

 

need some help again

i need to block some object

Code:

!~~~focus-video-ads~~~
||*.1.damoh.focus.de$object,domain=www.focus.de
||*.2.damoh.focus.de$object,domain=www.focus.de
||*.3.damoh.focus.de$object,domain=www.focus.de

but allow

Code:

focus.de/*crossdomain.xml

but xml is recognized as "object".
i am still not familiar with block and allow -> @@|| exceptions.

some can help out?

(also asked here)

 

Code:

||1.damoh.focus.de$object,first-party
||2.damoh.focus.de$object,first-party
||3.damoh.focus.de$object,first-party
@@||focus.de/*crossdomain.xml$object,other,first-party

What browser are you using? On Chromium-based browsers there is a long-standing issue -- which I doubt will ever be resolved -- which causes network requests originating from a plugin to be classified as network requests of type "other", hence uBO is forced to re-classify them as "object" to ensure EasyList et al. are properly enforced.

Side note: I recognized those network requests you are trying to block, I saw them on chip.de. The next version of uBO is able to block the in-video ads on that site (1.4.0 is available in dev channel on AMO).

 

Once the response is returned, it is up to the browser to deal with it appropriately. In that specific case, the browser will refuse to execute javascript is no javascript was requested.

 

That benchmark is interesting in that it measures from outside the browser, so this means this will also include all network requests made by the browser which are not fed to the extensions through the webRequest API. Other than this, for me the most interesting measurement has always been the number of 3rd parties reached, and I do not see this in there. It does show a screenshot of what seems to be 3rd-party connection data, but otherwise no comparative benchmarks for that specific angle.

As it has been said, it very easy with a few clicks to significantly reduce exposure to 3rd parties with uBO starting from its default out of the box settings:

- Enable advanced user mode.
- Globally block facebook.com, facebook.net
- Globally block twitter.com
- Locally unblock facebook.com, facebook.net, twitter.com -- so that these sites works properly.
- In all roughly this represents 6 dynamic filtering rules

I believe this could have pushed uBO at the top in those benchmarks, because when one look at the raw data in the privacy exposure benchmarks I run, facebook.com and twitter.com are the largest contributors to privacy exposure which are not blocked out of the box by uBO. There is also gooletagservices.com, and longer term I am working to address this one with the new redirect feature in 1.4.0.

 

Still version 1.3.3 on the Chrome Store.

 

Redmorph blocks third party requests while claiming to allow video: this does not work on www.nu.nl (video's don't play). So wen you want to replicate the test, compare Redmorph with uBlock origin in advanced mode with third-party blocking enabled for scripts plus iframes and the third party ad+tracker blocklist of Easylist: then you compare apples with apples.

So ublockOrigin fans can sleep with ease and confidence: their favourite extension won't be beaten by this commercial contender.