µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

To clarify, I already knew that I can block it globally or per site, but I believe Ghostery blocked this out of the box, and Facebook, Twitter and other sites would keep working. So isn't uBlock supposed to block this automatically? I believe someone also posted that it doesn't matter that you get to see those buttons, because uBlock is somehow still blocking Facebook from tracking you, but I'm not sure if this is correct.

 

Well, if you don't use Dynamic Filtering in uB0 it all depends on which filterlists are used (as in other blockers like ABP, too). The default filterlists in uB0 are EasyList, Peter Lowe's Adservers, EasyPrivacy and Malware domains. I believe that the existing rules in EasyPrivacy should be sufficient to block tracking by Facebook (I haven't really tested it thoroughly as I block it in uMatrix anyhow). But you can additionally enable Fanboy's Social Blocking List in the uB0 settings. The most thorough solution is certainly by blocking it via Dynamic Filtering (as suggested earlier) as any network requests to Facebook will be reliably blocked.

EDIT: This wiki site should be of interest (although it's not up-to-date), particularly the diffs between the tested blockers and beneath that paragraph gorhill's suggestions regarding adding specific rules to Dynamic Filtering.

 

That does not work very well, I can still see network requests made to Facebook, I think that list is more for cosmetic purpose than privacy purpose. "Anti-ThirdpartySocial" is probably better suited, but really, as you said, dynamic filtering is the way to go, there is no guessing involved: if a cell has an explicit block rule, everything will be blocked.

I made a specific example for using dynamic filtering for Facebook: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-to-easily-reduce-privacy-exposure

Link above shows a very gentle way to approach dynamic filtering: by default there are no rule and thus nothing is filtered through dynamic filtering. Then one can little by little add block rules for what they see as unnecessary privacy exposure. Unlike medium mode, one can start using dynamic filtering without high level of breakage.

To help users figuring out what remote servers are ubiquitous, that is the purpose of uBO-Scope.

 

@gorhill :Thanks for your comment!

Wow, interesting! I had never heard about it before.

What's strange: On the AMO site it says: "This add-on is not compatible with your version of Firefox." although I'm using FF57 Nightly on Linux. If I click the "Download anyway" link I'm offered to download ubo_scope-0.1.6-an+fx-windows.xpi. Huh - Windows? I've disabled user agent spoofing in uMatrix, added AMO to the whitelists of Decentraleyes and Canvas Defender and cleared the cache - but to no avail. Strange

 

It still is pending review on AMO. And unfortunately I had to add the "_" at the end of the name because I previously asked for validation of the extension a while ago when I was working on it, and when I decided to officially push to AMO, AMO complained that the name was taken already. I've asked to the reviewer if this can be fixed, no words yet.

 

Okay, I installed it by setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false. Will test it

 

@gorhill: Never mind - I found the culprit for the alleged incompatibility: I had set privacy.resistFingerprinting to true, and this setting is obviously incompatible with AMO. So at the moment this setting (which is part of the Tor browser patches coming to Firefox) seems to unusable. I have to investigate if a corresponding bug report exists.

EDIT: xpinstall.signatures.required = false is still required because of the missing review by Mozilla.

 

i had scope trialed but i never had a look into - only right before uninstalling. no benefit for me.

 

Yeah, 'unverified add-on'. Will wait, looking forward to it though.

 

it takes you one minute to get a signed extension...

 

Are all versions of uBO prior to and including 1.13.8 legacy based and everything after, based on WebExtensions?

I've decided to use FF ESR for now and read that UBO/WebExt versions could be problematic in this scenario, including a loss of privacy features. Is that correct?

 

How do I block this in Firefox and Edge Google searches?



I'm sick of seeing it. I right clicked and chose "Block Element" but that doesn't stick.

 

Hi Krusty, I never seen something like that in Firefox. In Firefox my Home page is Mozilla Firefox Start Page.

Edge, I never seen that annoyance when opening Edge. I dont use Edge, the only thing I do with Edge is open the browser once in a while to make sure the browser is working properly.

But I remember seeing something similar when opening IE in XP and W7. What I used to see was an annoying strip below tabs and the Address bar that asked if I wanted to make Google the Home page. No matter what I tried to get rid of it got rid of it until finally realizing that setting my Home page to about:blank, got rid of the annoyance. Then when I got the W10, I did set about:blank as Home page on that computer as well. I have never seen the annoyance in IE after I started using about:blank as Home page.

Bo

 

I'm using Greasemonkey in FF and I have a "I don't want to install Google Chrome" script added

Which site did you surf? Maybe I can test it with the mentioned script in FF

 

The annoyance Krusty is talking about is not about installing Chrome but making google.com your Home page. And likely, he sees it when opening the browser and only when opening the browser.

Bo

 

Thanks. Read wrongly.

 

Someone else would be better qualified to give you the exact details, but your first statement is essentially correct, starting with hybrid 1.13.10 ...

If you stick with ESR, I doubt you will lose anything by sticking with 1.13.8 (there is a link on AMO) and setting Automatic Updates for uB0 to Off.

That said, I am not having any issues with 1.14.4 on FF 55.0.3.

 

I see this when I search anything Google on FF / CF & Edge.

 

Well, apparently it was not sufficient on my machine. But I have decided to give Ghostery another try, they are now owned by Cliqz, let's hope they are more trustworthy. So I now combine uBlock with Ghostery, and haven't found any drawbacks yet.

Will do some reading, thanks. BTW, it's not a big deal, but are you also getting to see ads on this page?

http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_3310_(2017)-8597.php

 

Hi guys, for approximately 2 weeks now, I've been experiencing problems when trying to update 3rd party filters in uBlockOrigin as well as hosts files in uMatrix. There seems to be some connection problems, it's as if the software could not establish any connection to the updated files. A broken connection icon appears next to the failed lines. Some days I managed to update a few of uMatrix hosts files, then the next day it doesn't work anymore. uBlockO I almost never manage to update so I'm forced to rely on the lists already in the cache.
Anyone experiencing the same issue, and any solution to explain or fix the problem?
Thanks in advance

 

Did you enable - deliberately or accidentally - behind-the-scene filtering in uMatrix or uB0? That would explain your problems.

 

Open the dashboard of uMatrix and then open the matrix. The matrix of "behind-the-scene" should be displayed in green color.
If not, select "All" and allow it. The matrix should be green now and updating of filters should also be possible.
Or simply add:

Code:

matrix-off: behind-the-scene true

 

Hi, nope, behind-the-scene is still in the uBO whitelist while the rule "matrix-off: behind-the-scene true" hasn't changed.

 

Hi, the Matrix of "behind-the-scene" is all green already

 

I don't know which browser and which versions of uMatrix and uB0 you're using. It could be related to the switch from legacy add-ons to webextensions. Perhaps gorhill's remarks for v. 1.14.0 and 1.14.8 are helpful.