µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

I look forward to the day when people stop complaining about WebExtensions.

 

@Pharao @Compu KTed
that's due to the "bug" pointed out by @gorhill earlier, it's a bug, contrary to @Pharao 's claim, because indexeddb is ignored in private browsing mode and that makes extensions useless. that's why it doesn't work when you disable pbm, update extensions and enable pbm again.

 

that's because, like @gorhill said, ubo webext api needs indexeddb to be in use, while the ubo legacy api stores all the data in sqlite file.

 

Once again - this is not a Firefox bug.
IndexedDB must be ignored in Private Mode Browsing otherwise it would render Private Mode Browsing useless.
Is that sooo hard to understand?
Maybe some reading can bring a little enlightenment: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/20/firefox-and-indexeddb-from-a-privacy-perspective/

 

Exactly! It's a very good example for shortcomings Web Extensions have, compared to their legacy counterparts.

Without Mozilla's new restrictive API-policy, users could have used Web Extensions without any restrictions.
In the above case the user has the choice either to dump the extension, to dump the browser or to give up Private Mode Browsing.
Devs of Web Extensions are forced now to find work arounds and this is a very good example for how those work arounds can impact their work and their user base.
Besides, there are several legacy extensions which can't be ported at all to Web Extensions because of the same restrictive API-policy imposed by Mozilla.

Let's hope it doesn't get too complicated for comprehension...

 

read the following posts please:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781982#c71
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=781982#c72

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1427986#c6
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1457001#c0

 

I did and I assume you did as well...

Firstly, it's not a specific bug people are criticizing but the way indexedDB was designed to work.

Asking to allow only local resources/extensions to access indexedDB in Private Mode Browsing while prohibiting extenal resources sounds reasonable.
By doing so Mozilla would not fix an existing bug but would change the way indexedDB was initially designed to work.

 

@Pharao
i'm not talking about the way pbm works and its effect on idb. the "bug" here is to let extensions work in pbm but not their mechanisms with the new webext architecture. it's like running a network access denied router. that's a bug. what do you think a bug is, an actual insect or something?

just because it's a well-known issue doesn't necessarily have to mean it's not a bug. it can be an "8 yrs old" bug, like the one mentioned in the ghacks article you linked to.
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/20/firefox-and-indexeddb-from-a-privacy-perspective/#comment-4227604

 

Nobody does or did. Sorry, but you managed to get it wrong again.

It's about how indexedDB works!

This is not a "bug". It is how indexedDB was designed to work. It seems that this is over your head and you won't be able to understand no matter how hard somebody will try to explain.
In order to permit extensions access to indexedDB during Private Mode Browsing, Mozilla will have to change the way indexedDB works for now - namely by permitting acces for extensions but in the same time prohibiting access for external resources.
IndexedDB wasn't designed with Web Extensions in mind.

Hopeless.
I'll give up. BTW, a quote of Mark Twain comes to my mind...

 

it's apparent that you don't have sufficient knowledge about web browsers and the technology behind them.
ub0 works flawlessly with google chrome, opera, vivaldi, srware iron in incognito mode, while it can not with ff due to this bug, that's why it's a bug, duh.
so, please stop hijacking this thread with your tautologies.

 

If someone hijacks this thread with ignorant tautologies that's you.
Ignorance paired with stubbornness at its best.
You want the proof?
Read the comment from the link you posted yourself: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1457001#c0

It explains why Chrome and its derivatives are working while Firefox doesn't. It's not because of a bug but because of a deliberately decision ("existing behavior") made by Mozilla.
There is no bug to get fixed but adopting another approach could solve the issue.

Very complicated. Isn't it?
One might wonder what your expertise will breed next - if it's on bugzilla then it must be a bug.

 

here's the proof for your "ignorance paired with stubbornness [sic]". stop pestering this thread with your "ignorant" tautologies & ad hominem, and get yourself a concise dictionary.

(image by @Sampei Nihira )

 

Your ignorance seems to be like the universe - it has no limits.

What was this thread about? Can you still remember?
Let me remind you. It was about uBlock not working as expected in Private Mode Browsing.
This applies for uBlock v.1.16.16 too.
The last version of (legacy) uBlock which works with Firefox 52.9.0 ESR as expected (in Private Mode Browsing) is 1.16.4.4. Hence my hint.

You should really educate yourself before flooding this thread with stupid comments.

Addendum:
As for my spelling, English is not my native language and I'm aware that it is far from being perfect. Actually it's my fourth language.

 

@imdb :No matter if it's a bug or not that uB0 WE doesn't work in private mode, I suggest that you try Temporary Containers. It makes private mode superfluous and also solves the problem regarding indexeddb.

 

i don't have any problems with ff & pbm. it's @Compu KTed

 

this is ub0 general discussion thread, it's not a topic about "uBlock not working as expected in Private Mode Browsing [sic]". people come here to solve the issues they encounter or to keep up to date with ub0; not to read your cretinous ravings.
so stop bugging people here and take your inept rants somewhere else. you're ignored.

 

Academics Discover New Bypasses for Browser Tracking Protections and Ad Blockers

Who Left Open the Cookie Jar?
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Third-Party Cookie Policies

wholeftopenthecookiejar.eu/static/tpc-paper.pdf
usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity18/sec18-franken.pdf


Edit: https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1030071494263615489

 

Your not having a problem with FF & PBM because your using FF ESR
w/ uBO Legacy ext. Same with me running Pale Moon and uBO legacy.
No problem with PBM being on permanently and updating uBO lists.

 

i'm not using ff in pbm. so you switched from ff to pale moon?

 

OK, but you are using FF ESR which could run in PBM w/ uBO legacy if you choose to do so.
That's not an option with Firefox Quantum and uBO (webext). Again PBM has to be disabled.

Been using Pale Moon for years as an alternative to Firefox. No problem so far running
uBO legacy. Pale Moon doesn't support webext. They just released new version (28 ) which
I hopefully will be trying out soon with uBO on different computer & OS.

 

Does anybody know how to block the adblocker detected header on this site: https://www.looopings.nl/ ?
When I choose to block an ad on that page it goes away, but next time it's there again and I can block it again and again

Code:

! 22-8-2018 19:40:01 https://www.looopings.nl/
www.looopings.nl###b39192018082239n

! 22-8-2018 19:40:09 https://www.looopings.nl/
www.looopings.nl###b40192018082240n

! 22-8-2018 22:27:30 https://www.looopings.nl/
www.looopings.nl###b27222018082227n

! 22-8-2018 22:30:25 https://www.looopings.nl/
www.looopings.nl###b30222018082230n

 

S

Someone better at this can surely help to remedy that.

I'm on Vilvaldi but not even using Adblocker per say if that is what they might be picking up complaining on.

HTTPS Everywhere + Ghostery with uBlock Origin is the only blockers and I see no notice on this end.

 

Thanks. I was using AdGuard before. With AdGuard I get a notice. Switched to uBlock and got also a notice.
Cleared all cookies and website data and now no more notice with uBlock.
So no more problem