µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

If there is something like a filterlist(for example) blocking Wilders, I would recommend using the uBlock logger to determine what it is

 

Browser fingerprinting ‘more prevalent on the web now than ever before’
From:
https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/...lent-on-the-web-now-than-ever-before-research

https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrig...er_fingerprinting_more_prevalent_on_the_web/?

 

On https://www.express.co.uk/ I can't see any images, started happening over the last week. The problem is related to uBlock filters – Privacy. I uncheck it and the images appear. How do I figure out which rule is causing the problem and whitelist it for that site?

 

No the problem is either your browser or Ublock configured incorrectly cause i can see images with Ublock on hard mode with only scripts allowed. And Ublock privacy is in operation or ticked.

 

I tell you what I see and your response is...Thank you for your reply.

 

Open the logger. Sort by block. Then go to the site. You should see what is being blocked and what (if there's any) rule is causing it.

 

I am using medium mode and when I go to https://wiztreefree.com/ nothing is displayed. The only way to get the site to display anything is to disable uBlock via the big blue icon. I tried enabling all the boxes and that did nada. It seems that all boxes that show a "-" can no longer be allowed (previously via green). Using the blue icon used to be a last resort for me. Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

Only nooping imfast.io works for me.

 

This is exactly my point! It's also confusing to me, normally if stuff doesn't work, I simply allow certain scripts and sometimes it fixes stuff. Or was this all my imagination, and I really didn't fix anything? I'm also not sure what the grey checkmark means.

To be honest, so far I have never actually managed to fix anything via the logger. It's not that simple to me.

 

Your reply is evidence that you don't understand the basics of µBO:

Static filtering = blocking via filter lists + custom filters
Dynamic filtering = blocking via custom global and per-site ruleset you create via Advanced User Mode.

Using an Allow rule overrides all filtering, i.e. of any type, and negates completely the reason for using µBO in the first place. It isn't "cool".

If you're not willing to read the Wiki and learn how to properly use Medium mode (even without using the logger) then you may as well uncheck "I am an advanced user" and use default Easy mode with whatever blocklists you need.

 

What I'm trying to explain is that in most cases there is absolutely no need to understand everything into detail. Sometimes you want to block scripts and certain elements, this is easily done. Sometimes stuff is blocked by some filter, so you try to fix it by allowing certain scripts. I remember uMatrix was way too complex for me, so that's why I liked uBlock so much.

 

Yeah. In some cases there is no need to understand everything in detail

However, when using uBlock advance mode it is absolutely essential to know the difference between noop rules and allow rules.

 

images on express are called by script:

Code:

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/theme/Responsive/js/dist/vendor-footer20200825.min.js

you need to read the network logger in your browser, chromium is able to show this in the network waterfall.

for my config this will work

Code:

www.express.co.uk onthe.io * allow
www.express.co.uk d2q1qtsl33ql2r.cloudfront.net * allow
www.express.co.uk consensu.org * allow
www.express.co.uk express.co.uk * allow

noop wont work, pity

same here, noop -> "https://wiztree.imfast.io/"

 

Thanks for the detective work.

 

The site renders fine with default settings/lists. imfast.io is not blocked on my side, while I see it blocked on your side -- so you added filter lists or created custom filters which blocks this. Use the logger to find out what is blocking that domain.

Also, it's useless to create noop rules for everything, you are just bloating your ruleset. Noop is to be used only when you want to override a block/allow rule affecting a cell directly or indirectly, setting a noop rule for a cell not affected by a block/allow rules is like trying to punch a hole into a hole.

To diagnose your issue, you could have simply created an allow rules for imfast.io -- just a matter of double tapping the ctrl key.

Whoever has such issue and has checked "I am an advanced user" is expected to have the first reflex of using the logger to diagnose those blocking issues.

 

When I encountered this problem. I did use the logger, but as you can see nooping iofast.io did not help so I just marked everything to make a point. When I try things out I don't make them permanent, so I don't see how that in the end is bloating my ruleset. As far as filter lists go, I unchecked them one by one and refreshed the problem tab each time. The problem finally fixed itself after I closed the browser and tried nooping iofast.io again. I left it out of my ruleset though

 

The logger revealed 3rd-party script filtering blocked this domain, and not anything from a filtering list. When I nooped 3rd-party scripts 'locally" (3rd column) the site renders fine. I don't see an all out "Allow" rule as being necessary. Really, just nooping imfast.io will do the trick nicely.

 

For example, on this site I couldn't see any Twitter messages, because twitter.com was displayed with an orange indicator. So I decided to allow it with the green checkmark which still works in the old uBlock GUI, and all of a sudden it worked. So can someone explain what's going wrong? Because from what I understood, this is not the way it should work?

https://www.ad.nl/auto/tesla-topman...kelijke-besprekingen-en-gigafabriek~a7888c9e/

 

Using the logger for the site you linked, you can first hit the "Reload the tab content" button, which will reload the website, then in the "filter logger content" field select "block", which will only show blocked content, then in the left hand column hover the mouse pointer over one of the twitter.com entries, a magnifier with a + symbol in it will show, click, then you will see the filter and the associated filter list blocking it, in this case "Fanboy's Annoyance". You will at least know which filter list is blocking the domain.

I think what @gorhill is trying to suggest is don't pile on so many additional filter lists over and above the defaults.

 

Sometimes it is possible to lower restrictions when clicking on the "eye" which are only cosmetic filters.

 

Thanks, now I understand it better. So you're saying that it all depends on the filters that are used? But to me, the quickest way to fix this is to simply allow twitter.com for www.ad.nl, I don't see what's wrong with that. Strangely enough, it doesn't get blocked on for example Firefox with uBlock, but it depends on the filters like you said. But I believe "Fanboy's Annoyance" is also enabled in Firefox, so it's a bit weird. Why would it be blocked on Vivaldi, but not on Firefox.

 

An Allow rule works, but at the expense of removing Static filtering, which in certain cases may not matter, I guess. These are the types of occasional roadblocks users encounter when using medium mode filtering or higher, especially along with additional filter lists. It gets to be more challenging trying to allow desired content while blocking unwanted crap.

Definitely a viable option as well.

 

Hi, i don't follow the thread and i don't know if it's been discussed, but i see these stupid ads more and more. Is there a way to remove them?

 

I have them here as well (in Dutch), but only if I allow everything in uMatrix:



So it's definitely some third party sh*t that isn't present in uBlock's lists.
(Helena can't possibly like me, as I'm old and poor )

[Edit]
Try adding these rules:

Code:

||balebunsob.com^$xhr
||balebunsob.com^$script

 

It doesn't work, i still see them. Another example where ublock block the adds but also the player. When i disable it i see them both



Funny thing is that i always see an ad about a stupid tv chef lol, and i don't even watch tv