µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Yeah, it is still regularly updated.

 

It seems.

 

@nicolaasjan

It's not a mathematical rule.

 

Yes, the Bypass Paywalls Clean filter list isn't effective across the board, actually, it MAY work for one of every 3-4 paywall sites. I can read a whole article plus comments in the Washington Post but hit the wall in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. I suppose I can get the ext. from GitHub as mentioned but it's not a great need. Good to know it's still being updated though.

Spoiler: classic, just classic, NYT

 

No problem with the NYT here, but WSJ always has been.

 

Same here, the filter list works fine for the few sites that I need it for.

Do you use the filter list, or the extension/add-on, perhaps?
Using the filter list (in uBlock Origin, in Firefox), I see the same as plat, when I try to view a couple of New York Times articles.

 

I should have said I use the filter list. No problems with reading limits on NYT.

 

Thanks, Bertazzoni.
Interesting, how it is different for you compared to plat's and my experience. Perhaps other filters that make the difference, or other browser settings (or a different browser).

 

Are you using Firefox, Bertazzoni? I seem to recall you used a chromium browser but maybe I'm wrong. This sub-topic has been discussed before but it seems not much has improved since then. I opened Brave and NYT still gave me a wall in several articles. The BPC list (or some list/s) must be working though, at least partially. If I turn uBO off in the dash, the entire article is blocked. I dunno, what's worse in this context? A little bit of article or none at all?

 

I use it in FF without a lot of filters and in Brave, which has the list built-in. It enables all the sites I frequent. Brave and FF internal settings only.

 

I prefer to use the Bypass Paywalls Clean extension because it seems to work better for me than the filterlist and in case you run into problems, you can simply disable it for certain sites. This can not be done with the filterlist. This is why I also prefer to use the ''I still don't care about cookies'' extension, instead of the filterlist.

 

I vaguely recall someone's having pointed out that one of YouTube's dirty tricks is to reduce the graphics quality by at least 2-3 levels. I actually saw this happen right in front of me earlier. I watch an animal rescue video in routine 4K and in real time, the video becomes pixellated and blurred. It went from 4K to 1080p like that.

Went to uBlock (youtube, ublock--hmm let me contemplate that a while) and it was in the midst of updating the Quick Fixes list. When that finished, I was able to get the 4K quality back. So here's another dastardly move, in addition to all the others.

 

My new config
BetterFox (yokoffing) + Privacy Badger (against cookies tracking) + PopUpOFF (against cookie and popup overlays):

 

I did an Anti-Phishing test.
I have no Anti-Phishing filter lists in uBlock Origin.
I only use MD SmartScreen + NextDNS.

https://streamable.com/jyj8jd

Only 2/10 phishing links not blocked.
If any Wilders members want to check their anti-phishing protection:

https://phishtank.org/phish_search.php?valid=y&active=y&Search=Search

Warning please readers be careful and do not interact with links that may not be blocked by your Security Configuration.

 

dangerous work to try out suspicious links, dont do this as the video show up. its his risk, not yours.

 

Are you serious?
What makes you think users here at Wilders don't know what they're doing?
Don't you think they could use a vm?

 

this thread is filled more with questions from regular and not tech savvy users than answers. and the environement do not matter. phishing keeps phishing what data ever is grabbed. using such links are definitely changing experience, to good, or bad. and yes, the majority here and there is pretty clueless, where to click, one reason reason why phishing is still successful. and you forgot the mass of silent readers. and thus i wrote a warning. such links from that site are at high risk!

using ublock or a different dns resolver do not necessarily change knowledge.

 

Links to phishing content are dangerous if you insert information into them.
They did not contain malware, otherwise they would not be included in the PhishTanks database.

 

thats true. i forgot to mention another point - i only tried 2 examples on the list, one was the latest google docs yesterday, it was still alive, and a fake login to some provider in usa (afair AT&T). the other one was a domain, no index paged to show, only a file list. what i want to say is that the groups releasing such phishing items also read that page and may vary their code or pages. once it was only phishing, now is malicious code breaking browser security, or breaking VM security (break out). thats why i so sensible to tutorials for the mass like this. so please please please set a warning.

 

No,this is excessive.
Besides, Phishtank.org is a public website.
My warning will be what I have inserted.
Please do not make unwarranted alarmism.

 

Exactly, I came to say that @Brummelchen , he's exaggerating.

 

I can't hardly believe it.

 

to report here (nothing seen yet)
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues
at least he and we need examples.
for me - I dont know how trustfully is "Andavari" from the ccleaner forum, i dont know him nor do i trust ccleaner from the "gen digital" conglomerate.