µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

You could block plug-ins with uBlock using static filtering but making exceptions might be annoying.

$object,third-party

I do not know if that will cause performance problems.

 

For the most part, it will be. See below -
Type 1 - One type sites do is, they fetch the video content (which includes script,xhr,media,..) wrapped in a frame - This type is COMPLETELY blocked with 3rd party frame blocking.
Type 2 - The other type is (i think), they will fetch every thing from 3rd party without being wrapped in a iframe. - In this case also, i believe by blocking 3rd Party scripts, the video's wont be playable.
Type 3 - Not sure, if there is a way to play a video from 3rd party source, with out depending on the scripts. Some one should answer...

And, i had plugins ask to activate by default. So, this gives you the same effect as script control's plugin blocking feature.

 

Proactive Way -
1. Medium blocking mode definitely does. Since, by default it blocks all 3rd party iframe/scripts. Everyone mileage vary here in this step wrt page breakage and dealing with it

• If the above blocking mode is uncomfortable, then try using enhanced easy mode. (which blocks 3rd party iframes by default)

2. You can increase the protection a bit more, by blocking pop-ups and/or fonts by default. And allow exception/s case by case.

Not so proactive way, i.e., enable more filters -
3. For replacing disconnect, simply enable disconnect filter lists.
4. Check and see, if you can enable any filter lists under multipurpose section (like MVPS, Danpollocks). Everyone mileage vary here in this step wrt page breakage and dealing with it

 

These types of problems would be obselete when it would be possible to differentiate between HTTP and HTTPS, so it would be possible to set dynamic filtering NOOP rules on HTTPS://* for 3p-scripts and iframes. With referer control it is possible create seperate rules for HTTP and HTTPS traffic, so an even better solution would be able to differentiate beween HTTP and HTTPS traffic (but gorhill the Canadian with Olympus level programming skills, did not see any real world usage for that).

 

For the most part that is correct, when 'same effect' refers to security

When taking useability into account Script Blocker for Chrome's solution is more user friendly (not having to manually allow them to play).

 

I see what you are saying.
However, separating the HTTP/HTTPS traffic would definitely take more space on popup UI. And not sure how effective is the solution!!

- See if the redirection is the mix of HTTP and HTTPS sites, then this solution is of no use. You would have noop both HTTP/HTTPS cells.​

Usually when i encounter sites with redirection (like banking/payment gateways), what i do is -

1. Temporarily noop 3P IFrame/Scripts globally.
2. Open the uBO logger, and set to monitor "All" traffic.
3. Once you are done with websites (for me it is with banking and payment gateways).

• Filter our only script requests, and noop the required 3P Scripts from the logger (these are called Dynamic URL Filters, not the Dynamic filters. Both are not same.

​

Job done!!
This way it is also pretty easy to disable Advance filtering through the pop-up UI ( Step 1 above ). No need to go to dashboard settings for temp. disabling!!

 

Thanks! I will try that.
I already have MVPS, Danpollocks & Peter Lowe in my hosts file.

 

Re: pop-up UI: not nessecary
It can be implemented without change of the current GUI, now only domain names are accepted (without HTTP:// and HTTPS:// prefix), simply apply the logic that when HTTP/HTTPS is omitted it is valid for both (like it is now, so you don't have to both NOOP them), when either HTTP:// or HTTPS:// is entered apply it likewise)

Re: what i do is: first - it does not work
I have explained in post #1794 I was lucky to pass with straight A's and two B's otherwise the solution you posted had caused me to fail the exam.

Re: what i do is: second - why bother with HTTPS websites
The main reason why one would block third party is to reduce the risk of malware infection of poorly secured websites (with third party). What is the chance of running into a redirect on a (safe) encrypted website (like you mention banking/payment gateways)?

 

Trying hard mode and just adding local noop rules is pretty simple... can I add the 2 anti-ads list and other malware static lists or is it not necessary?

 

I would like to ask something about lists. If a list contains fqdn/domain or ip/mask it is better handled by umatrix or ublock0? I believe the answer is by umatrix but someone cares to elaborate more?

 

Ublock has crashed twice in the last 30 min in shadow mode, is there a fix for this?

 

Ublock came in handy today. I started getting popup ads on this site. I blocked 3 elements and no more popups.

 

Ublock 1.55 released for Palemoon just hit the waves

 

my firefox44-64 blames palemoon

 

uBlock Origin v1.5.6 Chrome

 

While uBlock0 is about to reach v. 1.6, a feature introduced in v. 1.0 is barely known to most users: the DOM inspector. That wiki site is (very!) unfinished and explains almost nothing but the release notes for v. 1.0 are not bad for starters. It's a tool for creating cosmetic filters (or exceptions for cosmetic filters) which is more fine-grained than the Element Picker by directly modifying the DOM. An interesting tool for the clean-up of your favourite websites. Definitely worth a try!

 

ofc it needs some kind of dom inspector - for the picker.
but the firefox inspector is much more powerful and IMO raymond had pointed out that the firefox inspector is sometimes more usefull than the picker. in special for blocking scripts.

 

I think you're talking about URL filtering while the DOM inspector is for cosmetic filtering only.

 

Using Safari on OS X 10.11 for some reason... Any uBlock other than the older version that was managed by Chris?

 

Is there any point in having both Ublock Origins and Ghostery running at the same time? I'm only using Ghostery for privacy and not ad-blocking (analystics, beacons and privacy) but considering I'm also running Basic Tracking List by Disconnect, EasyPrivacy and FanBoy's Enhanced Tracking List in Ublock Origin is there really any point running Ghostery?

I've noticed Ghostery have reported issues within Google Chrome from time to time because both Ghostery and Ublock Origin is trying to redirect the same link.

 

No, there is no point in using Ghostery together with uBlock. But I suggest maybe to use umatrix in combination of uBlock which works well for me.

The disconnect list is also merged in Firefox latest version and by default enabled if you use private mode.

As brummelchen said, the Firefox internal DOM inspector is a bit more powerful and should be prefered if you really want to ensure nothing pass the Browser without you notice but for most cases the internal waterfile style logger in uMatrix and uBlock is good enough.

 

I will take a look at uMatrix

 

Please also take a look at this wiki article. Since I use uMatrix I also remove my self destruction cookies addon because I let it handle via uMatrix which can (if enabled) destroy cookies automatically after 60 minutes [or the time you set] or simply block them totally. Awesome addon and for pros a must if you asking me.

Cheers
CK

 

Thank you for pointing that out

 

@summerheat

sure i mean the picker - not the board
ublock is not possible to examine trees without a dom-i.

currently on my way with opera/vivaldi (changes) and the inspector is a bit more exactly as in firefox "copy selector"

just an example - upper is opera, lower firefox

source is <div class="img_clip">

the inspector is the better way to determine exactly the script which is showing ads. the picker and the board are not capable to point this out.