µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Because I didn't think of it. I would have to add a new permission, "ftp://*" and see if this works. According to webRequest API documentation, this is a valid permission. Now the problem would be that the browser would flag all existing installations of uBO as in need of a new permission, and I would rather avoid this for now given how adding a new permission ("privacy") went last time. However I will add it by default to Firefox's permission set, not sure though how the WebExtension API will deal with this.

 

I don't see popups on that site. You probably mean "overlays", in which case cosmetic filters must be created on a per-case basis.

 

So I've bit the bullet and installed uBlock Origin in just Firefox for now. FF does indeed seem to be using quite a lot less RAM than it does with ABP, but it's only been a short while since I installed uBO.

In time I could try Advanced mode (I did have a quick look at that) but for the time being I'll stick with the basic settings and keep using NoScript. uBO seems a lot more complicated than ABP.

 

Mozilla made a big move in the Add-ons Manager Promo last week. Replacing Adblock Plus with uBlock Origin, downloads have dramatically increased.

 

You know more about the issues than I do. However, I prototyped a Firefox compatible WebExtension that does primitive FTP blocking. Testing it in FF 49.0.1 and FF Portable Developer 51.0a2 (temporarily and installed). Basically, it worked. I did notice:

• It worked without an ftp://*/* entry in manifest permissions. Maybe because the permissions mechanisms aren't finished, I don't know.
  
• I see one call to onBeforeRequest for top level FTP requests, but for others I see multiple calls. Doesn't matter if I cancel or not. Canceling did appear to work and prevent connections though.
• I didn't receive any behind the scenes traffic. Not even for http/https when I listened for those. Maybe that hasn't been completed either, I don't know.

Take with a grain of salt (my first WebExtension) but that is what I saw. Edit: More detailed testing revealed additional issues which require confirmation. For now: a suggestion to carefully test all the scenarios you can think of.

As for user's being touchy about new permissions, well, maybe that makes some sense. I'd like to see the permissions vs optional_permissions experience. If I can't figure out how to goad Firefox into permissions pestering I'll have a look at Chrome.

 

Wow, that's some great news. Congrats to developer(s) and wise decision by Mozilla

 

Anyone know how to block facebook ads like in post #2341?

 

Code:

facebook.com##.ego_section[-ext-has="a.adsCategoryTitleLink"]

Link

 

How do I make an exception on a static filter for 1 website?
The website https://www.security.nl doesn't load because of static filter ##.cookie_consent found in Fanboy’s Annoyance List.

 

You can add the line to your filters.

Code:

www.security.nl#@#.cookie_consent

and hide the nag

Code:

www.security.nl###cookie_consent_container

 

Isn't this for adguard? will it work in ubo?

 

Thanks DOSawaits

Code:

security.nl#@#.cookie_consent

works for me.

 

Can I somehow block the tracking script in google search from ublock? If i make the script not to load in Umatrix I cannot use maps. Is there any other way?

 

Yes, this is AG syntax. For uBO that would be

Code:

facebook.com##.ego_section:has(a.adsCategoryTitleLink)

I will add code to transcribe AG syntax into uBO syntax at load time for a future release.

 

Much appreciated!

 

But at the moment there is no problem with adding Adguard-related filter lists to uBlockO?
(Supported AG-filters = "translated", not supported AG-filters = discarded)

 

Whenever I send someone a message on facebook, after I click send the blue loading lines will start flashing/animating and I have to reload the page before I can see the message, how do I fix this?
Here's my settings in ubo, static filtering is the default lists

 

and how do you know site is safe, and how do you know third party is safe

 

I did noop 3rd party frames and scripts

 

@bjm you will never know whether third party are safe, but the same applies for first party binaries, since they are both external.

Better use a solid browser with build-in sandbox or when you have to use Firefox (e.g. to watch on-demand television using unsafe outdated plug-ins), run it in a proven third-party sandbox.

 

OK thanks, so a global rule to block this isn't possible. I'm seeing these kind of "pop-ups" more and more, it's a disgusting new tactic of ad companies, no wonder this ad-blocking problem got so big, they still haven't learned their lesson.

 

Yes,. Respectfully, dynamic rules to get a website to function that will not otherwise function, seems an exercise in IDK.
CNN.com (for example) that presents a laundry list of first and third party and then making rules (or noop) based upon I do not see smoke, seems as exercise in IDK. Granted, turner.com was safe, as far as I know, last time so, I can try a rule for turner.com. To what purpose beyond an exercise in IDK.

Yes,. Static filters + Sandbox. Keep it simple.....Just saying.

 

Mind changing this to uBO format too?

Code:

facebook.com##div[id^="hyperfeed_story_id_"][-ext-has='span[class$="fwb fcb"]'] 

 

Also Chrome has Control Flow Guard already in Canary version available and new Javascript feature 'Ignition' facilitates additional structuring and sanitizing of javascript code, see ignition design doc (link)

 

Don't worry CFG + Ignition + Flash being phased out ==> raising the bar for webbased exploits to be successful and reducing the real world benefits of script blockers. But everyone entitled to a hobby (playing with your script blocker to feel safer).

See post above