µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Yeah, that's what I love about this forum. Together we manage to get things working and learn a lot in the proces.

 

you can install uMatrix and reduce its function to block/allow cookies - this also points out which cookies are needed. blocked cookies can be deleted.

you are using chrome/chromium!?

 

I'm using Chrome.
Can you tell me more about uMatrix as cookie blocker?

 

You can do in Chrome as follows

Go to Settings ==> Privacy & Security ==> Content Settings ==> Cookies ==> Enable 'Block 3rd-party cookies' and add to 'Allow' for those you want

 

looks like this (my rules)

Code:

https-strict: behind-the-scene false

matrix-off: about-scheme true
matrix-off: behind-the-scene true
matrix-off: chrome-extension-scheme true
matrix-off: chrome-scheme true
matrix-off: localhost true
matrix-off: moz-extension-scheme true
matrix-off: opera-scheme true
matrix-off: wyciwyg-scheme true
referrer-spoof: behind-the-scene false
* * * block
* * cookie block
* * css allow
* * frame allow
* * image allow
* * script allow

except cookies any other is allowed (because ublock will do), no "assets" used
settings: [x] delete blocked cookies, ([x] block hyperlink auditing...]

on rar used chrome i use "disable cookies" and "cookie autodelete", not umatrix (only in firefox)

a decent cookie manager for chrome: "Awesome Cookie Manager"

 

Maybe I misinterpreted your question in #3598.
If you toggle JS master switch to block all JS, 3rd party script blocking is redundant (maybe except for VBScript...who uses this?).
But it will be hell in usability perspective, 'cause you have to allow JS for all individual sites you use and requires JS. And when you allow, you'd still want to block 3rd party scripts by dynamic filter.
The most important point I think in this change is:

Some websites use noscript tag so they serve an alternative web page for those who had disabled javascript. This feature to honour the tag has been implemented in Noscript addon (confusing name!) for long time, but not in uBlockO.

 

Agreed. If I set the master switch to block JS then all scripts (1st and 3rd parties) will be blocked. However, if I allow JS using the master switch and enable 'Block 3rd-party scripts then only 3rd-party scripts will be blocked. This is a default-allow case.

In this case what's the point of blocking ALL JS using the master switch? Any practical applications here? This is a default-deny case.

Aren't these 2 cases the same?

 

Maybe only real paranoid will apply default-deny JS switch. But with default-allow, you can toggle it with some sites with noscript tag instead of blocking 1st-party script via dynamic filter.
Also in my case I mostly use per-site switch temporary. I use per-site element-hiding switch to quickly check if FP is due to cosmetic filter or not, in some sites. Then go to network request log. So this switch may help such inspection process, to find if a problem or slipped ads is caused by JS or not (but TBH dynamic filtering can also be used as such - but maybe there's a situation where you wanna ignore precedence in dynamic filtering rules).

 

my Chrome w 1.16.18 does not pull 1.17.0 ....yet.

 

Easy. Perhaps in the rest of the day, tomorrow or after tomorrow.

 

just wondering....if just me?

 

No, me too.

uBlock Origin is released by stages:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ublock-a-lean-and-fast-blocker.365273/page-104#post-2650971

@gorhill 's talking about v1.11.0 but same applies to newer versions though.

 

Thanks.

 

Couldn't agree more @Gandalf_The_Grey- Collectively a lot of progress is made from troubleshooting issues by airing them out and arriving at working conclusions. Hooray!

 

I didn't even know that there were spin-offs.

Why not give some more info, did it record browsing history or something? And I didn't know there were multiple developers who went their own way, so I guess all versions are legal?

Yes thanks, I knew about that, but lately it has become very slow to load. I think it was caused by combining uBlock and Privacy Badger, and lately the Firefox and Sandboxie combo has started to malfunction on my system, so it's probably not related to uBlock.

 

This is why I said "legitimate depends". I don't think uBlock is illegal nor malware (not sure tho). But as ad-blocking addon can access all URLs, trust matters and I don't trust Chris & uBlock. For this matter there're somewhat long story, even in this thread there should be some info in past, but I think what I said is mostly enough. And the addon was almost abandoned, added tracker, then bought by Adblock. If uBO somehow didn't work in a system, I'd rather go AdGuard. I don't trust Nano Adblocker much either, but not for solid reason (more of precaution, but there're not much advantage on it anyway).

 

That particular one I'm sure is legitimate, just not the same talent behind it, imho anyway, as Raymond Hill's. There were some reports long ago somewhere in this thread about copycats that looked suspiciously harmful. I seem to remember reporting on one of them.

EDIT

in fact here's my report

It seems pretty obvious that was one to steer clear of. There were also reports from others before that one, including one just eight posts before mine.

 

The new Brave beta is chrome 70, uses chrome extensions and has built in cookie blocking. It also has a nice dark mode that also turns the address bar black.

 

Agreed, maybe better than these nasty copycats, but still no reason to use it as long as we have uBO.

 

There is a ticket for the Tor Browser which was opened 3 years ago:

The basic problem is that adding uBO to the Tor Browser would change its fingerprint with the consequence that its anonymity group is no longer uniform. There are proposals in that discussion that uBO should be added only with exactly identical filterlists which would only updated with Tor Browser updates.

It's interesting to observe how they will decide. Adding uBO would improve browsing performace and security. I'm not quite sure if using Dynamic Filtering in different ways would somehow alter the TBB fingerprint.

 

I was wondering for some time if they ever decide to add adblocker to their default installation. Nice to see that they are considering uBO.

 

Facebook is whitelisted:

Code:

facebook.com

Now, how to just block those random ads in the middle of a video?
A line in My filters tab probably?

 

Okay okay, forget I have Facebook whitelisted. How can I get rid of those random video ads in the middle?
However I still need everything else allowed to run.
Perhaps a line in My filters tab could work?

 

Tho there're many guys who can write MyFilter here, unless you specify the url, nobody can help you. I even don't know what you mean by "those random video ads in the middle". Well, sorry if it is ads in FB, as I don't have FB account I can't see.