µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Bull plop! Norton doesn't block known phishing and malicious sites without Norton Safe Web. I have had both extensions installed on a Linux machine.

Many year ago Norton used to install the Norton Toolbar into both Firefox and Chrome. That has changed now, but it does still prompt you to install the extensions.

This machine has had both Norton Security and Norton Safe Web extension and Firefox runs fine. Currently running Windows Defender.

Best you get your facts straight before offering me advice.

 

@Krusty you ask for advices, we give you some. You don't even try what we tell you to do, and even discard them as if you are sure they won't work. If you believe you know better, just don't ask and solve it by yourself.

 

Well, I was tying to work with the Developer in case it could end up helping others but I give up, it's just not worth it.

Thanks for all your tips and advice. This thread can go on without me now.

Enjoy!

 

uBO loads in less than a second on Firefox when using default settings/lists and with a valid seflie.



Your described issue is not the experience of millions of users. I know nothing about Norton and frankly AV companies have a bad rap generally regarding how they negatively affect performance. It's up to you if you want to blame uBO but doing so is not going to help your address whatever the root issue. In Firefox all extensions run in the same process, it takes only one poorly coded extensions to make all the other look bad, since one extension can prevent the JS from other extensions from executing in a timely manner (in Chromium, each extension have their own dedicated process).

Setting `suspendTabsUntilReady` to `no` will tell uBO to NOT wait for all filter lists to be loaded before allowing web pages to load (i.e. to behave like ABP). If this is not an important feature for you, then toggle that setting. It is up to you now to make use or dismiss the assistance I am providing you.

 

uBlock Origin v1.21.8 Released (August 18, 2019)

Download - v1.21.8 - Opera (Opera Addons)

 

This:

If people could just understand that statement and stop using tons of security soft, conflicts of all kinds could be prevented.

 

agree, but you are in a security forum...

didn't know that, i'm glad i never found FF appealing, one more reason not to use it.

 

So you don't even use Firefox yet you are trying to offer me advice.

Got it.

Note to self; ignore guest.

 

I didn't know that.

Thanks.

 

Simple logic Advice even a noob could give you...I'm amazed you didn't even try lol

 

if you had read bo's answer at least you would know it - it was all about limiting firefox to one (parent) process with all its flaws. all actions run in same instance with the same rights and in same memory. firefox is not able to separate them this way. security is broken in all varieties.

thats the problem with people were help is getting pointless and arguments run out.
luckily firefox offers tools to resolve issues - one is about:memory - i would say its THE tool. checking out performance, memory, task number (PID) and more. similar is provided with a crash report but it needs an experienced eye to "read" it.

we (means other forum) had/still have issues with <insert any antivirus> which used to run without issues at last but not nowadays. at the end its always the same hint: uninstall and clean up and check again. antivirus insert at so many points - awful - and useless.

the latest issue for firefox is to insert an enterprise policy file into the installation folder to make the ssl check (MITM) work in firefox - which ofc has side effects. it does not matter how many new profiles or reset are done.

i am running 4 different Windows 10 here and none has any culprit with firefox - all were running windows defender and its firewall.
guess who has fortune!

 

It's being addressed as part of Project Fission: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=fission-webext

 

I tested Firefox Tracking Protection (level 2 block list)+host, and ublock origin alone. Page load time is better when you only use tracking protection.

 

ofc it must be faster ^^ tp list is much smaller - how many entries in hosts file?

 

I don't know. i use mvps host file.

 

i use a combination of mvps and hpHosts which contain more then 3 time that much entries. (loaded both today, awaiting merge)
uBo contains >230.000 entries and 120.000 more/cosmetics - thats a lot more than 14.000 from mvps.

 

How exactly did you measure? What exact pages (URLs) did you measure? I want to be able to reproduce with your methodology on my side.

 

With the best benchmark tool, my eye. With only ublock origin (default state), i get about 0.4 - 0.5 second delay for page loading. Second confic is mvps host + tracking protection (level 2). I tested URLs that in my bookmarks. You may want to test rottentomatoes.com, engadget.com etc... I experience this in every site though.

 

this is just a speculative and subjective conclusion. besides, host files break many sites, wildcards cannot be used and when a domain is blocked, all subs are blocked too, so you cannot unblock anything on that domain.

 

Actually, "my eyes" is the worst, because of the subjectivity involved: whatever bias you might have regarding how things work internally will have a influence. I have shown in the past that people presumptions about uBO's overhead are the biggest influence on perceived performance. Objectively measuring will always lead to better performance assessment than "my eyes".

Here is what I find for engadget.com -- forcing a reload of the page using the Network pane in the browser's developer tools.

engadget.com: uBO > TP-strict

uBO + TP default:
DOMContentLoaded: 1.75 s
load: 2.48 s

No uBO + TP strict:
DOMContentLoaded: 2.26 s
load: 4.30 s


rottentomatoes.com: no sensible difference

uBO + TP default:
DOMContentLoaded: 303 ms
load: 1.15 s

No uBO + TP strict:
DOMContentLoaded: 298 ms
load: 1.32 s

You mention "hosts", but blocking through hosts will always be less efficient than blocking the same hostnames through uBO, because:

- uBO prevents the browser from firing the network requests -- hence the browser will work less when the requests are not fired at all

- uBO blocks subdomains from entries in a hosts file, your OS will block only when there is an exact match: if you have doubleclick.net in your hosts file and there is a network request to a.doubleclick.net, uBO will still block it, your OS will not block it.

 

Thank you for your explanation. Do these values include the time of a dot moving left and right when press enter in Firefox tab?

 

gorhill, it seems that the contents of Malware Domain List has not been updated since Dec. 14, 2017 and their forum as well as official Twitter have been inactive form the beginning of 2018. I suppose it's time to discard the list from uBO's default lists.

 

It's been useless for quite some time. The only built-in list to use is Malvertising by Disconnect. Otherwise find some alternates in filter lists. Of course Medium Mode is the way to go and then no need for concern about lists.

 

nevertheless full usage: 26.862 of 26.888

additional
hpHosts’ Ad and tracking servers 41.889 of 45.736
MVPS HOSTS 11.809 of 11.809