µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Kees's Top 500 most used ad & trackers in West Europe & North America
https://github.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist

https://malwaretips.com/threads/ubl...-breakage-and-hassle.93311/page-2#post-839202

Test Results

 

@nicolaasjan and @Sampei Nihira
hi
but are there some webpages with all the lists ?
because i have never known about them before reading your contribute
thanks

 

https://github.com/collinbarrett/FilterLists

 

Well, I have a lot of free time and read a lot of forums , so once in a while I just stumble upon a good list someone mentions.
However, you have to be careful with websites that mention a lot of lists. Quantity does not mean quality!
The website https://firebog.net/ that @summerheat mentioned earlier for example also lists malwaredomains.com and malwaredomainlist.com, which are barely or not maintained any more...

Code:

#               MalwareDomainList.com Hosts List           #
#   http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt   #
#         Last updated: Wed, 22 Jan 20 12:15:23 +0000      #

There is even an open issue about this on UblockOrigin's Github page:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/984

 

Lists continued ...

I used to have Multipurpose Dan Pollock's and MVPS hosts files selected in uMatrix (running alongside Ublock Origin), but I have now disabled uMatrix.

Is it worth re-adding those two hosts files in UBlock Origin?

@summerheat Are you saying it may be worth adding this large list, as a 'super' list rather than your earlier suggested notracking list?

 

If you're using the notracking list or the mybase list, they are already included.

It's a more comprehensive list, and it doesn't produce false positives for me ... so: yes!

 

i don't think it is. the more flters you add, the more memory footprint you get. it's best to stick with the default filter list selection and use ubo in medium (or hard, if you like) mode instead, imo.

 

Thanks - looking back I see I had that list in uMatrix also, presumably due to an earlier post of yours ... so Dan Pollock, MVPS hosts list would have been redundant there also!

Point taken. I am aware of this statement by gorhill, in 'medium mode' ...

You no longer depend mostly on 3rd-party filter lists to dictate what is blocked or not.

• The static filter lists are still used to mop up whatever network requests are not blocked in this mode -- so double protection.

 

Interesting read here:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/984#issuecomment-612080236
It's impossible to catch them all...

Code:

In fact, over a 60-day period, Akamai observed more than 2,064,053,300 unique domains commonly associated with malicious activity.
Of those, 89% had a lifespan of less than 24 hours, and 94% had a lifespan of less than three days.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/cl8ze9x7ofi2fp2/screenshot_Akamai.png

 

precisely.

 

I believe that UBO must be equipped with a minimum of customized lists against malware/phishing.
In browsers equipped with Google Safe Browsing, however, anti-malware ones are more useful.
Probably the best solution is identical to the 3 predefined malwares lists.
2 pure malwares + 1 pure phishing.

 

Indeed. Malware and phishing lists in µBO are mostly useless when a better alternative is to use an extension like Trafficlight, Malwarebytes Browserguard, etc. for protection.

 

I read the discussion between L.Fox and Yuki2718.
My thinking is identical to Yuki2718's thinking.

 

No.
I don't like using extensions for this purpose.

 

For the best malware protection, consider using an operating system other than Microsoft Windows®...
So that these bloody .exe files don't stand a chance.

*hides under the table*

Phishing can affect everyone however and I think the best protection at the moment is enabling Google Safe Browsing (if you're not concerned about your privacy).

 

I think there are better DNS options available.

 

You mean by using your hosts file?
The hosts file is bypassed in my case because I have DOH (DNS Over Https) setup in Firefox via Quad9.

Code:

Quad9 routes your DNS queries through a secure network of servers around the globe.
The system uses threat intelligence from more than a dozen of the industry’s leading cyber security companies to give a real-time perspective
on what websites are safe and what sites are known to include malware or other threats.
If the system detects that the site you want to reach is known to be infected, you’ll automatically be blocked from entry – keeping your data and computer safe. 

 

No, I mean setting or changing either the system's, or router's DNS setting. Quad9 is one option, also CleanBrowsing DNS.

 

What DNS service are you using?

 

I see.
Quad9 is already my primary DNS in the router (9.9.9.9).
It quite fast: ping around 17 ms.

That, in combination with UBO in normal mode, together with uMatrix gives me some decent layered protection, I think.

 

q9 coupled with ubo & umtx leaves little to no room for massive filter lists. just use default ones and you're covered.

 

That's right,
I have already disabled the built in malware and phishing lists since they are not actively maintained any more.
(Gorhill should really investigate that...)

One large list I have added though, is:

Code:

https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-trackers.txt

From here.
And AdGuard Dutch filter.
From here

 

according to the link you provided above, he is already doing that:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/984

 

At the risk of straying off topic, but to support your case, and others above, for using Quad9 DNS with uBO defaults instead of (large or unmaintained) malware / phishing filter lists?:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/what-dns-service-are-you-using.416572/page-4#post-2924394