AdGuard MV3 extension

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardMV3

Available in the Chrome Web Store:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker-mv3-exp/apjcbfpjihpedihablmalmbbhjpklbdf

Currently does not support blocking the URL's tracking parameter.
See here:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardMV3/issues/22

 

It is possible to make up for this lack by using AdGuard MV3 + UBO Lite ( only "AdGuard URL Tracking Protection active").
I found no overlapping of intervention.

I personally added a single list in the custom filters:

https://github.com/Kees1958/W3C_ann.../master/addendum_to_Edge_Firefox_build_in.txt

 

I added these 2 user rules:

Code:

||*^$ping,object

Code:

||*^csp

to pass this test:

https://apps.armin.dev/ping-spotter/

More info:

Ping + Beacon

https://webkit.org/blog/8821/link-click-analytics-and-privacy/

CSP-report:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-Settings#block-csp-reports

 

Very nice that you opened a new thread.

 

Facebook doesn't load with it. Is this expected?

 

It works for me:




I use FB very little (only my wife has an account).

On RAI Play I access it through FB.
It's a restored episode of Space 1999.
It works perfectly:

 

Unfortunately it's in uBO lite (Manifest V3) not possible to use Medium Mode. In AdGuard MV3 Extension one can use a filter rule that does correspond to uBO's Medium Mode:



To prevent broken links I have whitelisted most regular domainextensions:



The downside of this kind of whitelisting is that you shouldn't use in AdGuard MV3 Extension, filterlists with third party blocking rules. Many of those rules would be overruled by the whitelist. Other lists, e.g. Eaysylist Cookie List, work well together with the whitelist.
Whitelisting most common domainextensions is just a matter of convenience. Only using the block rule means that in cases a site doesn't show up well because of blocking a third party script or frame (subdocument), you have to whitelist that specific third party domain. E.g.: @@||example.com^$script,subdocument,third-party. A complicating factor is that AdGuard MV3 Extension doesn't log events (yet). So it's not immediately clear which third party site it concerns.
The benefit of specific whitelisting is that it doesn't interfere with third party blocking rules.

Edit 2022-11-19: You can summarise the blocking rule and the whitelisting rules in one rule:
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party,denyallow=com|eu|inf|io|ms|net|nl|org

NL= domainextension from my country

Edit 2022-11-20: AFAIK the denyallow part of the rule doesn't interfere with filterlists.

 

My bad. I added it in Adguard MV2 extension, where adding it makes Facebook not load. No issue on Adguard MV3.

 

Got an update to version 0.3.16 today.
No changelog available and worse the extension's own options page doesn't load anymore for me with MS Edge

 

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardMV3/issues/28

 

MV3 extension filters will update only when there is an extension update.
Thus, the filters will be obsolete for longer than they are now.
I believe that in some cases,for example CNAME-cloaked trackers, it will also be necessary to rely on DNS blocking as a precautionary measure.

 

AdGuard MV3 0.3.17 available.

 

Okay

 

Works well.

 

Hi guys

Why are you guys in this thread enthusiastic about MV3, as far as i can see when searching the net, this is a step back, it hardly has any positive effect for users.

So, why?

 

It is a step back, but it is great and encouraging to see an active development in adblocking MV3 extensions.

 

I didn't expect it and I haven't compared it with uBO Lite, but Adguard MV3 does (with default lists) also a very good job in cosmetic filtering.

 

I added this list of filters found in UBO specifically for privacy:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/privacy.txt

Few more rules (258 total).

 

Any positive results for you yet @Sampei Nihira? For example some common tests with new changes or is it kind of an extra privacy layer. Also is that tested with Chrome?

 

Yes an additional level of privacy.
Chrome unfortunately does not have anti-trackers features like Edge/Firefox.
I would add both lists.

Although the most effective list in Chrome would be:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt

But it has too many rules (5472).
The list for Edge/Firefox (2756).

P.S.

I would recommend that you compensate for this deficiency by using NextDNS by choosing some specific lists in the privacy section.
Obviously choose lists that are not present in AdGuard MV3.

 

JFYI that this bug persists in v0.3.17, observed in Opera.

Confirmed by devs

 

105th informed us that the AdGuard team has made a request to Chrome to increase the limit of dynamic rules from 5,000 to 30,000.
If it is accepted it will allow us to increase the number of rules in the custom lists that we can include in AdGuard MV3.

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardMV3/issues/29#issuecomment-1327134472

 

That's a pretty good leap and would hopefully be a trouble-free sharp upturn. Let's see how Chrome responds.

 

I notified this issue:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardMV3/issues/29#issuecomment-1328090759

Is any forum member able to reproduce it?