µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Thank you for your tests.
You have websocket blocked.
With Firefox you can also block websocket from:

about:config

But is there a real privacy/security risk to getting to block websocket?

P.S.

You should place an exception for deviceinfo.me a completely legitimate web site that might help in finding some privacy issues in your browser.

 

I block it globally:

Code:

*$websocket

With overrides for specific cases, e.g.:

Code:

@@||alive.github.com^$websocket,1p

 

This preference has been removed:

Code:

network.websocket.enabled

The only way to do it now is set this to 0 (zero):

Code:

network.websocket.max-connections

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63404621/how-to-disable-websockets-support-in-firefox

Setting exceptions in uBO is easier.

 

That is correct.
But is there a real privacy/security risk to getting to block websocket?

 

I don't know. I'm mostly just interested in blocking ads, and most of the additional custom rules and filters I use are borrowed from others such as yourself and other reputable forum members I apply them without too much regard for the impact they might have on my web browsing.

Okay thanks.

 

uBOLite_0.1.22.12166 released

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/uBOLite_0.1.22.12166

 

I've googled.
It's all rather technical.

 

any current browser is able to use websockets, and as far i read such connections need started by client ,mandatory, server cant do this). a present http connection is needed to aquire websocket. i see nothing bad in it.

 

But shouldn't uBlock be able to block or hide stuff from websites that are loaded from the local disk too? And so there is no way to block annoying objects from loading at all?

 

@nicolaasjan
@Brummelchen

Personally, I have never included the rule for websocket blocking,because in my opinion the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

 

Gorhill will remove from UBO Lite:

"AdGuard CNAME-Cloaked Trackers"

which corresponds:

"AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list".

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/73c50a4077f879d46e2cde79eecf00c61980c3ab

Easy Privacy has fewer CNAME rules than the removed list.
So fewer broken websites (without the ability to enter exception rules is definitely a big problem) but also certainly less protection from CNAME trackers.

 

i am pretty sure he has reasons, we should trust him.

 

The reason is that it was Yuki2718 who pointed out to him that the "disguised" list breaks some websites:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-issues/issues/21

G. didn't get there first.....although it was enough to read:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

I would rather have a few broken websites than have less protection from CNAME trackers.
Even without the ability to enter exceptions there is always the option to enter "no filtering":



P.S.

There is no reason to delete the list.
A user who does not want to have problems could disable it.
Also because in UBO Lite there is always the Easy Privacy list set to default.

 

I think for as long as I run Firefox, I'll have some kind of CNAME filter list. I refuse a chromium browser and therefore, uBO Lite ain't happening. Hope it stays that way. Seems like v.2 ext. have bought themselves some time, right?

 

Also in Firefox if you want maximum protection from CNAME trackers you have to enter:

"AdGuard CNAME original trackers list".

 

In Edge I deleted the extension downloaded from Chrome Store and after creating a backup file I downloaded the extension from Edge Store.

• Version updates are faster,in Edge I now have build 1.46 when in the Chrome Store I am still at 1.45.x.
• It could also be beneficial for possible extended use of MV2 extensions.

 

Is MS Store from gorhill? ublock mv2 is not.

 

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions-chromium/developer-guide/manifest-v3

What does it mean?

 

Well Chrome's MV2 support timeline is being postponed for the initial January 2023 date and under review for both June 2023 and January 2024 dates, so I guess this puts MS' timelines in uncertainty as well.

 

Yes.

Yes. And it means Google has heard a lot of negative feedback from developers, and realizes their initial timeline for the MV3 rollout was problematic. MS has always reserved their right to implement MV3 when they feel ready, and to do so in there own fashion as fits their overall plan for Edge.

 

BTW, I was wondering how to get rid of this stupid pop up on the Coinbase site. I was surprised that disabling JS didn't work. Any other ideas? I can remove it with the element blocker, but I will keep having to refresh the page anyway.

https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-basics/what-is-proof-of-work-or-proof-of-stake

 

I meant "Enterprise policies."
A specific explanation for the use of MV2 extensions until January 2024.

 

New uBlock Origin: v1.46.0

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.46.0

 

Right, but these dates are currently up in the air, so the Chrome browser policies on managed pc's, which have been available for years, are probably dependent upon these "postponed" and "under review" dates, but at least MV2 will be supported in these policies until these dates are official. At least that's how I interpret it.