µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

@Jan Willy
@Bertazzoni

Thanks, makes sense. Looking at the settings for LW under security
there's an option to enable Google Safe Browsing for malware
and phishing. It's off by default. Wonder how effective uBO
Phishing URL Blocklist and Online Malicious URL Blocklist are?

 

Not very, compared to Safe Browsing and various extensions. You can see some results at https://malwaretips.com/threads/upd...son-malwares-and-phishings.80915/post-1034915 and look further back in thread for more.

It would be nice if someone tested URLhaus filter vs the two in µBO.

 

uBo Lite is still a bad joke in comparison to adguard mv3.

for librewolf you better ask here
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/posts/3165523/
please keep this thread clean from such crap.
uBo is complete off any browser, but works best in firefox. firefox, not the stupid forks.

 

@Brummelchen

UBlock Origin comes pre-installed in LW. uBO works just fine in LW
just as it does in Firefox. Your comment is unfounded & uncalled for so
please stop attacking other forked browsers that users may use. Thank you.

 

if you would leave out lw here and focus on uBo, yes.
LW default settings are questionable, less secure that firefox and they call it "privacy".
some extensions are not functional due this, uBo can also be affected in a not noticeable way.

BTW, uBo is installed on first run based on the installed policies(.json)
so if you experience issues while others not it might be be depending on LW.
the is another user here using vivaldi and uBo and both interfere a lot according to his words.

 

I've only just started getting the occasional message, "Ad Blockers are not Allowed on YouTube" when using uBlock Origin with Firefox.
Does this still work?

 

How do I block partner.ads.js ?

 

you cant because its not used. check the ubo logger on your side. the d3ward test is nonsense, and it offers no details.

 

I wouldn't use the word nonsense, but in my eyes posting the results is totally useless. It just spoils this thread.

 

I would use the word nonsense. Gorhill has stated multiple times that this exact test isn't a valid way to test uBO's blocking performance.

So either the people continuing to test don't know it's invalid (which, fair enough. Now they know), or they don't trust the word of the developer who's extension they're relying on to do its job properly, in which case why are they even using it?

 

I have opened YouTube a couple of times since setting up the said filter list (including today) & I still do not receive the message. I do not get ads either (of course I get the ones that are embedded deep into the videos - the creator would have agreed to these ads).

 

Only using uBO in Firefox with: Built-in, EasyList and uBlock filters - Annoyances, along with NextDNS with a couple recommended filter lists, I don't see any ads on YT - yet, which is surprising to me, because I thought being in Canada we would be one of Google's early targets

 

Code:

/partner.ads.js

 

not for me, uBo is very strong with its default settings.

as d3ward is not offering details ||partner.ads.js or ||ads.js für uBo "my filters" may helpfull elsewhere, but its not used.

 

True, but it's looks as though Google is battling to find ways around the filtering.

 

that might be. i also use violentmonkey and scripts to "fight" google specials. currently i use a mutantobserver for its new result list, and more. (i wrote last days here about)
those script last any google change if uBo or adguard fails.

 

If my DNS servers block phishing why would I need to add uBO Phishing URL Blocklist
or safe browsing phishing?
I try to keep my uBO filter lists amount down while still providing adequate protection.

 

You wouldn't. I was only speaking to the efficacy of those lists in ad blocker.

 

For the one or two North American users like me who love Yandex reverse image search, here's the only filter that I've found that can remove the aggressive ad reinsertion for uBO users: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/ruadlist-minified.txt

 

That fixed it.
Thank you, solitarios.

 

May I ask why? If you're using NextDNS as a system-wide blocker I can understand it. But apart from that, all lists used in NextDNS can also be added to uBO so I don't see an advantage (unless you also have only 4 GB RAM as another poor participant in this thread recently revealed ).

 

Initially I wanted to see if I could adequately block ads with using only NextDNS, but since this is not the case, I use uBlockO to compliment it, and using only the filter lists I mentioned, is enough to block everything else that NextDNS misses. Really, what I'm doing is nothing more than being curiously experimental. I almost forgot to mention, I was actually hoping to go with an extension-less browser.

 

to ask: last days i read a comparison page for different ad blockers impacting each other, was part of a longer comparison. anyone knows the link?

found it:
https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extension-performance-2021#how-do-ad-blockers-and-privacy-tools-affect-browser-performance

 

Vivaldi includes a built-in ad blocker. Adding uBO may cause issues.
Vivaldi is based on Chromium and uBO works best in Firefox so it might make
a difference in how uBO works in another browser that already contains an ad blocker.