UBlock Origin Lite - Nice adblocker for modern challenges

If I'm using AdGuard for Desktop, then I use them there. If I'm not, then I use them in AdGuard Home which is run locally on my PC only paired with Cloudflare malware blocking DNS (because it's the fastest for me). The best way to use would be to use in NextDNS/AdGuard DNS/ControlD.

I see, that's great

 

I performed a more thorough test.
In my opinion it is possible to estimate,conservatively,an 75 - 80% of blocks or websites that cannot be reached with the HaGeZi Multi PRO list.
Although my test sample is limited to 30 websites,so very small to state this correctly.

P.S.

Deselected "Dan Pollock's hosts File".

 

On my Windows 8.1, i still use uBlockOrigin normal which has the ad/annoyance Zapper and still works on my now outdated Chrome version 109.054. Lists work too for the most part. I doubt Origin Lite would do the same job the original does on the older systems. But most have Windows 11 now and even on my Windows 10 it's been upgraded.

My tests show conclusively that the Chrome stopper version 109 is relatively formidable against most the junk we run into on the web. But only of you use Windows 8.1

 

With an outdated Operating System I would use an updated browser:

https://github.com/Eclipse-Community/r3dfox

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases

and then if you also want to install uBlock Origin Lite available for both browsers mentioned above.

 

Since MS found it for them to skip Windows 9, i have created it myself with 8.1.

 

supermium needs an additional unsecure kernel modifier, absolutely no-go. but at least it does not matter in windows is unsecure or browser or kernel hook, its the same [...] end.
but sorry to say, supermium is still versions behind. for mv2 it does not matter, mv2 will be phased out from the store so supermium and similar are not able to install any mv2 from store. extensions only with developer mode.

 

I am not clear on this:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBO...ring-capabilities-which-cant-be-ported-to-mv3

(although we assume Gorhill is referring to the original CNAME functionality present in UBO x Firefox not the ability to block a CNAME trackers present in the EasyPrivacy filter list)

so today I ran several tests (at least 30 CNAME links) with uBlock Origin Lite.
All links tested were blocked at the DNS level.
So my CNAME protection even with uBlock origin Lite is OK.

Another relevant fact is that especially for cosmetic filtering often the usual lists of filters do not get the same result in uBlock Origin Lite as in uBlock Origin.

I have been undecided whether to open an issue.
But then I gave up because I don't consider it a issue,but just an annoyance that is not always present.

 

Cosmetic filtering in my 3 test websites has improved dramatically in this latest version of uBlock Origin Lite.
In this aspect alone it is to be preferred over AdGuard MV3.

Although this latest extension still has many months to improve.

 

I cannot understand how a web page blocked by a filter rule appears to the user in UBO Lite.
Probably (but I don't actually know) the web page appears as unreachable.

I asked Gorhill the question by considering a website that to me appears not to be blocked by UBO Lite (although there is a blocking rule in EL) that is instead blocked by AG Adblocker.

AdGuard Adblocker v.5.0.113:

https://imgur.com/RcAkV35

UBO Lite:

https://imgur.com/DK4UtYa

 

Oh, I had forgotten there was this uBO Lite thread.
Last week, I posted the following in the uBlock Origin thread, I better post here as well.

Regarding uBO Lite, gorhill commented:

"The Firefox version of uBO Lite will cease to exist, I am dropping support because of the added burden of dealing with AMO nonsensical and hostile review process. [...]"

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2377395301

 

Instead, I increasingly suspect (almost a certainty) that blocking rules are not implemented in UBO Lite.
If Gorhill writes that this aspect still needs to be explored.

Those who use uBlock Origin Lite need to consider this fact right away.
And in case increase their protection at the DNS level.

 

The opening of my issue (214):

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/227

obviously highlighted that the choice in UBO Lite of filter lists:

• Dan Pollock's Hosts file
• Steven Black's Unified Hosts

It is not, now, of any use.
As I had verified myself in the past (without opening a specific issue).

Users of uBlock Origin Lite should prudently consider pairing this extension with a DNS with identical/alternative filter lists to those written above.

 

Or users should substitute Privacy Badger for µBOL and use additional DNS filtering.

 

uBlock Origin Lite currently looks like it has this rule permanently enabled:

Code:

no-strict-blocking: * true

https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Strict-blocking

 

badger is a tracker blocker, not an ad blocker. ad blocker do not only block ads, they block scripts and other stuff. uBoL has no picker, badger has no picker.
although someone accused adguard as russin it is not, its cypres- so tied to any european law. and it does not matter that some coders are still russian, some are also ukraine.
the extension is open source, anyone is free to compare the source code with the distributed extension from any store.
at least also uBoL with find its audience, its not that bad, but its not ublock.

 

Correct. It is enough for those who wish to limit tracking but don't mind seeing ads. And some ads will be blocked in any case. Privacy Badger is fine for anyone with a certain web surfing style. It's developed by EFF, a trusted organization, but it's not for everyone.

 

I consider it essential to combine UBO Lite with this extension:

Ping Blocker 0.1.3 (MV3).

 

Gorhill has implemented strict blocking:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/214

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/aa05cb32c6e6b25a29cdb3ade8003ad3b0173883

 

I requested a feature enhancement with the ability to protect WebRTC in settings.
Functionality already available in AdGuard Adblocker 5.x.

Users who want to block WebRTC can, at present, insert this extension also available in MS Store:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/webrtc-protect-protect-ip/bkmmlbllpjdpgcgdohbaghfaecnddhni

It is the most updated and featured extension.

 

I suspect that the low score on the MotionMark 1.3.1 (also Speedometer 3.0) test of uBlock Origin Lite (which I wrote about in the AdGuard MV3 extension thread) is caused by a probable bug.
I have opened an issue:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/261

When this probable bug is fixed I will run the tests again.

Issue closed.
Unable to repeat tests.

 

I would like to advise forum members using uBlock Origin Lite to check via their Chromium-based browser's development tools,if the extension blocks these 2 trackers:

https://ibb.co/g7WLWjX

https://ibb.co/0VFcQ9t

A tracker blocked by uBlock Origin Lite should appear identical to the blue arrow in the image below.
A tracker blocked by DNS-level filter list should look like the red arrow.

https://ibb.co/5vhq5m1

I obviously will not perform such a test.

 

I would like to advise forum members who use uBlock Origin Lite, which in the stable version appears to be out of date since January 14,to change,even if only temporarily,adblocker.
After 1 month the filter lists,in the absence of an extension update,can certainly be considered obsolete.

 

A new update uBOLite_2025.2.19.775 is coming:
Release uBOLite_2025.2.19.775 · uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home · GitHub
Released on GitHub 4 hours ago, not in the stores yet.

 

uBOLite_2025.2.23.1382

Release uBOLite_2025.2.23.1382 · uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home · GitHub