AdGuard MV3 extension

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension/issues/2963

 

for me and result: adguard is v5, adguard beta became latest v4

anyhow also the latest v5 has issues, no import possible. i need to set all again from scratch.

 

It says v5.0.97 like Adguard v5.0.97 so what do you mean?

On chrome I was able to import the adg_ext_settings_5.0.97_240924-080557 file from AGbeta to AG.

 

AdGuard Browser Extension finally migrates to MV3: release now available
September 24, 2024
https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-mv3-release.html

~ OT Remarks Removed ~

 

images tells it all, same in firefox and edge.

and mv3 beta has current release, no image from me.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-werbeblocker-mv3/apjcbfpjihpedihablmalmbbhjpklbdf

current general beta
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-werbeblocker-beta/gfggjaccafhcbfogfkogggoepomehbjl

current final
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/adguard-werbeblocker/bgnkhhnnamicmpeenaelnjfhikgbkllg

final version before mv3 got final was 4.4.22 which is now beta. (i assume so)

 

Now I understand you. I had never seen that one before.

 

same for me, i apologize. purpose may: you can keep the mv3 beta channel which offers stable - which is same as the "current" build. while "beta" is fixed to latest MV2.
well, sounds weird, i wont tight "beta" to old mv2. i just was nosy.
nevertheless i installed the latest stable (= v5) and started from scratch, hoping it will be stable with import/export.

 

Out AG AdBlocker 5.0.104.

 

Out AdGuard Adblocker v.5.0.113.

Probably my feature request highlighted (indirectly) a big problem in MV3 filters that needs to be fixed soon.

P.S.

Mah, it seems to me nothing has changed (for the better).

 

You mean that in MS Edge, AG Quick Fixes filter in AG Chrome extension still doesn't work? Indeed, it doesn't.
It's possible to add it manually, but I don't know if it fully works.
Download: https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/chromium-mv3/filters/24.txt

Edit: It seems to work. But I still don't know if it will be updated.

 

No unfortunately it is not that “small” issue.
You can verify it by adding Kees1958's EU US ads&tracking networks MV3 (third-party blocking only) list to the custom filter lists.

And check how:

Code:

contentabc.com

is blocked.
The log does not provide any information.

In my opinion,the website above should be blocked by AG base.

P.S.

But I only did an indirect verification

 

HaGeZi - Multi PRO++ (on DNS level) blocks contentabc.com. Even when I whitelist that site, I can't reach it (even after flushing the DNS cache). So I end my research.

 

Filtering and blocking caused by the extension is prioritized over DNS blocking.

https://i.imgur.com/uol5Kl7.png

 

Indeed. So you're right, AG Basefilter doesn't block it.

 

contentabc(dot)com does not exist
https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/contentabc.com
dont see any issues here.

edit: ah, i see, you mean contentabc is on a blacklist in adguard and blocked before and dns resolving is used. ok, this seems for me very common.

 

The problem is that I'm assuming that it's not in a blacklist of AG filters that I used.

So then why is there a block?
Also why doesn't the Log show anything?

If I highlighted a website block that is not in the filter rules used,could the opposite also happen?
An eventuality that would make the extension unsafe to use.

I leave this onerous task to the AG engineers.
I am interested in improving the extension before June 2025.

P.S.

See the image with UBO.
This blocking is right because the blocking rule is in EasyList:


https://imgur.com/DchrKZE

 

The blocking rule is also in AG Base filter. I assume it's also part of the MV3 list. So it should work before the DNS filter intervenes. What it makes confusing is that when I whitelist that site in NextDNS and disable AG, the site is not accessible (also blocked?). It looks if the site doesn't exist, as Brummelchen said. The question is, can a filterrule in a MV3 browser extension work on a not existing site? In fact the extension doesn't block but the browser does itself. So, if the browser can't connect, it makes no sense to block that site.
I think it's just the way MV3 works.

 

It works regardless................

 

I show you a series of images in which the possible warnings to the user are present.

This is a correct website block that corresponds to a rule in the filters:

https://imgur.com/TZY5Bup

Block that does not seem to correspond to a rule in the filters:

https://imgur.com/emy7Uit

If I disable AG aBlocker the web page is blocked by my DNS filters:

https://imgur.com/1vr19Yf

Web site not reachable:

https://imgur.com/8vO6ips

 

Now I tried AG browser extension version 4.4.22 from MS Edge's own web store (instead of the Chrome store version). On the site contentabc.com it shows next log item.



It's not categorized as blocked, but we see that somehow tracker protection (dutch: volgersbeveiliging) was activated. This little piece of information is missing in the log from the AG version you used. Nevertheless, I can understand why it's not labeled as blocked. After all the browser didn't access the site, so there wasn't anything to block.

 

Hi,
in AG version 5.x “Contentabc.com” is blocked by the browser due to an extension (AG).
The on-screen warning that reads:

Code:

ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT

is present only in case of blocking.

This currently.

If then considering the Log,AG engineers need to make changes they will decide.

P.S.

It must not be easy to do this with the MV3 specification.
uBlock Origin Lite is in much worse shape
I have done many tests and I am not at all satisfied with the behavior of uBlock Origin Lite which I would not currently use.

 

Out AdGuard Adblocker 5.0.138.

Changelog:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension/releases


But they have definitely fixed this issue:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension/issues/2963

P.S.

I will include the lists of filters that I have subscribed to and WEBRTC - off:

https://ibb.co/zs4H1DC

WebRTC - off

https://ibb.co/KNmMpht

Custom filter lists are still not updated after a version update.
So it is recommended to use filter lists NOT with frequent updates.

 

as written before: there is no server behind, nor any valid domain.

 

Read what krystian3w wrote:

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

Obviously uBlock Origin Lite NEVER applies strict blocking.
As demonstrated in the images evident in the problem.

Instead, I prefer to use (after June 2025) an extension that behaves like uBlock Origin.
Although my DNS-level filter lists make up for any shortcomings.

 

i have dropped ublock and ubol (for him being a ********), sorry, i cannot compare any longer.

yes, adguard team need to adjust, but i dont know if mv3 is capable to determine if domain is not present or not. currently its a mistake in list(s).