I'm still using the original RequestPolicy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy/ and I was wondering if its still effective at stopping malware or should I try RequestPolicy v0.5 Legacy? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy-legacy/?src=userprofile
To be honest I think RequestPolicy has had it's time in the sun. I prefer using uMatrix as a script/tracker blocker these days. Much better tool IMHO.
RequestPolicy is likely still effective at what it's meant to do. uMatrix can actually be set up to behave like it here: https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/HTTP-Switchboard-as-RequestPolicy *Note that httpswitchboard documentation on this is relevant to uMatrix.
Although uMatrix or uBo covers most of RP's feature and a lot more, RP still have its value, not because they have downloadable rule definitions but because it has redirect protection which uBo and uMatrix don't have.
I tried Umatrix for Firefox and I wasn't that impressed. Although the Chrome version seems pretty good.
True but when you compare Umatrix to Noscript, Request Policy or PoliceMan its doesn't appear to be as effective. And decent script blockers are kind of hard to find on Chrome so I use Umatrix on Chrome based browsers.
RP v0.5.2.8 still performs as expected under firefox 45-esr. The sole quirk I've noticed on some PCs is that the RP icon (set to display next to pancake icon) color is permanently gray. I can't recall whether I tested with ff49 (IIRC, i did, and RP still worked) FWIW, "stopping malware" is arguably a side-effect benefit of using RequestPolicy, but I wouldn't describe it as an RP "feature"
inka I haven't noticed any major issues with RequestPolicy in Firefox 49, it seems to work perfectly fine. But if it ever stops working than I would try RequestPolicy v0.5 Legacy or PoliceMan.
Hm, "not as effective" in what sense? I'm asking this out of curiosity as I see it the other way round
Umatrix doesn't seem to be as effective at stopping ads. I've noticed this multiple times when using it.
uMatrix is not an ad-blocker. For blocking ads other extensions has to be used, like uBlock Origin, ABP, etc. Edit: It can block ads based on hosts-files
It can be used as an ad blocker. It has a selection of pre-enabled hosts files with blacklisted hostnames. That said, it may not be as ideally suited as an ad blocker such as its successor uBlockO.
uMatrix blocks actually all ads delivered by adservers via its integrated hosts files. But it cannot block ads or tracking like, e.g., These types of ads and tracking can only be blocked with AdBlock Plus-compatible filterlists which cannot be processed in uMatrix but in uBlock Origin. This also applies to cosmetic filtering. Using both together is the optimal combination. One should deactivate all hosts files in uB0 which are already included in uMatrix, though. And Dynamic Filtering should be done in uMatrix. So uMatrix does block a lot of ads as it behaves like a huge hosts file - with the advantage that it's much more flexible and allows for a very granular control of which request types are allowed for every single (sub-)domain. And if you block all request types it behaves like Request Policy.
Oh, i forgot the hosts-file which uMatrix is using to block hosts-based ads. uMatrix can "behave close" to how ad blockers work and it can block ads based on hosts files. But if i have to choose between uMatrix or uBlockO for blocking ads, strictly speaking uBlockO is a better choice for this (cosmetic filtering, support for ABP-based filter-lists,...) Edit: Cosmetic change -------------- To be on-topic: I've used RP some time ago, and even if it's a little bit "outdated" it's still working and is effective.
To wat0114: uBlock Origin is not a successor of uMatrix. The dynamic filtering in uBO is maybe a spawn from uM that is true. Based on what you give the above advice? For me the optimum usage of uMatrix is as described in this thread: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/enhancing-ublock-origin-with-umatrix.388704/ Allows me to do dynamic filtering with both, but mainly I use only uBO. To this I have arrived after long usage of both extensions and I ask some real information why you recommend otherwise. Some old wiki stuff is not that.
Using the hosts files in uMatrix for ad blocking presents the same problems as using any Hosts file - when it breaks things it can be difficult to resolve it. I'm surprised there is no way to shut down the Hosts files in the toolbar icon.
What I like in uMatrix is that all rules are in one place (so you can make that tab a favourite to jump to it). I have used uMatrix in a sort of request policy like setup, with only Peter Lowe's blocklist selected (Peter Lowe's list is for my web usage as effective as disconnect and ghostery) in case I had to disable uMatrix filtering, uMatrix rules * * css allow * * image allow * 1st-party * allow What I like in uBlock is that it can process a lot of block file formats (host, adblock and adguard), so it is very easy to configure your optimal mix (I only use Peter's Lowe and Adguard Privacy). Downside is that rules are placed at three places (tabs My Filters for cosmetic filters you added yourself, My rules and Whitelist). To mimic above uMatrix filtering I apply in uBlock only * * 3p-frame block * * 3p-script block With above settings uMatrix blocks more than uBlock, but since webstandards evolve (HTML for content, CSS for style, Javascript for functionality), you will be fine with uBlock.
I'm not. There is absolutely no need for this. The entries in the various hosts files translate to the blacklisted hostnames in the matrix. They are shown at the bottom of the matrix. Collapsed by default - but if you click the small gray triangle you'll see all blacklisted hostnames in detail. You can whitelist them completey by clicking their names in the left column or you can selectively whitelist any single cell. This can be done in all available scopes - global, domain-specific, site specific. It's as flexible as it can possibly be.
