µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

If you're using uMatrix than disabling all dynamic filtering in uBlock would be appropriate. Let uMatrix to take care of scripts and iframes.

 

Thanks, I am aware of that. My wife is using uBlock, I only use uMatrix. I was talking about the 'Managed Exceptions' where there are still many javascript allowed entries from back when I had javascript disabled. Can I just leave them or should I remove them ? I think that it doesn't matter, but just wanted to be sure.

 

OK, I misunderstood your question. If you have scripts globally enabled those exceptions don't make a difference. You can leave them if you later decide to remove uMatrix and go back to built-in scripting control.

 

Thanks for confirming re. uMatrix. But what about uBlock. Do you leave javascript disabled or enabled in browser settings ? If you have javascript disabled, then surely it becomes meaningless to use the dynamic filtering in uBlock (except for iFrames maybe), as the scripts will be blocked by the browser setting.
What do you recommend ?

(Talking about using uBlock without uMatrix)

 

I can hardly give you good advice about uBlock and built-in scripting control as I never used this combination. I would suggest to leave control over scripts to whatever is easier for you to maintain (white/blacklist sites, backup rules...).

 

Just happening over the past few days ... I found that I could not use the post reply function on this site unless a disabled Ublock for the site. Also I had to do the same to get my gmail to load. I want to keep Ublock enabled on all sites, so what do I tweak on this site and for GMAIL so that I do not have to disable Ublock each time? I do not like tweaking stuff like this without a bit of advise beforehand ... I get carried away and end up getting entangled in my own enthusiasm.

 

Hi Ocky,

if you leave javascript enabled in browser and block 3rd part frames for all sites by default in uBlock (far right column), and allow them on a per-site basis, that will go a long ways to blocking undesirable content with least amount of fuss.

if you drop down the arrow at the bottom, are script and frame columns shaded light gray? If any are pink, then that could be the issue.

 

I do not have this issue. Able to post the message as this one
Do you have any other script controllers? If so, may be give a try after disabling them
Do you have any custom filters added?
Also, have you selected regional filters?

 

thats a good point. I have iframe enabled and it works fine. Maybe he had 1st party scripts blocked..

 

I have Scriptsafe installed and running. Nothing is blocked on this site by this extension.

On Ublock: No custom filters. No regional filters selected. I am pretty much running with the default settings. All scripts and iframes showing pink (1st and 3rd party blocked). If I disable the green icon, the scripts and iframes remain pink.

So 1st party scripts for this site and GMAIL should be changed to 'do not block'? They should then display grey. Leave iframes as is.

 

Yes, that is the cause of this issue. You are blocking first party scripts. Which will break the sites (if you are trying to interact with the site in any way) , if it depends on scripting. Which is true for most of the websites in today's world.

Option 1: Better block only 3rd party iframes. If you are more paranoid, you might want to block 3rd party scripts. And leave 1st party options unselected.

Option 2: as you suggested, you might whitelist 1st party cells. But you might need to do that for most of the sites.

 

Tnx harsha mic and wat0114. I followed your advise and 1st party scripts now greyed out. I logged out and shutdown browser, got back in and that worked for this site. Guess I have to do the same for GMAIL. I read through the links rather quickly and will have to spend more time absorbing. Let me loose on that stuff and you may never hear from me again (maybe that's the plan)!!!

 

welcome emmjay.
Am not sure what is script safe. but if it is some thing like mini script blocker to control what scripts to be allowed or not. Then, i am not sure its added advantage to have it along uBlock.
Perhaps some one can pitch in.
Also, remember Dynamic Filtering is being revamped currently, which will be more potent script/iframe blocker...

 

There is currently a development version of uBlock, in which I expanded dynamic filtering. I wish to publish it this coming week end (or Friday night if it feels right), but I have to admit it needs more testers than just me, as a lot of code changed.

Mainly what needs to be tested is that no new bugs were introduced, i.e. that something that was working before is still working in the new version. Any other bug that was also in the previous version should not be filed as a regression bug, or else I will never ship.

It is expected that you are able to import any older backup with all your settings correctly imported, so that you can test it without having to start from scratch.

Btw, no, it's not uMatrix finding its way back into uBlock, it's very different on many aspects. Also, this was something I wanted to do for long to address in one swoop many issues, and I consider with this version uBlock will be close to feature complete (meaning no more major changes after this).

But it needs testing to be sure I don't wreak havoc, especially that the user base has grown significantly lately.

 

I've installed this on Chromium v39.0.2171.95 (64-bit), on Arch xfce and decided to enable Advanced user setting with uMatrix disabled for the time being. So far so good. It's going to take me some time to figure it all out, although it's somewhat intuitive, mostly I'm just guessing. The +, and -, -- symbols are. These are allowed or blocked content? Also, is it possible to add an auto-refresh feature to this?

*EDIT*

I just found the quick guide for Dynamic filtering. This will help

 

Hi Raymond,

so far I don't notice any buggy behavior. Just some suggestions for improving it, although maybe you already have these in mind:

1. Auto-refresh when rules are modified.
2. A much longer Dynamic filtering rules window when it's opened, so less scrolling is required
3. A "Temporary rules" option, allowing the user to remove rules not wanted, similar to what uMatrix has. Maybe a lock buttton as well?? although I'm not sure it would be required.

To be honest, I would probably do away with uMatrix if this development version of uBlock had those features. I really like what I'm seeing so far, and it does seem the page load speeds are significantly improved over the use of both uMatrix and current stable uBlock extensions

 

I see in your screenshot I see that you are "allowing" 1st-party scripts. Not recommended, unless your goal is to completely bypass static filtering. There could be static filters which purpose is to block trackers/ads/etc. An "allow" rule really mean force-allow whatever request, bypassing any filter anywhere which could have blocked it.

Similarly, the "noop" rule on global 3rd-party scripts does do anything really, as the default is "noop" anyways. The "noop" rule is useful only to override a broader "allow" or "block" rule. Anyways, maybe you were just randomly experimenting.

 

Aren't first-party allowed by default in uMatrix? I thought the goal for a balance between security and convenience was to allow first party stuff by default? The way I have it set up now is to allow first-party scripts and images, and block by default everything else. BTW, I just installed the RC.

 

Hope you can also make this version available to Opera...

 

It's really different than uMatrix, forget completely about uMatrix.

Gray means, no dynamic filtering, hence you do not need to "allow", it's not blocked in the first place. Green means, "allow with 100% certainty", meaning static block filters will be bypassed. Red means "block with 100% certainty", meaning static exception filters will be bypassed.

Dynamic filtering's purpose is to override static filters or other broader dynamic filters -- to solve practical cases, like "block 3rd-party frames, exception for Youtube's 3rd-party frames".

The logic:

• dynamic block = block
• dynamic allow = allow
• dynamic noop AND static block = block
• dynamic noop AND static allow = allow

Dynamic filtering is to give the last word to the user over static filters. For example, many users do no like the static exception filters in EasyList etc., so now with dynamic filtering they can override what they don't like in those static filter lists. The ability to override works both way, so if you create an "allow" dynamic filter, you are overriding whatever static block filters. This is useful usually only to unbreak specific web sites.

 

I sent you a PM yesterday Gorhill please check and reply back.

 

Thanks gorhill!

one question to make sure I understand correctly: the dark gray, as opposed to the default lighter gray when nothing is selected in the columns, is used for a noop rule? Does this mean that specific content for that column is allowed without overriding static filters? Iow, I'm better off setting the 1st party scripts to dark gray as opposed to green, because in the latter setting I'm allowing all the static rules?

EDIT

do the settings in the attached look more appropriate now?

 

Dark shades just mean that there is an explicit rule in effect in there, i.e. it is not inherited. Just like before. So dark gray means there is really a noop rule (not inherited). If you go to the "My rules" tab, you will find it in there. Now no dark shades anywhere means no dynamic rule anywhere, mean only static filtering is taking place, i.e. uBlock with EasyList etc.

No.

Do not use dynamic allow rules unless you want to override a block filter/rule somewhere else.

Typically you do not want to override static block filters, except for the exceptional cases of un-breaking web sites broken by some static block filters. I gave an example for boldchat.com in the quick guide.

Currently with your settings, all ad/tracking images which would have been blocked by static filters (EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc) will now be allowed. Simlarly, now github static block filters to prevent analytics are being overridden by your dynamic allow rule: they become all allowed.

Ask yourself this question: Why did I create a global dynamic allow rule for images? Where they blocked? Why did I create a global dynamic noop rule for 1st-party scripts? Were they blocked?

They were not blocked, so there was no reason for you to create these dynamic rules.

This is not uMatrix at all, wipe out your mind clean. Completely different.

The sole purpose of dynamic filtering is to easily override whatever static filters (or absence of static filters). For example, a user disagree with "googletagservices.com" not being blocked by EasyPrivacy can now easily create a dynamic block filter for "googletagservices.com", without having to go through crafting a static filter "||googletagservices.com^", adding it to custom filter, then having all the static filter reload (and still, wondering if there are static exception filters which could cause his choice to not be enforced).

I went to re-read the quick guide, and really I don't know how else to word things better, it's all said in there.

 

Okay understood now gorhill. I really do need to cleanse my mind of uMatrix when using this new uBlock Thanks again!

 

Great job, looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Broken pages begone!