µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by gorhill, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,535
    Same with Chrome and Opera...[/plain][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2015
  2. Sampei Nihira

    Sampei Nihira Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,865
    Location:
    Italy
    TH.:thumb:
     
  3. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    Works as expected: the site repeatedly fires a network request:

    hxxp://costacrociere.d3.sc.omtrdc.net/b/ss/costaproi,costapro/1/JS-1.0.1/s81267245977651?AQB=1&ndh=1&t=24%2F0%2F2015%2013%3A2%3A32%206%20300&fid=65B52DFBF3C8BAAF-37098A75AFB5E46F...​

    So uBlock blocks it and report it.
     
  4. Sampei Nihira

    Sampei Nihira Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,865
    Location:
    Italy
    TH.
    Now I'm using ver 0.8.6.0 beta 2.
     
  5. apathy

    apathy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    9th Circle of Hell(Florida)
    Wow, I'm thrilled to have ublock on FF and I never even looked into the advanced areas. Its got a mini umatrix. I kept noscript on but it doesn't block js. On ublock third party frames and scripts are blocked it's very easy to allow specific hosts. If umatrix came to FF I wouldn't know how to contain my joy!
     
  6. Dermot7

    Dermot7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    3,395
    Location:
    Surrey, England.
    http://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/08/ublocks-all-and-third-party-deny-modes-block-requests-by-default/
     
  7. cooperb21

    cooperb21 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Posts:
    71
    Why does adblock plus block more with same filters...

    Also i getting ads on some videos like on cbs.com with ublock.... 0 ads adblock plus.

    I rather have higher memory usage honestly if it does not block all the thing i want.
     
  8. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    "With same filters"? You used ABP with exactly the same filters as uBlock? Including Peter Lowe's and uBlock's own filters?

    Of course you did not use exactly the same filters.

    Here: About "This other extension reports more stuff blocked!

    uBlock uses EasyList, which is probably the one dealing with CBS ads. I just tried and no ads.

    You will also find "ads on cbs" on ABP forum, because updating filter lists is a never ending task. See for yourself: https://hg.adblockplus.org/easylist/log?rev=cbs
     
  9. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
  10. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    What about 3rd-party CSS, images, HttpXMLRequest, fonts, plug-ins, etc.?
     
  11. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,978
    Location:
    USA
    Just installed this in Firefox. Hadn't realized what a pig ABP had become until I switched it for this. Will definitely be keeping it.
     
  12. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    ABP is seriously a pig.. Dramatically slows browsing in some cases. Privacy Badger seems to have inherited ABP's pigness. I had to ditch that as well.

    Right now the players are Adguard and uBlock IMO.
     
  13. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Belgium
    Same here, the only thing i somehow still miss from time to time is the "easiness" of the Element-Hiding-Helper ABP had for picking your specific thing to get rid of, but I'm pretty sure gorhill has some nice ideas up there to compensate for such things.
     
  14. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,978
    Location:
    USA
    Click on the toolbar icon and the little eyedropper icon says "Enter element picker mode". I haven't tried to use it but assume it should somewhat be what you are looking for.
     
  15. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    I think that's true only for Chromium, if I remember the comments, the Firefox version is not based on ABP engine.
     
  16. Malwar

    Malwar Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    USA
    @gorhill If I noop 1st party scripts, block 3rd party, 3rd party scripts, and 3rd party frames and only allow what is necessary to run a site like the verge for example:
    www.theverge.com accounts.google.com * block
    www.theverge.com ajax.googleapis.com * noop
    www.theverge.com google.com * noop
    www.theverge.com plus.google.com * block
    www.theverge.com theverge.com * noop
    www.theverge.com vox-cdn.com * noop
    www.theverge.com voxmedia.com * noop
    then I can just use the default filter list but unselect the all of the malware list and I do not need social blocking list no more I can just use the default list+ anti-adblock killer+ Dan pollock's host file+MVPS host file? or are those 3 not needed? I am using Chrome while blocking all 3rd party cookies and only allow local data to be set untill I close by browser and click to play plugins and all of the other privacy settings and I am using safe browsing and do not track and I block hyper link auditing pings with a flag in Chrome.
    Thanks,
    Malwar
     
  17. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    You don't need to noop "1st-party scripts". Everything is implicitly "noop" by default. You need to use "noop" only to override an "allow" or "block".

    Now regarding the other lists, it's all personal choice. If you find yourself disengaging the blocking of 3rd-parties on a regular basis, than maybe it's better to keep them, as they can still be useful as static filters. Otherwise, for someone using 3rd-party blocking thoroughly, they become rather pointless.
     
  18. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    815
    Location:
    India
    Yes. I later realized, it blocks additional resources too. So, yeah it makes me to dump no script completely :)
    However i believe, blocking images might needed to be made party aware, which resolves the issue of 1px images created for tracking purposes (and my personal usage, i.e., to use as an image blocker per site basis on office machine) . And i see from your standpoint, of not making it more like uMatrix. Which ever stand you take, i am good with it :)

    However, i have a question. Isn't blocking scripts, would render XHR useless? And not sure, if any harm can be achieved through fonts.

    And endless thanks for your efforts. Firefox is my main browser again (super responsive). No need to use more extensions. Just one single extension (this), which complements both ABP and Noscript for me.
    And because of its high configurability, i am using it as an simple image blocker along with ad/script blocker at office place :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2015
  19. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    469
    Location:
    Belgium
    I knew, but the automatic "Preview" option is what I miss. Using the eyedropper could be more user-friendly in refining your specific filter and it also seems to peg the CPU in which the whole Firefox window becomes unresponsive for a couple of secs.
     
  20. Malwar

    Malwar Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    USA
    Okay, thanks gorhill!!
     
  21. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,047
    I have been using thus excellent extension for a while and i was wondering what the long term plans and support will be.?
     
  22. Malwar

    Malwar Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    USA
    @gorhill For example on < https://www.youtube.com/ > isn't it more secure to create rules like this:
    www.youtube.com i.ytimg.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r19---sn-p5qlsm7l.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r3---sn-nwj7knes.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r3---sn-p5qlsm7r.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r6---sn-p5qlsm7d.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r8---sn-jc47eu7l.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com s.ytimg.com * noop
    instead of
    www.youtube.com googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r19---sn-p5qlsm7l.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r3---sn-nwj7knes.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r3---sn-p5qlsm7r.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r6---sn-p5qlsm7d.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com r8---sn-jc47eu7l.googlevideo.com * noop
    www.youtube.com ytimg.com * noop
     
  23. Jarmo P

    Jarmo P Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    1,207
    I don't really know how to react to these latest incarnations of uBlock. The original aim of the developer had if I remember right was a simple adblock plus type blocker, leaving all the more involved blockings to uMatrix. I am still using it as such only as of now.

    Gradually all more "advanced stuff" have been added with the cost of somewhat complex interface and more so with the difficulty of understanding sometimes the extension behaviour as have been shown in the thread posts many times. I yes tried the features less than a month ago and I think understood the most what was needed.

    What my conclusion was though was that it is not giving same ease of use and clarity as the uMatrix with its easy to understand rule system. And to see what is blocked and what is not. To my use uMatrix is far superiour:

    I allow css and scripts to all except hosts files blacklisted sites. I unblock when needed 1st party to my basic template rule (meaning scripts, plugin xhr and other) and still blocking cookies and frames. Then sometimes I need to go to the matrix to allow them. And make rules to my fave sites on the domain level scope to not be bothered again with whitelisting.

    In practice I usually don't need to temporary whitelist anything else than the 1st party scope selector at domain level. Whereas with uBlock the interface is divided into separate white or black listers making it rather cumbersome to operate. Of course all depends what ones aims are. For me there is no interest to try leave uMatrix and try operate uBlock as a substitution. And I hope gorhill sees things at least a little same way in not trying to push these advanced uBlock features too seriously.
     
  24. gorhill

    gorhill Developer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    861
    Location:
    Canada
    These advanced features are optional, turned off by default, which makes uBlock a standard blocker.

    Here is the reality, from Chrome store statistics: uMatrix is very unlikely to be adopted by majority of users, it's a very small niche, because few users want to deal with that level of granularity, once they are past being intimidated by the UI. We are talking orders of magnitude here.

    My goal is to give tools that are useful to a majority of users. So between uMatrix and a plain blocker, there is a void, and there is no reason other than purely ideological to not try to fill that void. It's what the advanced features in uBlock do. And as much as it is tempting to onlookers, uBlock's dynamic filtering is not going back to HTTPSB. The integration of the firewall filtering with the blocker filtering is very tight. In HTTPSB there was no such integration.

    Consider Ghostery: it actually allows you to enable/disable specific 3rd-parties (from a limited set however) globally or locally. uBlock's dynamic filtering is not so different, except that it doesn't restrict the choices to a limited set of hostnames.
     
  25. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,794
    @gorhill

    Given the advanced features in uBlock being developed further, what will happen to your other extensions? Are they still going to be kept alive to fill the particular niches?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.