µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

i dont have doubt that it is used, or abused. for the given example

is blocked here without uncloaking from "AdGuard Tracking Protection". That list blocks the original request, whether it is cloaked or not.
trustpilot and cookiebot are blocked with 3rd-party scripts, googletagmanager by design.
no criteo, no facebook. blocked in several methods.

you should try without.

 

Try this:

https://epicgoo.com/

the CNAME tracker is not captured by your lists.
In chrome-based browsers (probably except Brave) only the:

"AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list"

allows us to have an adequate protection:




P.S.

Using EasyPrivacy + AdGuard Tracking Protection gives a sense of false protection because if one list does not consider one CNAME tracker,the other list won't have it in its rules either.

 

It's probably included in the list, because someone had noticed the cloaking issue with that subdomain.
(I already mentioned Adguard and EasyPrivacy blocking it, in my previous post)

[Edit]
On top of that, someone not using an ad blocker and relying on Firefox own tracking protection, will get hit by these CNAME's. See bug 1598969.

 

The script from 'a.epicgoo.com' is blocked here by Adguard Base.

Screenshot.

Code:

dig a.epicgoo.com

; <<>> DiG 9.16.1-Ubuntu <<>> a.epicgoo.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59195
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;a.epicgoo.com.            IN    A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
a.epicgoo.com.        256    IN    CNAME    0i0i0i0.com.
0i0i0i0.com.        1513    IN    A    135.181.208.216

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.53#53(127.0.0.53)
;; WHEN: zo feb 13 14:26:57 CET 2022
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 80

And '0i0i0i0.com' is also blocked by Adguard Base.

 

You got lucky.
The purpose of adguard base list is to remove ads.
The next CNAME tracker may circumvent this list as well.

Also relying in 3 more generic lists than the highly dedicated one and having triple the rules is unprofitable.

 

I had to install a back-up drive because my primary nvm-e had a corrupted partition and I could not update to Windows 11. This smaller drive had Windows 10 from 1 1/2 years ago and in Firefox, frogeye's list was still active. I clicked on some links and found this article, specifically--for a new term (for me)--"bounce trackers." What about this? I mean, most of the mentioned lists, if not all, should already cover this but I thought this doc would add a new dimension.

https://webkit.org/blog/11338/cname-cloaking-and-bounce-tracking-defense/

 

CNAME advertising networks are included in Adguard Base.

There is also a small list I use, called: AdGuard CNAME original trackers list (37 rules)
This is a list of domains these CNAME's usually point to.
But this list is supposed to be used only by software capable of scanning CNAME records, so not in Chromium based browsers.
That's why I don't use "AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list".

 

This domain '0i0i0i0.com' is also blocked by uMatrix on Firefox (third party script).

 

If you are comfortable with this, keep it up.
I would be in bad shape, so I follow my convictions.
Have a nice day.

 

you shouldn't. stay away as long as possible. otherwise create an image - always recommended before heavy changes! win11 is experimental from my view.

 

That blog is about Safari on Apple devices...
You can't add to many rules to Safari...
Safari has a strict limit of 50,000.

"bounce trackers" seems like a useful feature though (for Safari).

When using Firefox there are no limitations to the number of rules.

 

Excellent, thanks for the clarification.

 

Safari (5.1.7) for windows was abandoned 2012!

 

The following filter in my filter lists no longer receives updates. Is it no longer maintained and is there a replacement for it?

 

A google search brings me here:
https://github.com/VernonStow/Filterlist/blob/master/Filterlist.txt

Code:

    # Title: Grayware Blocklist
# Updated: 2022-Feb-09
# Expires: 1 month (update frequency)
# Homepage: https://github.com/VernonStow/Filterlist
# License: https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD Zero-Clause BSD
# Subscription link: https://github.com/VernonStow/Filterlist/raw/master/Filterlist.txt

 

The message about network error in my post above is for the 1st entry with the broken
the 2nd entry updates fine.

Never mind, I found the current one
.

 

Oh...
I see now.
I got the same error with that entry and fixed it by removing it and replacing with:

Code:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US%2Bmost_used_ad_and_tracking_networks

 

Yes, that's the one I ended up using.

 

Code:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Zelo72/hosts/main/kees1958.txt

"Zelo72" account is no longer existant.

The vernom list is rather short in comparison. thx for the replacement.

 

No you're misunderstanding my question. I'm trying to figure out why he added this new feature to uBlock, why would someone want to disable this feature? Are there any benefits?

 

Kees1958 had long warned that the short list would be deprecated.

 

With Edge is useless.
I have it disabled.

P.S.

Ah...it's not a new feature, it's been around for a long time,

 

I would think as a Store app, if Edge is enabled to run in the background, then pre-fetching would indeed be redundant. Is this wrong?

 

Sorry guys, my bad. I recently read that a new feature had been added to uBlock, but this new feature doesn't have anything to do with prefetching. My question was about the new ''Suspend network activity until all filter lists are loaded'' feature. I believe it might improve speed of website loading, but may cause problems with filtering ads correctly, or something like that.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.41.0

 

Ah... I see.
Well I already explained my concerns regarding prefetching in my previous post here, based on what I read on Wikipedia:

And from uBO wiki:

(emphasis mine)