Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Browsers
Web Extensions
µBlock Origin blocks "https://ipm-provider.ff.avast.com/"
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yuki2718" data-source="post: 888742" data-attributes="member: 87923"><p>[USER=82776]@Lenny_Fox[/USER] It's true. The idea more rules causes slowdown comes from a wrong assumption of linear matching which doesn't make sense - why don't you use decision tree of a kind (<a href="https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-20/not-all-adblockers-are-born-equal.html" target="_blank">plain explanation by Ghostery</a>) when most rules are rarely or not used for common requests? See gorhill's <a href="https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ublock-a-lean-and-fast-blocker.365273/page-155#post-2831026" target="_blank">comment</a> too (it's not only about pure hostname rules). Ofc it's not that adding 1,000,000 rules doesn't add 1ms, what matters is whether adding reasonable amount of rules adds perceptible amount of time - most people can't tell >100 ms difference. Mathematically it's trivial to show that complexity of matching a n-length request to X filters is at most O( n ) order, meaning the number of rules doesn't matter. Seeing is believing, I myself measured but at first failed as network latency which changes every seconds affects much more than the matching, so I had to keep browser cache. There's also <a href="https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/" target="_blank">Brave's article</a>. You see adding 16,000 rules of EP doesn't add 1 micro-second/request once token-based approach was adopted.</p><p></p><p>Well, the number of ad-networks are finite but some of them use hundreds of different domains (<a href="https://github.com/Yhonay/antipopads/blob/master/popads.txt" target="_blank">a very notorious example</a>) and others use cloudfront or amazonaws. Advertisers & web masters have been seeking to bypass ad-blocker and it's becoming harder and harder to block them by simple rules. Say, "9to5" sites detect ad-blocker and re-inject ads with ad-proxing so that they can't be blocked by simple rules (fortunately uBO has scriptlets to counter this). It's not only 9to5, incredibly many sites detect ad-blocker tho how they react depends (some sites detect and do nothing e.g. thewirecutter). It's also no more rare trackers implemented as 1st party even without CNAME cloaking. In my region (JP) Treasuredata does this with data sharing agreement. Ads as 1st party are not rare too, indeed very common on WordPress sites with images hosted on the site and href=(advertisers or shopping sites with an affiliate code). Blocking ad-networks may block redirect on click but that's not many user want - they want the images blocked and here generic rules come into play, sometimes even regex rules are used (slow but acceptable trade-off if narrowed down). I tend to believe those who spend their internet time only on major sites are actually rare. In my case most of sites are one-time visit - aggregated together these one-time sites take 50%+ of my internet time - but it doesn't mean I want to see ads or trackers there.</p><p></p><p>I just said decreasing and not said it doesn't make sense <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> It was a bit surprising as this lucky-visitor scam has long been used http.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I came here not for discussion - need to leave soon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yuki2718, post: 888742, member: 87923"] [USER=82776]@Lenny_Fox[/USER] It's true. The idea more rules causes slowdown comes from a wrong assumption of linear matching which doesn't make sense - why don't you use decision tree of a kind ([URL='https://0x65.dev/blog/2019-12-20/not-all-adblockers-are-born-equal.html']plain explanation by Ghostery[/URL]) when most rules are rarely or not used for common requests? See gorhill's [URL='https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ublock-a-lean-and-fast-blocker.365273/page-155#post-2831026']comment[/URL] too (it's not only about pure hostname rules). Ofc it's not that adding 1,000,000 rules doesn't add 1ms, what matters is whether adding reasonable amount of rules adds perceptible amount of time - most people can't tell >100 ms difference. Mathematically it's trivial to show that complexity of matching a n-length request to X filters is at most O( n ) order, meaning the number of rules doesn't matter. Seeing is believing, I myself measured but at first failed as network latency which changes every seconds affects much more than the matching, so I had to keep browser cache. There's also [URL='https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/']Brave's article[/URL]. You see adding 16,000 rules of EP doesn't add 1 micro-second/request once token-based approach was adopted. Well, the number of ad-networks are finite but some of them use hundreds of different domains ([URL='https://github.com/Yhonay/antipopads/blob/master/popads.txt']a very notorious example[/URL]) and others use cloudfront or amazonaws. Advertisers & web masters have been seeking to bypass ad-blocker and it's becoming harder and harder to block them by simple rules. Say, "9to5" sites detect ad-blocker and re-inject ads with ad-proxing so that they can't be blocked by simple rules (fortunately uBO has scriptlets to counter this). It's not only 9to5, incredibly many sites detect ad-blocker tho how they react depends (some sites detect and do nothing e.g. thewirecutter). It's also no more rare trackers implemented as 1st party even without CNAME cloaking. In my region (JP) Treasuredata does this with data sharing agreement. Ads as 1st party are not rare too, indeed very common on WordPress sites with images hosted on the site and href=(advertisers or shopping sites with an affiliate code). Blocking ad-networks may block redirect on click but that's not many user want - they want the images blocked and here generic rules come into play, sometimes even regex rules are used (slow but acceptable trade-off if narrowed down). I tend to believe those who spend their internet time only on major sites are actually rare. In my case most of sites are one-time visit - aggregated together these one-time sites take 50%+ of my internet time - but it doesn't mean I want to see ads or trackers there. I just said decreasing and not said it doesn't make sense ;) It was a bit surprising as this lucky-visitor scam has long been used http. Anyway, I came here not for discussion - need to leave soon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top