New Update 3P-Matrix-lite new version is available in Chrome Webstore with improved functionality
-
Thread starter
LinuxFan58
- Start date
- 174 Replies
- 11,586 Views
Thread details
When the TopLevelDomain from which you are downloading microsoft Edge is not in the whitelisted list of TLD's AND you have have protection 27 enabled, than yes this is by design. But the clear download history is confusing. Do you know from where Edge updates are downloaded? Easiest fix is to add te TLD of MS Edge download to whitelisted TLD's or add that domain to whitelist.
So, I add msedge.com? or msedge.exe? -- and for other downloads? Does uBlock Dynamic > Clear list of downloaded files -- satisfy 3P Matrix. Why does 3P Matrix need to report beyond the event -- report on the event history?
I use ControlD + Quad9.
It's difficult to find links to malware content when using effective protective DNS services.
This one, for example, is blocked not only by NextDNS but also by the specified DNS services (Cloudflare and Quad9) and by ControlD.
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/4058844/
If I'm not mistaken, Osprey also uses CloudFlare,ControlD, and Quad9.
Today,on Pizza Day
,I was curious to know why you consider DNS4EU better than the others you included in 3P-Matrix.
Last edited:
The DNS-ses listed in 3PM are all solid choices. Just noticed that DNS4EU blocked a few more than Quad9. In my testing ControlD always came out best, but that is not Controld scoring a 9.8 and the others a 6 or 7, it are marginal differences.I use ControlD + Quad9.
It's difficult to find links to malware content when using effective protective DNS services.
This one, for example, is blocked not only by NextDNS but also by the specified DNS services (Cloudflare and Quad9) and by ControlD.
hxxps://urlhaus.abuse.ch/url/4058844/
If I'm not mistaken, Osprey also uses CloudFlare,ControlD, and Quad9.
Today,on Pizza Day
You proof again how faulted the safer-regions concept is
In (my guess) 999 out of 1000 situations you don´t want to send a password (that is also a pre-condition, which Chat obviously did not find) when you are on a website which is OUTSIDE your safer-regions (normal) browsing cocoon, but for that one situation a warning page will appear (allowing you to continue).
This is the reason V5.0 provides info when you move your mouse over a protection
View attachment 301212
Read this:
We Know 15,579 Websites Are Infected. How Do We Tell Them?
SuperPixel: The Card Skimmer Hiding Inside Your Own jQuery | MalwareTips
I think this will be interesting for you and the other forum members.
P.S.
Pizza Day is over.
Last edited:
@LinuxFan58
After several weeks of testing : (USING Mainly Level2 for all sites habits, and level 4 for shady websites)
A suggestion regarding Level 1 (Allow All) and site locking
I would like to raise a small but important security consideration regarding Level 1 (Allow All), especially when users lock trusted websites to this level.
Let's take an online banking website as an example.
A user visits their bank, confirms that everything works correctly, and locks the website at Level 1 for maximum compatibility. However, a few days later, the legitimate banking website could be compromised, for example through a malicious script injected into the website itself or through a compromised third-party dependency.
In this situation, Level 1 provides no additional protection from 3P Matrix, since it essentially allows all content without the additional security restrictions available at Level 2 and above.
This raises an important distinction: trusting a website's identity does not mean that we should automatically trust all the content and scripts it may serve in the future.
There is also a potential human-factor issue here. When users see a website locked in 3P Matrix, they may unconsciously associate the lock icon with a higher level of security. This could create a false sense of security and lead to reduced vigilance, even though a website locked at Level 1 actually benefits from fewer protections than one locked at Level 2.
Perhaps websites locked at Level 1 could display a specific warning or visual indicator, making it clear that:
- Level 1 (Allow All) disables the additional security restrictions provided by 3P Matrix.
- A locked website is not necessarily a safe website.
- Locking a website at Level 1 should primarily be considered a compatibility workaround, rather than a security recommendation.
Ideally, Level 1 should only be used when a website locked at Level 2 has genuine compatibility issues affecting specific features or functionality.
For example, users could be encouraged to keep their banking, email, administrative and other important websites at Level 2 whenever they work correctly, and only downgrade an individual website to Level 1 when absolutely necessary.
In my opinion, this small warning could help prevent users from confusing a trusted website with a protected website, while also encouraging safer browsing habits.
The goal is not to discourage the use of Level 1, but to make users aware of what they are actually giving up when they select it.
Thank you for your work on 3P Matrix and for continuously improving this extension!
After several weeks of testing : (USING Mainly Level2 for all sites habits, and level 4 for shady websites)
A suggestion regarding Level 1 (Allow All) and site locking
I would like to raise a small but important security consideration regarding Level 1 (Allow All), especially when users lock trusted websites to this level.
Let's take an online banking website as an example.
A user visits their bank, confirms that everything works correctly, and locks the website at Level 1 for maximum compatibility. However, a few days later, the legitimate banking website could be compromised, for example through a malicious script injected into the website itself or through a compromised third-party dependency.
In this situation, Level 1 provides no additional protection from 3P Matrix, since it essentially allows all content without the additional security restrictions available at Level 2 and above.
This raises an important distinction: trusting a website's identity does not mean that we should automatically trust all the content and scripts it may serve in the future.
There is also a potential human-factor issue here. When users see a website locked in 3P Matrix, they may unconsciously associate the lock icon with a higher level of security. This could create a false sense of security and lead to reduced vigilance, even though a website locked at Level 1 actually benefits from fewer protections than one locked at Level 2.
Perhaps websites locked at Level 1 could display a specific warning or visual indicator, making it clear that:
- Level 1 (Allow All) disables the additional security restrictions provided by 3P Matrix.
- A locked website is not necessarily a safe website.
- Locking a website at Level 1 should primarily be considered a compatibility workaround, rather than a security recommendation.
Ideally, Level 1 should only be used when a website locked at Level 2 has genuine compatibility issues affecting specific features or functionality.
For example, users could be encouraged to keep their banking, email, administrative and other important websites at Level 2 whenever they work correctly, and only downgrade an individual website to Level 1 when absolutely necessary.
In my opinion, this small warning could help prevent users from confusing a trusted website with a protected website, while also encouraging safer browsing habits.
The goal is not to discourage the use of Level 1, but to make users aware of what they are actually giving up when they select it.
Thank you for your work on 3P Matrix and for continuously improving this extension!
@7Oz-64 chance of a website breaking with level 2 is indeed minimal, but I felt I needed to provide an allow-all option. With the amount cyber attacks on infrastructure and weak IoT devices the risk of legitimate websites being hacked without knowing is indeed a concern.
This is also the reason I added some exfiltration protections. Three months ago I would have told myself, don´t bother people using this type of extensions are above average educated on IT related security risks and will never fall into these tricks and traps because of their safe hex habits.
But the risk of well known brands and trusted services having malware on their websites suddenly become headlines in newspapers, so you don´t need to wear a tin foil hat anymore to have some concern for this (previously) rare kind of threats.
This is also the reason I added some exfiltration protections. Three months ago I would have told myself, don´t bother people using this type of extensions are above average educated on IT related security risks and will never fall into these tricks and traps because of their safe hex habits.
But the risk of well known brands and trusted services having malware on their websites suddenly become headlines in newspapers, so you don´t need to wear a tin foil hat anymore to have some concern for this (previously) rare kind of threats.
Last edited:
1.- Do I add msedge.com? or msedge.exe? -- and for other downloads?
2.- Does uBlock Dynamic > Clear list of downloaded files -- satisfy 3P Matrix?
3.- Why does 3P Matrix need to report beyond the event -- report on the event history?
@LinuxFan58
i've no need of L1 alls regular sites i visit are at L2 without an issue, but maybe this is not the case for others 3PMatrix's users
i've no need of L1 alls regular sites i visit are at L2 without an issue, but maybe this is not the case for others 3PMatrix's users
@7Oz-64
L2 is more convenient (for me) for all websites, and you can block relatively few websites at level 4.
It’s “difficult” to do the same thing at the default L3 level because you’d have to block a longer list of domains at the L2 level, and as the developer wrote, it’s more convenient to add them at L1.
But I noticed from an image on @LinuxFan58 that he has a long list of websites at L1… for compatibility reasons, and I don’t like that.
That’s why I suggested (not for myself, but for other users) the option of an intermediate level.
L2 is more convenient (for me) for all websites, and you can block relatively few websites at level 4.
It’s “difficult” to do the same thing at the default L3 level because you’d have to block a longer list of domains at the L2 level, and as the developer wrote, it’s more convenient to add them at L1.
But I noticed from an image on @LinuxFan58 that he has a long list of websites at L1… for compatibility reasons, and I don’t like that.
That’s why I suggested (not for myself, but for other users) the option of an intermediate level.
The list was just an example
of my old uBO Mv2 whitelist. L3 works great for every day use level. I am not going to add another level. Second reason I am not going to add it is because pizza day is over. So I am afraid you have to wait until pancake day. L3 has a broad TLD whitelist for new users trying out the safer-regions concept. Users familiar with the concept know how to trim it (broad still reduces attack surface by 60% with no website breakage, narrow level 3 TLD whitelist reduces attack surface with 80% with virtually no website breakage).
My actual allow list
Last edited:
The list was just an example
L3 has a broad TLD whitelist for new users trying out the safer-regions concept. Users familiar with the concept know how to trim it (broad still reduces attack surface by 60% with no website breakage, narrow level 3 TLD whitelist reduces attack surface with 80% with virtually no website breakage).
My actual allow list
View attachment 301240
Right, we should focus our attention on SuperPixel.
In the meantime, I've added,just as a precaution,three simple general blocking rules in uBo.
V. 5.0.2 with extra SuperPixel protection (warn) submitted to CWS for level 2 and up (but it is not pancake day
Right, we should focus our attention on SuperPixel.
In the meantime, I've added,just as a precaution,three simple general blocking rules in uBo.
)
V. 5.0.2 with extra SuperPixel protection (warn) submitted to CWS for level 2 and up (but it is not pancake day
Yeah, we really did need a new protection.
It's the never-ending battle between defenders and attackers.
It's almost like Pancake Day, my friend.
V.5.0.3 fixed display status error in Matrix when service worker was woken again (domain showed as allowed, while it was blocked)
Both fixes in uBD and 3PM were because I used browser's caching mechanism better, but I have to tweak it a litlle, I excluded the matrix panels in both 3PM and uBD (so they read actual rule set again when Show Matrix button is pressed).
Both fixes in uBD and 3PM were because I used browser's caching mechanism better, but I have to tweak it a litlle, I excluded the matrix panels in both 3PM and uBD (so they read actual rule set again when Show Matrix button is pressed).
Edge -- upon re-launch -- 3P Matrix re-reports even after the download is on my machine.
Why does 3P Matrix need to report beyond the event.
Why does 3PM v5.0.3 report on the event history?
Why do I need to clear download history to quiet 3PM?
Last edited:
@LinuxFan58
i've no need of L1 alls regular sites i visit are at L2 without an issue, but maybe this is not the case for others 3PMatrix's users
Good for you.
I already have 2 Level 1 websites for compatibility reasons,in addition to the IP address you 2 entered, of course.
But there's also an advantage:,thanks to the use of 3P-matrix,I've eliminated at least 6 rules in my filters, plus the 1p-script block from websites outside my 9 TLDs.
Last edited:
Join the discussion
Write your reply below. You'll create a free account or log in before it's posted.
Recently browsing
Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes