AdGuard Blog: Ad blocking extensions you’ve been using for years are no longer – here are your options

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Due to Google’s policy changes, a lot of ad-blocking and utility extensions are already, or soon will be, unavailable in Chrome. What these extensions all have in common is that they’re built on the Manifest V2 (MV2) platform.

MV2 is the older system that lets extensions like AdGuard, uBlock Origin and others execute code remotely, allowing developers to keep everything running smoothly without needing user intervention. Now, this flexibility afforded by MV2 is being replaced by the more restrictive Manifest V3 (MV3) framework.

Do you actually need an extension to block ads?
If you’re wondering how to adjust to these changes, here are some options to consider.

Desktop apps to the rescue
The simplest — and at the same time, most comprehensive — solution: switch to a desktop app. If you don’t want to deal with browser-based limitations, the easiest way to handle this is to install AdGuard for Windows or macOS. These applications work outside of Chrome, filtering all your network traffic directly.

Not only does this sidestep the issues with Chrome extensions, but it also provides extra privacy features like app-level tracking protection. You’ll never have to worry about browser updates affecting your ad-blocking experience again.

If you want to stick with extensions

• AdGuard extension with MV3 support: In September, we released the AdGuard extension based on MV3. Since then, we’ve been continuously working on enhancing it, and while it currently retains most of the functionality of the previous MV2-based extension, we’re committed to making ongoing improvements.
• uBlock Origin Lite: For a simpler experience, you can opt for uBlock Origin Lite. While not as feature-rich as AdGuard, it still offers strong ad-blocking capabilities.
• Other popular extensions (Adblock Plus, AdBlock, Ghostery): These extensions have also been updated to support MV3, so they can still be used with the new Chrome restrictions.

Explore DNS filtering

• For users who prefer a simpler, network-wide solution, AdGuard DNS, NextDNS, or ControlD can filter ads across all your devices.
• If you're looking for complete control and are comfortable with more advanced setups, consider AdGuard Home or Pi-Hole to manage ad-blocking directly from your home network administrator panel.

Switch to a different browser
Mozilla Firefox or Opera – if you’re looking for an alternative, these browsers still support MV2-based extensions, meaning you can continue using your favorite ad-blocking tools without disruption. However, this option may not be for everyone, as switching browsers is a significant change and might feel like a big adjustment.

In conclusion
The phase-out of MV2 is a big change that will affect many Chrome users, but it doesn’t have to disrupt your experience. Whether you switch to a desktop app or move to an MV3-compatible extension, there are plenty of ways to continue blocking ads and protecting your privacy without hassle. We’re here to help guide you through the transition, so feel free to reach out with any questions.

Stay tuned as we continue to improve AdGuard and adapt to these changes, ensuring that you can enjoy a seamless, ad-free browsing experience.

Ad blocking extensions you’ve been using for years are no longer – here are your options

Due to Google’s upcoming policy changes, a lot of ad-blocking and utility extensions are already, or soon will be, unavailable in Chrome. If you're wondering how to adjust to these changes, here are some options to consider.

adguard.com

 

[badboy]

Interesting about DNS. Which DNS-service (free version) can block advertising like uBlock Origin?

 

[Marko :)]

Interesting about DNS. Which DNS-service (free version) can block advertising like uBlock Origin?

None. DNS technology simply isn't made for blocking ads and you really shouldn't use it alone. With each day, this way of ad blocking is becoming less and less efficient. To understand why, you need to understand how ad blocking DNS services work first.

In order to block ads, DNS servers use blacklist which contain domains of ad companies, which are used to serve ads on various websites. Whenever you request a website, it loads bunch of content from other domains. DNS checks every single domain against that blacklist and if it finds a match, it redirects the domain to 0.0.0.0 (non-existent IP address). This is why you get bunch of those "website not available" parts of website, because DNS essentially redirected the ad domain so it doesn't load and to your web browser it just looks like website is down. Since DNS doesn't have effect on websites and can only see and work with domains, it can't "edit" the website to remove those "website not available" parts; this is the job of your ad blocking extension which has ability to strip websites of ad place holders. The process is called "cosmetic filtering".

Now... as more and more ad blocking DNS services started launching, ad companies needed to catch up and what they did was essentially started serving ads from domain which are used to serve scripts, and files necessary for websites to function properly. That means if DNS blocks that one domain which served ads, they would ultimately block scripts, fonts and bunch of other necessary files that are needed for website to function, rendering website broken. Then you only have two options; to block ads and leave the website broken. Or you'll allow the ads and have functional website.

And this is where your ad blocking browser extension comes in again. Since extension can see all traffic coming in and out of the browser, it has ability to intercept ads while letting scripts and files, necessary for website to function, pass. And as I said, it will hide those ad placeholders on websites left by DNS.

 

[badboy]

None. DNS technology simply isn't made for blocking ads and you really shouldn't use it alone. With each day, this way of ad blocking is becoming less and less efficient. To understand why, you need to understand how ad blocking DNS services work first.

In order to block ads, DNS servers use blacklist which contain domains of ad companies, which are used to serve ads on various websites. Whenever you request a website, it loads bunch of content from other domains. DNS checks every single domain against that blacklist and if it finds a match, it redirects the domain to 0.0.0.0 (non-existent IP address). This is why you get bunch of those "website not available" parts of website, because DNS essentially redirected the ad domain so it doesn't load and to your web browser it just looks like website is down. Since DNS doesn't have effect on websites and can only see and work with domains, it can't "edit" the website to remove those "website not available" parts; this is the job of your ad blocking extension which has ability to strip websites of ad place holders. The process is called "cosmetic filtering".

Now... as more and more ad blocking DNS services started launching, ad companies needed to catch up and what they did was essentially started serving ads from domain which are used to serve scripts, and files necessary for websites to function properly. That means if DNS blocks that one domain which served ads, they would ultimately block scripts, fonts and bunch of other necessary files that are needed for website to function, rendering website broken. Then you only have two options; to block ads and leave the website broken. Or you'll allow the ads and have functional website.

And this is where your ad blocking browser extension comes in again. Since extension can see all traffic coming in and out of the browser, it has ability to intercept ads while letting scripts and files necessary for website to function pass. And as I said, it will hide those ad placeholders on websites left by DNS.

Thank you for such a complete answer, which clarified everything.
But I'm curious -- how do the DNS services that claim to block ads work? Well, they can't block all ads without harming the functionality of the sites. Therefore, you can safely choose your favorite DNS service without counting on ad blocking, and leave ad blocking to browser extensions

 

[Marko :)]

But I'm curious -- how do the DNS services that claim to block ads work? Well, they can't block all ads without harming the functionality of the sites.

Some ad companies still use separate domains for serving ad content and those ads can still be blocked completely with DNS. But the list of ad companies using separate domains is shrinking with each day. It really depends what ad company a website uses.

Ever wondered why DNS ad blockers can't block ads on YouTube? Because YouTube serves all videos and ads from domain googlevideo.com. DNS only sees this domain, and as a result, it can't recognize what is a video and what is an ad. If it blocked googlevideo.com, it would break YouTube completely and none of the video would play so all ad blocking DNS services just let googlevideo.com pass. Facebook, Instagram do the same if I recall correctly.

There isn't a universal response to this. Some DNS services will keep block ads no matter how many websites are broken. Other will stop blocking ads for broken sites. AdGuard DNS is one of those that would rather allow ads than to break a website. ControlD has the opposite policy, and is very aggressive when it comes to ad blocking. I tried ControlD and literally it took me 10 minutes before I found broken websites I visit daily.

If you ask me, I'm using AdGuard DNS on all of my devices and uBlock Origin in Firefox. On my Android phone, instead of uBlock Origin, I use AdGuard app and Brave Browser.

 

[TairikuOkami]

Well, they can't block all ads without harming the functionality of the sites.

That depends what filters you use, I use only AdGuard DNS filter + Denylist (Google/Bing) + blocking TLDs, etc.



Some webpages are able to detect DNS blocking, but I have never had any problems with it, except for illegal streaming, which relies on ADs.



Overall I am satisfied with DNS blocking, I do not mind empty spaces, I need functionality, not bells and whistles, but I use Brave for Youtube.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

I had an old lifetime license which I only used on my phone, yesterday I downloaded AG to try on my computer seeing that UBO will be gone like the dodo soon. I rather like it, however, had a blue screen today which some research led me to believe it being a problem with an AG driver. Someone said to uncheck this setting( see below) which will fix this issue. So I will see, one more blue screen and its gone, I refuse to use anything that doesn't work perfectly on my rig.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

Brave browser is the best alternative as it's chromium with better adblocking capabilities then chrome ever had with ublock origin (it's like Firefox ublock origin)

 

[bazang]

Use Firefox. It's not the Antichrist. DOn't let the cyber news influence you. Don't become one of its minions.

Mullvad browser is actually pretty darn good and comes pre-configured for good anti-ads and security.

Just Do It. And all your problems will be solved without asking anyone to help you or having to pay a fee. Imagine that.

 

[Marko :)]

I had an old lifetime license which I only used on my phone, yesterday I downloaded AG to try on my computer seeing that UBO will be gone like the dodo soon. I rather like it, however, had a blue screen today which some research led me to believe it being a problem with an AG driver. Someone said to uncheck this setting( see below) which will fix this issue. So I will see, one more blue screen and its gone, I refuse to use anything that doesn't work perfectly on my rig.

View attachment 287652

Open Reliability Manager and see what caused the crash, you'll be able to pinpoint exact file. Check out Event Viewer as well.

Brave browser is the best alternative as it's chromium with better adblocking capabilities then chrome ever had with ublock origin (it's like Firefox ublock origin)

I liked Brave when I used it. I switched to Firefox only because I don't like their crypto-scam scheme and inability to turn it off. They keep bloating the browser, but refuse to add any options which would allow users to disable those features they don't use.

Sure, they added ability to completely disable crypto "features" through registry and group policy, but it only works on Windows and you get that annoying message "browser is managed by your organization". This also means average user won't be able to disable crypto features completely as these settings are only for advanced users and corporate environment.

Use Firefox. It's not the Antichrist. DOn't let the cyber news influence you. Don't become one of its minions.

Mullvad browser is actually pretty darn good and comes pre-configured for good anti-ads and security.

Just Do It. And all your problems will be solved without asking anyone to help you or having to pay a fee. Imagine that.

This. I don't really see the reason why are people refraining from using Firefox. Especially when you can just install a MaterialFox theme and have Firefox look exactly like Chrome. 100% of Firefox is customizable; you don't like something, just change it. Literally nothing is preventing you.

 

[TairikuOkami]

Folks are moving away from Firefox as Mozilla updates new ToS that could violate your privacy

Mozilla's updated Firefox terms grant them extensive rights over your data, including a broad license to use information for features.

mspoweruser.com

The Firefox I loved is gone - how to protect your privacy on it now

With Mozilla's recent data and privacy waffling, Firefox users need to be cautious with their data.

www.zdnet.com

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

Firefox has security issues and I definitely don't recommend using it Firefox and Chromium | Madaidan's Insecurities

 

[harlan4096]

Did You read last time edited of that page?

 

[Kongo]

Folks are moving away from Firefox as Mozilla updates new ToS that could violate your privacy

Mozilla's updated Firefox terms grant them extensive rights over your data, including a broad license to use information for features.

mspoweruser.com

The Firefox I loved is gone - how to protect your privacy on it now

With Mozilla's recent data and privacy waffling, Firefox users need to be cautious with their data.

www.zdnet.com

Firefox violates the users privacy? I doubt that browsers like Chrome, Opera or Edge do that...

 

[Marko :)]

Folks are moving away from Firefox as Mozilla updates new ToS that could violate your privacy

Mozilla's updated Firefox terms grant them extensive rights over your data, including a broad license to use information for features.

mspoweruser.com

The Firefox I loved is gone - how to protect your privacy on it now

With Mozilla's recent data and privacy waffling, Firefox users need to be cautious with their data.

www.zdnet.com

Mozilla didn't change their business model, they just changed the wording in their privacy policy and terms of use, nothing else. They had to do that because laws in some countries interpret word "sell" differently. In some countries "sell" means exchange something for money, in others "sell" means just "transferring" as well. Mozilla clarified this and changed the text again in order to clear confusion.

Beside, as I already said hundred times, Firefox is the only web browser that lets you completely in control. If you don't want to share data with Mozilla, you can completely turn off data collection in settings and about:config (just to be sure). Unlike in Chrome or Edge where you cannot completely turn off data collection.

Firefox has security issues and I definitely don't recommend using it Firefox and Chromium | Madaidan's Insecurities

This is now beyond paranoia level. If Mozilla was really so vulnerable and easy to hack, it would make a perfect target for hackers, despite small user base. We have yet to see Firefox-specific attacks.

Firefox violates the users privacy? I doubt that browsers like Chrome, Opera or Edge do that...

At least Firefox lets you disable data collection. Chrome and Edge doesn't even do that. I'm not sure about Opera, but I doubt that. Last time I used Opera, it would send every request to sitecheck2.opera.com and I never managed to stop it so I just stopped using it.

 

[Kongo]

At least Firefox lets you disable data collection. Chrome and Edge doesn't even do that. I'm not sure about Opera, but I doubt that. Last time I used Opera, it would send every request to sitecheck2.opera.com and I never managed to stop it so I just stopped using it.

Exactly. I wonder why everybody is complaining about Firefox doing one bad move while companies like Google collect user data since the beginning. I'll keep on using Firefox as I did for many years now.

 

[Marko :)]

Exactly. I wonder why everybody is complaining about Firefox doing one bad move while companies like Google collect user data since the beginning. I'll keep on using Firefox as I did for many years now.

Now... I'm not claiming Mozilla is an angel. I have thousand reasons to complain, but it's the only company which gives users options and fights for the free web. And this comes from a guy which used Chromium ever since Chrome was still in beta. Chromium used to be my browser engine of choice because it ran perfectly on any type of hardware and rendered all websites normally. But after MV3 fiasco, I went looking for alternatives and installed Firefox just to test it. Turns out, it's now real competitor to Chrome and I haven't looked back at Chromium.

 

[bjm_]

I don't really see the reason why are people refraining from using Firefox.

Can I run a Chrome extension that does not have a Firefox version on Firefox?

 

[Marko :)]

Can I run a Chrome extension that does not have a Firefox version on Firefox?

If I remember correctly, on Waterfox (which is fork of Firefox), you can.

 

[silversurfer]

Firefox has security issues and I definitely don't recommend using it Firefox and Chromium | Madaidan's Insecurities

As mentioned for several times in the past years here in the forum, The whole blog Madai... is rather more a personal opinion than based only on facts .

I could claiming also that Chromium has even more security issues, and just adding ALL links of every security update of Google Chrome from the past years,
so would that be a valid proof

This debate is always the same story, some people just don't like Mozilla as company or even Firefox as web browser for some reason(s), then those people trying to convince others never using other than Chromium-based browsers. (best choice the original Chrome and alternatively Edge).

Why not just agree for: Everyone should use whatever is the personal preference!