Does it matter? Ok to use both or not required ?
Know uBlock Origin is a little more advance. Talking about all in Firefox.
Know uBlock Origin is a little more advance. Talking about all in Firefox.
General Guidance on Combining Blockers in FirefoxDoes it matter? Ok to use both or not required ?
Know uBlock Origin is a little more advance. Talking about all in Firefox.
That's because AdGuard integrates in the system deeply, just like antivirus software does.I'd advise you against Adguard Windows. First, it does not play well with other security products (Eset, Avast, AvG, Norton and Bit defender). Second it has https filtering which breaks the security of your connections.
Not all antivirus software use https scanning. Webroot, Trend Micro, MD, Emsisoft and McAfee do not use https scanning. Calling breaking the security and encryption of your connections a side effect is an understatement.Regarding HTTPS filtering, pretty much all antivirus software has it too. Except I trust AdGuard with their HTTPS filtering more. They are the only company that is transparent what it does, how it works and mentioned all side-effects. None of the antivirus companies did that and except say "it makes you better protected".
If one decides to disable https filtering in Adguard Desktop, that would render using Adguard Desktop useless in the first place because most websites now use https.Second it has https filtering which breaks the security of your connections.
Using Adguard DNS systemwide is better in terms of security and performance. One can also use Adguard DNS CLI.In AG for Windows you can exclude individual apps from https filtering. On sites is https filtering a normal procedure for ad- and tracker blockers, regardless if it the blockers are browserextensions or desktop apps. It's the only way to control unwanted elements of a site. And of course AG for Windows can handle cosmetic filtering. Not only by filterlists, but also manual by the AG Assistent, a browserextension that's part of AG for Windows. Nevertheless, uBO is also an excellent choice, but is limited to the browser where it is installed.
For cosmetic filtering I rely on the browser built-in Adblocker such as the one included in Vivaldi. Other browsers such as Waterfox and Helium ship with UBlock OrigonOn DNS level isn't granular control possible. A site is granted or blocked. No cosmetic filtering. So it's not the best solution for adblocking. It's o.k. for blocking tracking - and malicious sites. It can be a useful addition. I use NextDNS.
Can uBlock Origin control cookies too or depends ?My vote goes for uBlock Origin.
While AdGuard for Windows does offer system-level filtering, it can't do any cosmetic filtering in programs, just block access to advertising networks domains. Exactly like how DNS works. For same reason, AdGuard extension is required in web browsers too.
If you use AdGuard/Control D DNS or any other ad blocking DNS in Windows you essentially get what AdGuard for Windows does for free. And uBlock Origin is more advanced tool that gives you way more control than what AdGuard can.
That's because AdGuard integrates in the system deeply, just like antivirus software does.
Regarding HTTPS filtering, pretty much all antivirus software has it too. Except I trust AdGuard with their HTTPS filtering more. They are the only company that is transparent what it does, how it works and mentioned all side-effects. None of the antivirus companies did that and except say "it makes you better protected".
uBlock Origin can reject cookies and hide notices, but complete control over cookies you have in your web browser.Can uBlock Origin control cookies too or depends ?