Best anti-malvertising programs and extensions?

[AlphaBeta]

Thanks AlphaBeta But if both are running there will not be any conflict or issue ?

Nope. There will be no conflicts although I had to white-list MalwareTips on adguard because it blocked me from replying to posts here.

 

[JB007]

Nope. There will be no conflicts although I had to white-list MalwareTips on adguard because it blocked me from replying to posts here.

Are you joking ?

 

[MalwareTypes]

The second segment of my statement still stands, adding too many filters can affect browsing performance.

With uBlock Origin the difference is negligible...

 

[Logethica]

Regarding uBlock Origin....
I currently have 667,900 network filters ＋ 98,884 cosmetic filters....(Because I'm a Lunatic)
There is a high probability that many of them are pointless,either through being way out of date or being better suited to inclusion in a hosts file...
Surprisingly though I have detected no REAL slow down (maybe 0.25 Seconds perhaps) in browser performance as a result of having this many,so have kept them.

Because my list is so large I have only included my "Custom Filters" below (Of which there are 60)

Spoiler: My uBlock Origin Custom Filters

• http://optimate.dl.sourceforge.net/project/adzhosts/HOSTS.txt‎ : 30,567 used out of 121,061
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/corporations/microsoft/all‎ : 705 used out of 718
• http://hosts-file.net/emd.txt‎ : 114,671 used out of 121,215
• https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_DOMBL.txt‎ : 89 used out of 195
• https://gist.githubusercontent.com/BBcan177/4a8bf37c131be4803cb2/raw‎ : 14,274 used out of 14,794
• http://phishing.mailscanner.info/phishing.bad.sites.conf‎ : 14,539 used out of 16,132
• https://hosts.herndl.org/hosts.txt‎ : 36,011 used out of 90,163
• http://rickrolldb.com/ricklist.txt‎ : 302 used out of 302
• https://www.threatcrowd.org/feeds/domains.txt‎ : 3,241 used out of 3,786
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zant95/hosts/master/hosts‎ : 140 used out of 224
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nabble/semalt-blocker/master/domains/blocked‎ : 2,172 used out of 2,183
• http://security-research.dyndns.org/pub/malware-feeds/ponmocup-infected-domains-CIF-latest.txt‎ : 292 used out of 292
• http://hosts-file.net/fsa.txt‎ : 77,476 used out of 77,962
• https://palevotracker.abuse.ch/blocklists.php?download=domainblocklist‎ : 5 used out of 14
• http://hosts-file.net/grm.txt‎ : 599 used out of 599
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/desbma/referer-spam-domains-blacklist/master/spammers.txt‎ : 32 used out of 1,698
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts‎ : 124 used out of 27,091
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lewisje/jansal/master/adblock/hosts‎ : 1,404 used out of 1,404
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/quidsup/notrack/master/trackers.txt‎ : 9,582 used out of 10,116
• http://hosts-file.net/hfs.txt‎ : 554 used out of 561
• https://gist.githubusercontent.com/10se1ucgo/fcb774d781a66ea9d31f/raw/f8ba0bca0f96390af1a613258c952b099942c3ee/ips+domains.txt‎ : 12 used out of 117
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CHEF-KOCH/NSABlocklist/master/HOSTS.txt‎ : 7,831 used out of 7,843
• http://hosts-file.net/hjk.txt‎ : 58 used out of 74
• http://hosts-file.net/mmt.txt‎ : 5,221 used out of 5,511
• http://hosts-file.net/pha.txt‎ : 20,992 used out of 21,099
• http://hosts-file.net/psh.txt‎ : 92,351 used out of 99,721
• http://adblock.gjtech.net/?format=unix-hosts‎ : 220 used out of 660
• http://vxvault.net//URL_List.php‎ : 104 used out of 104
• https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_URLBL.txt‎ : 1,079 used out of 1,082
• http://osint.bambenekconsulting.com/feeds/c2-dommasterlist.txt‎ : 343 used out of 343
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/corporations/facebook/all‎ : 880 used out of 881
• https://openphish.com/feed.txt‎ : 7,242 used out of 7,326
• http://malwareurls.joxeankoret.com/grayarea.txt‎ : 1,506 used out of 1,506
• http://malwareurls.joxeankoret.com/normal.txt‎ : 510 used out of 521
• http://www.malekal.com/HOSTS_filtre/HOSTS.txt‎ : 8 used out of 677
• http://secure.mayhemiclabs.com/malhosts/malhosts.txt‎ : 2,268 used out of 2,268
• http://www.hostsfile.org/Downloads/hosts.txt‎ : 8,877 used out of 24,057
• http://www.joewein.net/dl/bl/dom-bl.txt‎ : 1,907 used out of 1,907
• http://www.jabcreations.com/downloads/adblock-filters.php‎ : 604 used out of 623
• http://hosts-file.net/exp.txt‎ : 17,218 used out of 17,284
• Adguard Annoyances Filter‎ : 1,384 used out of 3,011
• Adguard English Filter.‎ : 2,817 used out of 68,262
• Adguard Mobile Ads Filter‎ : 386 used out of 851
• Adguard Social Media Filter‎ : 1,592 used out of 2,245
• Adguard Spyware Filter‎ : 896 used out of 3,864
• Adware filters‎ : 158 used out of 176
• AntiPubWeb‎ : 5,269 used out of 5,384
• Block all well known privacy trackers‎ : 11,444 used out of 20,817
• Block-EU-Cookie-#####-List‎ : 389 used out of 1,131
• Fanboy's Anti-thirdparty Fonts‎ : 38 used out of 38
• Fanboy's Cookiemonster List‎ : 14 used out of 2,441
• Filters by hant0508‎ : 630 used out of 645
• Frightener+Facekill‎ : 150 used out of 170
• I don't care about cookies‎ : 7,412 used out of 7,524
• International List‎ : 381 used out of 406
• piperun's iplogger filter‎ : 50 used out of 53
• Privacy filters‎ : 60 used out of 62
• RU AdList: Counters‎ : 357 used out of 576
• uBlock Filters +‎ : 516 used out of 564
• Youtube: Pure Video Experience‎ : 19 used out of 21

 

[AlphaBeta]

Are you joking ?

Definitely not. The reply function was definitely blocked by adguard for some reason.

 

[JB007]

Definitely not. The reply function was definitely blocked by adguard for some reason.

Do you think that using µBlock Origin + Adguard Windows could be to improve filtering ?

 

[Ink]

With uBlock Origin the difference is negligible...

Check the help pages on AdBlock Plus, or even uBlock Origin.

Of course, the more filters enabled, the higher the memory footprint. Yet, even after adding Fanboy's two extra lists, hpHosts’s Ad and tracking servers, uBlock Origin still has a lower memory footprint than other very popular blockers out there.

Also, be aware that selecting some of these extra lists may lead to higher likelihood of web site breakage -- especially those lists which are normally used as hosts file.

 

[conceptualclarity]

Thanks AlphaBeta But if both are running there will not be any conflict or issue ?

It's a good question. I have reasons for often having two browsers open at once. My Maxthon is no good for downloading, and my Firefox is no good for print preview.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Do you think that using µBlock Origin + Adguard Windows could be to improve filtering ?

I think they don't improve anything. They just play with the same filters (if you add all common Adguard filters into ublock)
I added some adguard filter lists into ublock + some more lists. I don't see any difference but ublock feels lighter and faster

I dont need system-wide adblocker so adguard is no need for me. If I want I can add a few common adservers into my hosts file to block

 

[hjlbx]

• Adguard
• uBlock Origin
• uMatrix

Each one is different from the other, but they share commonalities of function. uBlock Origin and uMatrix give the user much more control over javascript within the browser.

For typical day-to-day computing, all three provide a decent base-line protection.

If your looking for absolute protection provided by an adblocker or browser add-on, then it just ain't possible at default settings. For absolute protection it would involve either uBlock Origin or uMatrix - and a whole lot of manual javascript analysis and blocking along with hardening of the browser. You will spend a ton of time configuring uBlock Origin or uMatrix for maximum protection - plus it will fundamentally change your browsing experience in ways you will probably find unacceptable.

For ease-of-use, Adguard has the edge - because it is essentially set-and-forget. uBlock Origin is a balance between Adguard and uMatrix - but you can do a lot of manual tweaking on a URL basis. uMatrix is all about manual configuration.

 

[Tani]

You guys were talking about sandboxing browsers in this thread, have read before as well, does it clears cookies & other information as well once you exit sandbox?

 

[hjlbx]

You guys were talking about sandboxing browsers in this thread, have read before as well, does it clears cookies & other information as well once you exit sandbox?

Depends upon sandbox settings\configuration. Some users permit cookies, favorites, etc to be saved to real system -- for their convenience.

 

[Kardo Kristal]

Definitely not. The reply function was definitely blocked by adguard for some reason.

@AlphaBeta Seems to be conflict between XenForo software and Adblock software.

Found similar issue here (forum based on XenForo).

Regards,
Kardo

 

[Deleted member 178]

Using Adguard (the soft) and don't have any issue with MT.

 

[MalwareTypes]

Check the help pages on AdBlock Plus, or even uBlock Origin.

Once again, the difference is negligible with uBlock Origin. The problem gets to be a problem with AdBlock Plus because of the way it handles the lists. And depending on the type of hardware you're running could also be no problem.

It's funny you bring out the wiki pages of uBlock when we also have this: uBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

 

[JB007]

Using Adguard (the soft) and don't have any issue with MT.

Hello,
I'm trying Adguard (soft) free (15 days) trial and I can also post a reply on MT

 

[JB007]

Hello,
I'm trying Adguard (soft) free (15 days) trial.
Can someone explain to me what is "stealth mode" ?
Is it worth it to enable it ?
Thanks.

 

[Ink]

Once again, the difference is negligible with uBlock Origin. The problem gets to be a problem with AdBlock Plus because of the way it handles the lists. And depending on the type of hardware you're running could also be no problem.

It's funny you bring out the wiki pages of uBlock when we also have this: uBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

I know the efficiency of uBlock, as I have tested it before - probably about a year ago. I was stating what was written from their Description. No need to be hostile.

 

[MalwareTypes]

I know the efficiency of uBlock, as I have tested it before - probably about a year ago. I was stating what was written from their Description. No need to be hostile.

It sucks that my post got interpreted as hostile, as I never intended it as such.

Anyway, this is more interesting: Firefox version: benchmarking memory footprint · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

Also, it's funny that the text you quoted is not present in the description in the GitHub page.

 

[jamescv7]

Hello,
I'm trying Adguard (soft) free (15 days) trial.
Can someone explain to me what is "stealth mode" ?
Is it worth it to enable it ?
Thanks.

The major difference between Stealth Mode and popular blockers like ABP, Adguard, Ghostery and others, is that it takes a completely different approach to achieving online privacy. It doesn’t physically block all the trackers. Instead, Stealth Mode simply prevents them from collecting any information. This turns into an advantage, because since all cookies and ETags are being blocked, even if a tracker has not been added to the database yet, it still won’t be able to get any information, making Stealth Mode a more reliable solution.

Source