Best Chrome Security Extensions?
- Thread starter RXZ6Q
- Start date
- Jun 14, 2015
- 857
There's no potential for conflict here.
That's like saying a foam filter "conflicts" with a fiberglass filter.
If one extension blocks a thing, then the subsequent extensions won't get that thing, let alone try to act on it.
The extensions listed, however, perform different functions independently, with uBlock being the filter:
WoT: reputation ratings
Netcraft: site report and ratings
HTTPS Everywhere: protocol
Metadefender: auto-virus-total-type-lookup for downloads
OpenDNS: DNS lookup
I haven't had any issues.
Where is the potential for conflict?
that's why I prefer ublock although it obviously uses more RAM, probably more functional and it's able to block more contentsThere are 70 filters in browser extension which you can activate. If you want some filters to be added to Adguard, you can ask staff on Adguard forum and they will add them. I asked them for one filter and they had added it in next update. Also, you can add filters from web if you want but they will be added to user filter.
there are 70 filters but I don't use most of them and I use a lot of filters which are out of the list. It's not convenient to ask the dev to add some filters all the time
ublock can be used to block third-party fonts, frames, scripts (not everyone uses, I don't use them), install ublock origin extra to block more stuffs which are not blocked by the main addon...What do you mean?
I'm also not sure that adguard support hosts format (127.0.0.1 abc.xyz). I saw some filters in the list but still not sure if it's fully supported
ublock can also sync or export the current settings to the cloud, not sure if adguard has
If adguard can be fully customizable like ublock, can freely add/remove filters in 1 click (updatable, not just add to the user filters and never get updates) => I will be the first one to switch
Last edited:
- Jan 6, 2017
- 835
Nice joke with the "no potential for conflict here"
Just try HTTPS Everywhere with Ublock0 with Avira BS, leave it for an hour and open random sites. Also close and open Chrome. Then you will see up right in the corner something interesting.
- Aug 12, 2015
- 1,315
I don't see the point of blocking 3rd party fonts and frames because it can break websites. It could make more harm than good. Besides that, fonts don't track and you can simply block it (just enter fonts.googleapis.com/* to user filter and that should block all Google Fonts). When you say "install ublock origin extra to block more", that's like I say install Adguard for PC to block more ads. I'm talking about one extension only.
Adguard may not support hosts file format, but you can customize it yourself to make it work with Adguard. It's simple and easy - see this. And again, I don't see the point of using hosts file to block ads because ad networks and scripts are already in filters.
ublock origin extra is a tiny extension to strengthen ublock, doesn't have an UI, which is not a desktop app like adguardI don't see the point of blocking 3rd party fonts and frames because it can break websites. It could make more harm than good. Besides that, fonts don't track and you can simply block it (just enter fonts.googleapis.com/* to user filter and that should block all Google Fonts). When you say "install ublock origin extra to block more", that's like I say install Adguard for PC to block more ads. I'm talking about one extension only.
Adguard may not support hosts file format, but you can customize it yourself to make it work with Adguard. It's simple and easy - see this. And again, I don't see the point of using hosts file to block ads because ad networks and scripts are already in filters.
I really need the hosts format support because I want to add hphosts emd (malware) and some ransomware tracker lists + other malware hosts. again, it's not convenient to convert, at least for me. also I tried to add some large hosts to adguard extension and it just completely froze and unusable, a year ago
I don't just simply use ublock to block ads, I want to block malwares, phishings and exploits too by using hphosts filters
yes, adguard is enough and suitable for you. I can agree and you are happy with it so no need to change
- Nov 17, 2016
- 1,242
More efficiency, less usability
They can track you that way. Don't know if they do though.
Might as well switch off the Internet, save yourself a fortune, and buy a new car.
- Jun 14, 2015
- 857
It's not a joke; I've been using this for a long time. Your problem would be with Avira then, since I don't use that one.Nice joke with the "no potential for conflict here"
Just try HTTPS Everywhere with Ublock0 with Avira BS, leave it for an hour and open random sites. Also close and open Chrome. Then you will see up right in the corner something interesting.
My wife uses this also and she probably has more tabs open at one time than most users have in a lifetime.
you haven't had any problem I can understand because most of your extensions don't have a "block/redirect" function, perhaps netraft has. 1 extension with block function will never cause any conflict. I have never seen WOT blocking anything even with very malicious links and obvious phishings. It just notified me that this guy or that guy was unsafe. WOT protection is probably lacking against direct links to malwares (.exe). The only good and reputable extension which can stop this is avira, so far that I knowIt's not a joke; I've been using this for a long time. Your problem would be with Avira then, since I don't use that one.
My wife uses this also and she probably has more tabs open at one time than most users have in a lifetime.
- Jun 14, 2015
- 857
That's its job: to warn, not to block.
That's not WoT's job; that's why I have Metadefender installed--that's it's job.
Avira neither blocked nor warned about phishing sites my clients fell for; WoT did. I am surprised uBlock and Google did not.
I don't know how much more clear I can make this: different tools for different functions. You can't fault a Philips screwdriver for not doing a good job hammering nails...
I won't touch WOT even with a pole...biased reputation to the core.
- Aug 12, 2015
- 1,315
Google Fonts are made with CSS. CSS can't track users because that isn't script and it contains only info how should elements look on page. If you block any CSS file, website will not look the same. Everything would be messed up.
Last edited:
- Oct 1, 2015
- 183
I use uBlock Origin with HTTPS Everywhere and Zenmate, and I don't have any extension conflict. The only conflict arose between uBlock Origin and Avira Browser Safety (which I removed). When I Googled this issue, I found many results about conflicts between uBlock Origin vs. Disconnect and Ghostery, which I don't use either at the moment.
@Umbra so your only objection to WOT is their "biased reputation"? Well in fact I don't mind their "wisdom of the crowds". My main issue with WOT was their privacy practices 'Web Of Trust' Browser Extension Cannot Be Trusted
@Umbra so your only objection to WOT is their "biased reputation"? Well in fact I don't mind their "wisdom of the crowds"
. My main issue with WOT was their privacy practices 'Web Of Trust' Browser Extension Cannot Be TrustedNot just that but gold members (or something like that) decides of the rates and are biased.@Umbra so your only objection to WOT is their "biased reputation"? Well in fact I don't mind their "wisdom of the crowds"
- Aug 18, 2016
- 561
- Jun 14, 2015
- 857
Similar threads
