Tiamati

Level 8
Verified
OK, all you can do is wait for support. I know they have a small staff relative to the number of posts. They are quick to respond to some and not others, so they must have some sort of priority rating/system to handle all they receive.
Unfortunately, their support is a joke. I've already made a few posts there and got only 1 answer. I've been trying to use Brave for sometime now, but their lack of support + bugs with sync made me come back to chrome... For now, it's my 3th browser... after Firefox

Hey @oldschool , do you know if brave sync is still buggy?

Seems to me this is on Heimdal
Btw, Heimdal use Avira engine isn't? Someone got any reports from Avira AV?
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
From the VT report it looks like that particular website of Brave was compromised in the past. There were many detection originating from that source. Maybe this is why Heimdal was still skeptical about its safety. Since even Brave team recently talked about updating their server, I guess now they have fixed it completely and convinced Heimdal that everything is okay now so no more detection.
 
Last edited:

Nightwalker

Level 20
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Stay calm folks, it is just a false positive from a not-so good "security" vendor; the VirusTotal Report is showing files with the same name (Files Referring), it doesnt mean that specifically Brave files were detected as malware.

PS: My advise for you all is to stop using those snake oil "security" solutions, the "great" Dark Guard Layer is just using some host file in a local DNS resolver.


PS2: Heimdal staff wil obviously deny this, it would be too embarrassing.
 
Last edited:

oldschool

Level 54
Verified
Stay calm folks, it is just a false positive from a not-so good "security" vendor; the VirusTotal Report is showing files with the same name (Files Referring), it doesnt mean that specifically Brave files were detected as malware.

PS: My advise for you all is to stop using those snake oil "security" solutions, the "great" Dark Guard Layer
Finally, some sanity.

I will say Brave is buggy - most being its broken sync and rewards (apologies to users who like these features!) - but it is a good browser with a small, dedicated staff. Their forum support is challenged because of those two features. Bug reports and questions about adblocking, updating and other essential features are addressed fairly promptly.

And I will say this: Brave Community is hands down better than the M$ Edge Insider forum. The latter is full of discussions and arguments about productivity features and bloat, and woefully short on discussions of privacy features (one of its main selling points!). And their forum is so poorly designed it's laughable. Try finding specific threads or post and you will close your browser in utter exasperation.

The Brave forum is well-designed in comparison and their staff does the best it can given their staffing.
 
Last edited:

James246

Level 1
If the detection relates to APT Strain then probably only Heimdal would detect it, and if implemented by a 5 Eyes State Actor then everyone will be quiet
Either false positive or APT, if the latter it is no laughing matter, unauthorized access to a computer network is pretty serious.
People can draw their own conclusions from deafening silence, I think the Brave should comment
 

James246

Level 1
I don't know why there has been no reply... ... but I've been watching the forum much more recently and these support folks appear to be doing the best job they can. I see quite a few resolved issues for features that currently work, e.g. rewards, but have glitches for certain users.
Whatever the problem (false positive or something serious) it appears to have been silently resolved now.
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 13
Verified
@Rezjor, answer is not that complex to guess.

uBlockOrigin's scriplets and inject javascript might be considered out of (functional). scope for an adblocker. Ghostery and Disconnect won''t block first party tracking per company policy.

Brave recently has rewritten thier adblocking module. They probably developed it from third-party blocking perspective. When they wrote their new adblock module, content delivery networks started to extend their services to tracking and serving embedded advertisements. This mixing third-party content with first party content became worst when ad delivery networks started to use tricks to morph/disguise third-party content as first party.

At the moment preroll, midroll and masthead ads on Google's youtube are served as first party. So when you have designed and setup adblocking and tracking protection from a third-party perspective, your software architecture is down the drain. This hurts especially when you have optimized blocking tokens like Brave has (so it takes less time to apply filtering rules).

That is the reason Brave probably needs time to rewrite their adblocking module
 

oldschool

Level 54
Verified
@Rezjor, answer is not that complex to guess.

uBlockOrigin's scriplets and inject javascript might be considered out of (functional). scope for an adblocker. Ghostery and Disconnect won''t block first party tracking per company policy.

Brave recently has rewritten thier adblocking module. They probably developed it from third-party blocking perspective. When they wrote their new adblock module, content delivery networks started to extend their services to tracking and serving embedded advertisements. This mixing third-party content with first party content became worst when ad delivery networks started to use tricks to morph/disguise third-party content as first party.

At the moment preroll, midroll and masthead ads on Google's youtube are served as first party. So when you have designed and setup adblocking and tracking protection from a third-party perspective, your software architecture is down the drain. This hurts especially when you have optimized blocking tokens like Brave has (so it takes less time to apply filtering rules).

That is the reason Brave probably needs time to rewrite their adblocking module
I believe you are correct. Brave has 1st party CNAME tracking on their radar but no ETA yet. So many things are in flux right now I'm sure they're just trying to keep things up and running.

Edit: Patch chrome.dns.resolve to support canonical_name flag · Issue #7117 · brave/brave-browser
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 54
Verified
Content Creator
I use Brave Shields so this is a no-go for me, AFAIK.
I'm using SmartAdBlock extension and it'll allows the addition of custom filters. Since Brave itself uses many other filters from uBO/ABP/Disconnect so no point using them again. Try SmartAdBlock extension. However, it doesn't have granular controls like uBO/uMatrix but it serves its purpose well. The custom filters I added are as shown below. As for the rest of the filters in its Ad Filter List it's up to you to choose. Just make sure don't duplicate what Brave Shields already have. See filters used by Brave's Shields in the below link


1585877734116.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top