Hot Take Firefox browser has started shipping Brave's adblock-rust engine

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

Yes, fails on aggressive with all default lists on plus thee extra lists for cookies, annyonances, and experimental.
Even adding hagezi ultimate did not help.

It was seemingly due to the site embedding its own popup code. I'm impressed that uBOL handled it dynamically.

In that case, you'd just need a custom filter that neutralizes the JavaScript. Traditional blocklists won't help with a site pushing self-hosted popups.

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

Yes, I’d also like to see how Brave Shields performs, especially on mobile browsers.
Personally, I think it’s significantly inferior to Firefox Mobile + uBo, but I could be wrong.
It would be a fair comparison because uBo Mobile doesn’t have a log.

When I was teaching, I used to do a lot of these comparisons with my students, who obviously used various browsers, so the scope of the tests was quite broad.

 

[LinuxFan58]

@Miravi and @Sampei.Nihira

Latest Brave Shields uses the same rule storage mechanism as Chrome's DNR rules, but I fon't know whether Firefox facilitates flatbuffer indexing. I thought uBo uses binary tree with baskets for super efficient application of rules, this is nearly as fast as flatbuffer indexing.

I noticed that only using Kees1958 as Privacy filter in Brave custom rules (which are only 2200 ABP domains) my Speedometer 3.1 drops, probably because the build in (static) filters are stored as flatbuffer and the (dynamic) user rules as json (which is slower).

Yes, I’d also like to see how Brave Shields performs, especially on mobile browsers.
Personally, I think it’s significantly inferior to Firefox Mobile + uBo, but I could be wrong.

Brave works great in Android, you just need to use the standard filters (I think,.but maybe wrong, that dynamic rules are stored as json and static rules as flatbuffer, which makes a difference in performance)

 

[Marko :)]

For piracy sites, uBOL is mandatory; even Brave shield and Ghostery cannot stop popup windows with ads; could be stopped in Brave by enabliing blocking scripts, but most probably will break the site.

I'm on Firefox so I use combination of DNS + Firefox ETP—Strict and uBlock Origin (normal version). No ads can pass this combination.

 

[Marko :)]

With 3 filter lists and approximately 138,000 rules removed from uBo and added to Firefox, I get the following results:

• The Speedometer 3.1 test slows down noticeably.
• DOMContentLoaded is slightly faster.

So I prefer to use uBo.

I don't mind waiting few milliseconds more if it means surfing the web without ads. Ad blocking is one thing I'm not willing to compromise at all hence why I switched to Firefox in the first place.

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

uBO has pushed the boundaries of perfect engineering for a browser extension. It keeps everything tightly optimized in the face of "extension taxes"—notably JavaScript and garbage collection. It's also the most flexible content filter.

Brave's adblocker is just a little less powerful than uBO, but the efficiency can't be beat. Its CPU and memory usage are virtually non-existent. While uBO's compressed trie structure for filters is legendary, it still can't rival the zero-load speed of Flatbuffers.

Firefox + uBO is much less battery efficient on Android. Brave already gets a huge victory by being Chromium—it's engineered to work as efficiently as possible on Android. Mobile chipset engineering teams directly contribute to Chromium so that it runs amazing.

Firefox has had to be radically re-engineered to make it passably efficient and optimized on Android, and it's still an uphill battle.

Combine Firefox's disadvantages with the battery drain of a full-fledged desktop extension like uBO, and Brave easily comes out the champion for efficiency. Its adblocker still has ~90-95% of the power of uBO.

 

[Parkinsond]

uBlock Origin (normal version)

Both uBOL and uBO are effecient with piracy sites, but uBOL has an advantage of not being detected by the website as the case with uBO; when detected, the page refuse to load with note about disabling adblocker.

 

[LinuxFan58]

uBO has pushed the boundaries of perfect engineering for a browser extension. It keep everything tightly optimized in the face of "extension taxes"—notably JavaScript and garbage collection. It's also the most flexible content filter.

Brave's adblocker is just a little less powerful than uBO, but the efficiency can't be beat. Its CPU and memory usage are virtually non-existent. While uBO's compressed trie structure for filters is legendary, it still can't rival the zero-load speed of Flatbuffers.

Firefox + uBO is much less battery efficient on Android. Brave already gets a huge victory by being Chromium—it's engineered to work as efficiently as possible on Android. Mobile chipset engineers directly contribute to Chromium so that it runs amazing.

Firefox has had to be radically re-engineered to make it passably efficient and optimized on Android, and it's still an uphill battle.

Combine Firefox's disadvantages with the battery drain of a full-fledged desktop extension like uBO, and Brave easily comes out the champion for efficiency. Its adblocker still has ~90-95% of the power of uBO.

Thanks for conforming and explaining my layman's guestimate about flatbuffer indexing

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

People who use adblockers to remove ads are content with that.

My ad blocker needs to remove ads, nearly all trackers, all JavaScript fingerprinting, all consent cookies, and all age verification pop-ups,to name just a few of the nuisances that get in the way of a relaxing browsing experience.
But its far more important task is to “clean up” websites by removing any malicious scripts or frames.

 

[Marko :)]

Both uBOL and uBO are effecient with piracy sites, but uBOL has an advantage of not being detected by the website as the case with uBO; when detected, the page refuse to load with note about disabling adblocker.

uBOL blocks less though. And the only reason why websites don't detect it is because it comes with warning lists baked in. You can add the same filter to normal uBO and it won't be detected by websites. Though I rarely get any detections; maybe once a year.

 

[Parkinsond]

uBOL blocks less though. And the only reason why websites don't detect it is because it comes with warning lists baked in. You can add the same filter to normal uBO and it won't be detected by websites. Though I rarely get any detections; maybe once a year.

Do you have the url of such warning lists to try adding to Brave shield?

Added this list, but did not work.

https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/abp-filters-anti-cv.txt

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

According to the issue on Mozilla's Bugzilla tracker, which was updated just three hours ago, the "prototype rich content blocking engine" (2013888) is directly related to a renewed issue to "add a built-in adblocker" (1638808). This update was submitted by Daniel Veditz, Security Lead at Mozilla.

Yep, Mozilla is officially tracking the inclusion of a full-blown adblocker in Firefox.

 

[Marko :)]

Do you have the url of such warning lists to try adding to Brave shield?

Added this list, but did not work.

https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/abp-filters-anti-cv.txt

The filter you tried to add is for websites that try to circumvent your ad blocker. This one is for "disable ad block" warnings: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt

Btw majority of those websites are handled by Fanboy's and AdGuard Annoyances list too.

 

[Parkinsond]

The filter you tried to add is for websites that try to circumvent your ad blocker. This one is for "disable ad block" warnings: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt

Btw majority of those websites are handled by Fanboy's and AdGuard Annoyances list too.

Still not working

 

[Marko :)]

Still not working

Maybe Brave's ad block isn't compatible with these lists? Can you send me the URLs of the sites detecting ad blocker so I could check if I get the same on Firefox and regular uBlock Origin?

 

[Parkinsond]

Maybe Brave's ad block isn't compatible with these lists? Can you send me the URLs of the sites detecting ad blocker so I could check if I get the same on Firefox and regular uBlock Origin?

There are two notices, not only one.
The higher is stating Brave is not a supported browser, asking to use Chrome or Firefox.
The lower stating I have to turn off adblocker, which of course does not solve the problem; I get the lower one with uBO (old) and Ghostery too.

 

[Jan Willy]

Also Firefox on Android has the privacy.trackingprotection.content settings. Perhaps for testing, but somehow they seem to take it serious.
Btw, to access about:config (on Android) you have to use the link chrome://geckoview/content/config.xhtml

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

According to the issue on Mozilla's Bugzilla tracker, which was updated just three hours ago, the "prototype rich content blocking engine" (2013888) is directly related to a renewed issue to "add a built-in adblocker" (1638808). This update was submitted by Daniel Veditz, Security Lead at Mozilla.

Yep, Mozilla is officially tracking the inclusion of a full-blown adblocker in Firefox.

At least in this testing phase, its performance in the Speedometer 3.1 test is slower than when using Firefox + uBo.
I repeated my test today.