Q&A Ghostery Rules [Split Thread]

Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
52
#1
Third-party filters, yes. However, some extensions like Ghostery have their own rules. Every now and then, ghostery blocks a site/tracker that ublock origin misses, doesn't happen often but it happens. Also, if ublock origin is breaking a site completely, and there are like 1 billion scripts (this in the

red rectangle -
) on the site, and I don't have the time to turn off and on every single script until I find the ones breaking the site, I'll just press the big blue shutdown button to turn off ublock origin completely for that site so I can view it immediately when I'm in a hurry, while Ghostery still blocks the important trackers and ads, it might miss some here and there that ublock origin wouldn't, but without Ghostery, turning ublock origin off completely for a given site will allow all of its ads and trackers and so on to load, as if the fact that Ghostery also finds a script here and there on top of ublock origin wasn't a good enough reason to use it. I haven't had the time yet to test other extensions like Privacy Badger, Disconnect, Privacy Possum, Ultrablock etc. (you can find a billion of those in the chrome web store if you start searching)
 

RoboMan

Level 22
Content Creator
AV-Tester
Joined
Jun 24, 2016
Messages
1,172
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#2
You're comparing apples with pears, my mate. Ghostery wasn't born as an ad-blocker, and despite it blocks some ads it's focused on privacy, it's the Disconnect kind of extension. I do not criticize, actually I promote using it. I see no harm in using ad blocker - privacy protection, just as I recommended above (AdGuard and Disconnect). The issue begins when end-users believe that with installing uBlock + AdGuard + AdBlock they will get better results, when actually 98% of ads will be covered by one of them and the rest will just be there laying on your RAM and injecting every site, giving you a general speed slowdown.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 36
Content Creator
Trusted
AV-Tester
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
2,599
OS
Windows 8.1
Antivirus
Avast
#4
You're comparing apples with pears, my mate. Ghostery wasn't born as an ad-blocker, and despite it blocks some ads it's focused on privacy, it's the Disconnect kind of extension. I do not criticize, actually I promote using it. I see no harm in using ad blocker - privacy protection, just as I recommended above (AdGuard and Disconnect). The issue begins when end-users believe that with installing uBlock + AdGuard + AdBlock they will get better results, when actually 98% of ads will be covered by one of them and the rest will just be there laying on your RAM and injecting every site, giving you a general speed slowdown.
why combining them? 1 ublock alone is enough if you add good anti-tracking filters to it
even better than combing those 3
ghostery+disconnect now are not comparable to my ublock with customs filters. Almost nothing ublock can't block
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 36
Content Creator
Trusted
AV-Tester
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
2,599
OS
Windows 8.1
Antivirus
Avast
#6
I feel this is enough for me. Of course I can add more but I'm afraid they would slow down my browser
besides those filters I copied from below, I added hphosts ad&tracking (just for testing) or notrack filter

AdZ hosts, despite having a huge database, it's nowhere near the effectiveness of stevenblack and 1hosts (~40-50%)

What are your filters?
here is the screenshot of my current filters
https://malwaretips.com/attachments/1-png.192279/

 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
52
#7
I feel this is enough for me. Of course I can add more but I'm afraid they would slow down my browser
besides those filters I copied from below, I added hphosts ad&tracking (just for testing) or notrack filter

AdZ hosts, despite having a huge database, it's nowhere near the effectiveness of stevenblack and 1hosts


here is the screenshot of my current filters
https://malwaretips.com/attachments/1-png.192279/

here is the list of my recommended filters
Q&A - [Updated 19/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

here is the list of filters that I you SHOULD ADD:
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/2.txt => you should uncheck easylist if you want to add this
Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubird-au/Adversity/master/Adversity.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zpacman/Blockzilla/master/Blockzilla.txt
Adguard’s Annoyance List
http://www.jabcreations.com/downloads/adblock-filters.php
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/I...k-Filters-Plus/master/uBlock-Filters-Plus.txt
http://1hosts.cf/
http://1hosts.cf/addon/
Adblock Warning Removal List
optional: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubird-au/Adversity/master/Extreme-Measures.txt
uBlock filters – Experimental
uBlock filters – Privacy
That's some amateur level stuff there, BEHOOOOOOOOLD:

(All of those filters are actively being worked on and have been updated in the last week, as well as being picked (rather) carefully by me)





 

Evjl's Rain

Level 36
Content Creator
Trusted
AV-Tester
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
2,599
OS
Windows 8.1
Antivirus
Avast
#8
That's some amateur level stuff there, BEHOOOOOOOOLD:

(All of those filters are actively being worked on and have been updated in the last week, as well as being picked (rather) carefully by me)





I used to add 2.8 million filters + cosmetics (can't remember how many) just to test but I found there weren't significantly better than my current filters
it's like 90% vs 95% efficacy

2.8 million filters froze my browser. which I didn't like
It's not about how many, it's about effectiveness

For example, I tested 2.8 million filters against malwares, which blocked 11/20 while ~350k blocked the exact same number
many filters are outdated and not useful

many filters caused a lot of problems
- uBO personal filter
- customized all in one.. (something like that)
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
52
#9
I used to add 2.8 million filters + cosmetics (can't remember how many) just to test but I found there weren't significantly better than my current filters
it's like 90% vs 95% efficacy

2.8 million filters froze my browser. which I didn't like
It's not about how many, it's about effectiveness

For example, I tested 2.8 million filters against malwares, which blocked 11/20 while ~350k blocked the exact same number
many filters are outdated and not useful
I went to filterlists.com and picked only the ones that were updated in the last 1 week ( you can sort by that), while also carefully checking what those filters do and what they are for (some people "update" filters by changing a symbol or two, so the filters may be months old but they'll appear as new to filterlists.com's sorting thing). I'm pretty sure a million filters are much better than 200k for example, I don't have evidence and I haven't done tests in big samples, but what you're saying is, that because you did a test with 20 samples, which is hilariously low, that means more filters are mostly worthless, which I doubt is the case. Besides, 5% is not a small number (it's not 5%!!!). And I haven't had a performance slowdown at all, if anything it's faster cuz more filters. I do see page breakage from time to time but not often, it's not rare but it's not often either, "here and there" would be the best description to how often
 

RoboMan

Level 22
Content Creator
AV-Tester
Joined
Jun 24, 2016
Messages
1,172
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#10
That's some amateur level stuff there, BEHOOOOOOOOLD:

(All of those filters are actively being worked on and have been updated in the last week, as well as being picked (rather) carefully by me)





Hail Mary full of grace...

LOL no internet slowdown at all? I pretty much find malware/spyware filters useless. Nothing your security solution can't deal with, or in case you don't have one,, a security extension which will give, IMO, a much better result. Just my opinion here, but you can give me a better insight on malware filters, long time no using. Do they work? :)
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 36
Content Creator
Trusted
AV-Tester
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
2,599
OS
Windows 8.1
Antivirus
Avast
#11
I went to filterlists.com and picked only the ones that were updated in the last 1 week ( you can sort by that), while also carefully checking what those filters do and what they are for (some people "update" filters by changing a symbol or two, so the filters may be months old but they'll appear as new to filterlists.com's sorting thing). I'm pretty sure a million filters are much better than 200k for example, I don't have evidence and I haven't done tests in big samples, but what you're saying is, that because you did a test with 20 samples, which is hilariously low, that means more filters are mostly worthless, which I doubt is the case. Besides, 5% is not a small number (it's not 5%!!!). And I haven't had a performance slowdown at all, if anything it's faster cuz more filters. I do see page breakage from time to time but not often, it's not rare but it's not often either, "here and there" would be the best description to how often
20 samples because I spent 30 mins to extract them from malicious documents (zero to 2 day old, not from vxvault or malc0de (which are usually a few days old)
I used to use vxvault/malc0de links (40-50 live links) but I found most vendors/filters had signatures for it
I switched to extracted links and guess what, many vendors struggled

I used to do a lot of tests on adblocking, off-screen, not published on some random websites in different languages
I found those 200k filters were sufficient enough though they might miss few ads/trackers
don't forget there are many many generic rules, which don't depend on specific domains

it depends on many factors, including what websites you visit everyday and what you don't
for example, hphosts+stevenblack+1hosts+notrack+AdZ,... combined, they failed to block a lot of ads in my country while a simple hosts (<700 rules) can block almost all ads in my country

adversity+adversity extreme+adguard's english filter+blockzilla+jabcreations+... they have a lot of generic rules, that are much more effective than other filters despite being small
I felt significant lag while browsing with +600k filters. It might be less noticeable for you because your PC is probably faster than mine
 
Last edited:

Windows_Security

Level 17
Content Creator
Trusted
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
839
OS
Windows 7
#12
That's some amateur level stuff there, BEHOOOOOOOOLD:

(All of those filters are actively being worked on and have been updated in the last week, as well as being picked (rather) carefully by me)



LOL I know I am a minimalist, why not add an extension which checks the cloud for malware URL's?
 
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
556
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Comodo
#13
Would be most wise to have ublock origin ( adblocking only) + scriptsafe on as default and tweak sites you visit as manually.

its useless to have malware/phishing lists added because those are outdated compared to new threats, that most antivirus softwares like kaspersky can block in real time

Too many filters = too much pressure wich can affect into browser stability and your security/privacy in overall

Calling someone amateur because of wise tweaks is poop.
Being paranoid and overkilling setup is amateur

Ublock with default filters is enough to beat ghostery + privacy badger
 
Forgot your password?