Advice Request Highest compatibility privacy extention for Chromium based browsers

Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Windows_Security

Level 24
Thread author
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,298
High,

With compatibility I mean how well does the privacy extension does it job in blocking trackers (and ads), while not limiting the browsing experience by showing content (not running into adblocker pop-ups or not playing video content).

This is the top three I found, but I would love to hear other suggestions (backed up by your personal positive experience).


1. Privacy badger
Maybe Privacy Badger does a great job and I am to much brainwashed with adservers tracking you all the time FUD stories. In my testing Privacy Badger offers the highest compatibility level, but it also 'feels' as though it blocks near to zero trackers. So although it is the extension with best compatibility it also feels as the option with the least blocking capability.

2. Combo of Ghostery and Google analytics opt-out
To much websites block their video content when Google analystics is blocked (which is blocked by Ghostery). So by allowing Google analytics and installingg Google analytics opt-out (from Google), you obtain great compatibility while privacy is good also. Ghostery's questionable connections also make sure it is really geared towards average users and does a great job when taking both compatibility and privacy into account.

3. uBlock origin
uBlock has an experimental filter in which it redirects Google analytics requests. This redirect option bypasses most of the website which use Google analytics to show or hide video content. uBlock0 has an unbreak filter which corrects some site breakage due to filters blocking to much. By using the filters below the 'adblock wall' pop-ups are kept to a minimum. The best functionality/compatibility combination of filters are (deselect all others and select only the ones below):
1. Disconnect's malvertising filters (contain's Peter's Low lists)
2. Adguard's privacy list (you have to add it yourself, it contains a sanitized easylist privacy list)
3. uBlock's own unbreak and experimental list

Note: I always enable Google's safe browsing and this simply makes all community maintained malware lists redundant (the only extra they have is from 'dead wood' old entries)

Thanks in advance for your suggestions
 
Last edited:

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 17, 2016
1,242
Blocking third party cookies seem to slow down the heuristics of Privacy Badger considerably although how many it blocks is still significantly smaller than the others. Including others also slow down its heuristics.
Maybe I could just be visiting only a few websites that time since I was too busy testing stuff to browse and read numerous sites. You could also just block sites manually in Privacy Badger since some stuff might not be needed anyway and you can just disable them.
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 17, 2016
1,242
@all thanks,

The options suggested are all good, but they impact the web experience because video content is blocked also. I was asking the question, because most "adblock, noscript" also block 'content' that people want to see. I should have made it clear that I am testing what option works best for average Joe/Jane pc user, not the provacy/security educated websurfer which visits MalwareTips forum.

At the moment option 2 provides less hassle of web content not being displayed while protecting privacy (so I have that on my wife's laptop). It is nicely explained on the website Ozone posted above to check adblocker detection (why allowing google analytics + google's opt-out shows all content in 95% of the websites).

View attachment 133726
What about blocking only 3rd-party frames in uBlock Origin?
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 17, 2016
1,242
Last edited:

woodrowbone

Level 10
Verified
Dec 24, 2011
480
While on the Adblock subject, I was trying uBlock Orgin, but had problems with it as it competes with both Avast Security Online and Avira Browser Safety plugin.
Both Avast and Avira crashes from time to time, does anyone know if they share any commons lists or servers with uBlock?
I did not use Avast and Avira plugin at the same time as they also do not sit well together.

/W
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk41

ozone

Level 3
Verified
Jan 17, 2017
97
While on the Adblock subject, I was trying uBlock Orgin, but had problems with it as it competes with both Avast Security Online and Avira Browser Safety plugin.
Both Avast and Avira crashes from time to time, does anyone know if they share any commons lists or servers with uBlock?
I did not use Avast and Avira plugin at the same time as they also do not sit well together.

/W

haven't used Avira Browser Safety, but it has similar functions as Avast Security Online,
so I would recommend you to disable blocking functions for both extensions (use them only as site adviser), and use uBO as main blocker


btw filters against ransomware
Blocklist | Ransomware Tracker
 

woodrowbone

Level 10
Verified
Dec 24, 2011
480
Thx ozone!
I will try that, I feel a bit stupid that I did not think of that myself.
I just moved from Adguard, and there were no problem with that combo.

/W
 

HarborFront

Level 71
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,043
While on the Adblock subject, I was trying uBlock Orgin, but had problems with it as it competes with both Avast Security Online and Avira Browser Safety plugin.
Both Avast and Avira crashes from time to time, does anyone know if they share any commons lists or servers with uBlock?
I did not use Avast and Avira plugin at the same time as they also do not sit well together.

/W
Avira Browser Safety works well with uBlock Origin in my system. Yes, they do compete especially for trackers. In fact, uBlock Origin is more aggressive due to its large number of filters. But if you start to test for malicious URLs and Phishing websites (like at malc0de.net, vxvault.net etc) you'll see the difference in both.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: woodrowbone

Windows_Security

Level 24
Thread author
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,298
URL blocking is a numbers game, so you probably best of by using Chrome Safe browsing (market leader most used browser), Avast safe browsing extension (market leader of AV with most active users) and Norton ConnectSafe DNS service (being part of Symantec and Symantec being a member of the threat alliance, the largest corporate oriented URL/DNS exchange in the world).

That is why I don't bother to use all those extra filters. Most malware URL's are only active for a few hours, so the extra safety you think those filters provide is 99,99% likely to be dead wood. I once challenged GorHill with those 'useless' community based lists and he confirmed that with his own tests he did not measure much additional blocking when he used all the lists versus Google Safe Browsing only. Imagine how useless these extra lists are when you add the number of users/endpoints of Avast and the Threat alliance to what Google sees.

But when it feels good, ignore above post and be happy camper with all these community based dead wood lists :p
 
Last edited:

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 17, 2016
1,242
@Windows_Security But are URL blocking a suitable efficient replacement for antivirus. Maybe combined with something else just as easy?
--From Wilderssecurity "A test of SmartScreen browser implementation alone that showed that when bombarded with 220918 malicious samples, SmartScreen blocked 99% and never allowed any of those to enter the system."
Same chances as the ones in AV-comparatives but these samples might be older and therefore comparing to av-comparatives data, is actually less effective. But if av-comparatives can find urls to find that 97-99% of the malware were already blocked by antivirus, Microsoft/Google/Avast should just or more competently be able to do so, right? Maybe there are other threats web blocking doesn't cover.
 

HarborFront

Level 71
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,043
URL blocking is a numbers game, so you probably best of by using Chrome Safe browsing (market leader most used browser), Avast safe browsing extension (market leader of AV with most active users) and Norton ConnectSafe DNS service (being part of Symantec and Symantec being a member of the threat alliance, the largest corporate oriented URL/DNS exchange in the world).

That is why I don't bother to use all those extra filters. Most malware URL's are only active for a few hours, so the extra safety you think those filters provide is 99,99% likely to be dead wood. I once challenged GorHill with those 'useless' community based lists and he confirmed that with his own tests he did not measure much additional blocking when he used all the lists versus Google Safe Browsing only. Imagine how useless these extra lists are when you add the number of users/endpoints of Avast and the Threat alliance to what Google sees.

But when it feels good, ignore above post and be happy camper with all these community based dead wood lists :p
So will I be getting the best of 3 worlds if I have Simple DNSCrypt (with a server supporting encryption and DNSSEC validation) and Norton ConnectSafe DNS which provides protection against malicious and phishing sites?

All I need is to set in Windows is the Preferred DNS server as 127.0.0.1 and the Alternative DNS server as 199.85.126.10. Or the other way round? Am I right?

Thanks


FYI, I carried out tests at malc0de.net and vxvault.net with Norton ConnectSafe (disabling my other browser extensions like uBlock Origin, BitDefender TrafficLight, Web Defender and Avira Browser Safety) and found that it performs better for the former. With my extensions enabled, for the latter, they can detect and block some sites which Norton ConnectSafe failed to.

Overall, I'll just treat Norton SafeConnect as another extension since not even it and Google Safe Browsing can block all malicious and phishing sites.
 
Last edited:

Zero Knowledge

Level 20
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Dec 2, 2016
842
HarborFront do not use SimpleDnsCrypt & NortonDNS at the same time. Incompatible. You can not use DNsCrypt & Norton together at the same time. DnsCrypt encrypts your dns settings so no one can see your dns requests including your ISP. NotonDns does not encrypt your dns, Norton can see every one of your dns request and most likely collects and stores the logs of every dns request you have made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk41

HarborFront

Level 71
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
6,043
HarborFront do not use SimpleDnsCrypt & NortonDNS at the same time. Incompatible. You can not use DNsCrypt & Norton together at the same time. DnsCrypt encrypts your dns settings so no one can see your dns requests including your ISP. NotonDns does not encrypt your dns, Norton can see every one of your dns request and most likely collects and stores the logs of every dns request you have made.
If DNSCrypt comes first (set as Preferred) and Norton ConnectSafe DNS later (set as Alternative) would Norton SafeConnect sees my requests as encrypted or non-encrypted? What if I reverse the settings? If the requests are encrypted then they don't matter, right?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top