Advice Request Highest compatibility privacy extention for Chromium based browsers

[Windows_Security]

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

 

[Zero Knowledge]

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?

No it does not work like that. You can only set one dns resolver as your primary dns server at a time.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Noscript with the setting allow https on https sites in the advanced tab is quite usable with ublock origin to counter the anti-adblocks.

 

[Windows_Security]

The best setup (until now) in terms of blocking MOST ads and trackers, allowing MOST rich content (video, graphs), WITHOUT irritating "you are using an ad-blocker" PROMPT's or WALL's is

1. AVAST Online Security with
   - deselect data sharing and blocking
   - some sites use Google Analytics (e.g. to use a coupon or see a video) to release content (need to allow Google analytics).
   
   
2. Google's Analytics Opt-Out Add-on (so GA.js does not send info to Google)
   
   
3. Adblock with
   - all filters disabled/removed
   - one (1) customized filter rule
   http://*^$script,subdocument,object-subrequest,xmlhttprequest,ping,third-party

When I am browsing normally I have Adblock paused (red hand-stop hold icon changes to green thumb-up icon). When I go into incognito mode I turn on third-party blocking by unpausing Adblock.

Important: AVAST is not allowed incognito mode. When you have two extensions both filtering web pages, you could run into extension crashes or page crashes.

I have Google's safe browsing enables (with about://flags # enable-permissions-blacklist) and use a DNS with some security (Open DNS blocks phising sites, Norton phising and malware). Reason for me to choose Open DNS is because their servers are in Amsterdam, while Norton DNS servers are in UK or Germany.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

@Windows_Security Mozilla said that blocking Google-Analytics are the least likely to break sites although I remember they compared percentages and google-analytics is the most common tracker. There might be more flat breakage.
What are the bandwidth savings of Avast in comparison to other content blockers? I'm also curious how much bandwidth savings scriptblockers give in various blocking formats like block all vs block http only vs block third party only vs block third party http only and the various filterlists and filterlist combos. So far I've only seen gohrill's comparison tests of unique third party requests.

 

[Deleted member 178]

@Windows_Security Kees , use netcraft for site lookup and XSS protection

 

[Windows_Security]

@Windows_Security Mozilla said that blocking Google-Analytics are the least likely to break sites although I remember they compared percentages and google-analytics is the most common tracker. There might be more flat breakage.

Well maybe I am just unlucky. To redeem a discount coupon for free airport parking using my frequent flyer bonus points I had to enable Google-analytics for both airline (to activate coupon) and the airport (to get discount). Also on one Dutch news site (nu.nl) video's won't play when Google-Analytics is enabled. Using the Google-analytics opt-out plus enabling Google-analytics on those sites seems to do the trick (in which I have to trust Google to disable analytics marker for privacy).

Regards Kees

 

[Windows_Security]

The extension optionally traps XSS and other suspicious URLs which contain characters with no purpose other than to deceive.

Thanks @Umbra, do you have info on which characters it traps? Obviously those deceiving name patters are derived from their phising site data. Your post triggers my curiosity after some more googling I found this Netcraft post
Hackers still exploiting eBay’s stored XSS vulnerabilities in 2017 | Netcraft

 

[Windows_Security]

What are the bandwidth savings of Avast in comparison to other content blockers? I'm also curious how much bandwidth savings scriptblockers give in various blocking formats like block all vs block http only vs block third party only vs block third party http only and the various filterlists and filterlist combos. So far I've only seen gohrill's comparison tests of unique third party requests.

On the websites I visit uBlock origing with al filter lists enabled, shows on average 20% LESS DOMAINS CONNECTED. The bandwith reduction of these additional 20% domains blocked is less than 5% (4.17% when ran a test). So IMO the fractional bandwith gain does not justify the hassle and website breakage. I

To put the effectiveness of all this user based malware list into perspective. When you enable all the uBlock0 malware filter list, they may total up to a maximum of 100.000 websites to blocked. Compare these community (people) based list with the 80 million websites blocked which are determined by the AUTOMATED malware algorithme of CISCO umbrella (OPEN DNS) or Norton DNS. These user based list are only a fraction of the malware blocked by using a DNS service. That is why I posted all those malware blocking filters are useless when using NortonDNS/OpenDNS/ComodoDNS and Chrome's safe browsing with for instance the AVAST extension.

On my Asus Transformer I use NortonDNS plus uBlock Origing with an ad and tracker list I derived from various sources. You can check the increasing-hassle & reducing-benefit yourself by doing a test with my filter list (with 5271 rules) versus all filters enabled uBlock0.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Well maybe I am just unlucky. To redeem a discount coupon for free airport parking using my frequent flyer bonus points I had to enable Google-analytics for both airline (to activate coupon) and the airport (to get discount). Also on one Dutch news site (nu.nl) video's won't play when Google-Analytics is enabled. Using the Google-analytics opt-out plus enabling Google-analytics on those sites seems to do the trick (in which I have to trust Google to disable analytics marker for privacy).

Regards Kees

Maybe I'm just lucky. I rarely buy stuff online and watch videos from limited sites since most video playing sites suck. I can block Google analytics willy-nilly and everything's still normal.

On the websites I visit uBlock origing with al filter lists enabled, shows on average 20% LESS DOMAINS CONNECTED. The bandwith reduction of these additional 20% domains blocked is less than 5% (4.17% when ran a test). So IMO the fractional bandwith gain does not justify the hassle and website breakage. I

To put the effectiveness of all this user based malware list into perspective. When you enable all the uBlock0 malware filter list, they may total up to a maximum of 100.000 websites to blocked. Compare these community (people) based list with the 80 million websites blocked which are determined by the AUTOMATED malware algorithme of CISCO umbrella (OPEN DNS) or Norton DNS. These user based list are only a fraction of the malware blocked by using a DNS service. That is why I posted all those malware blocking filters are useless when using NortonDNS/OpenDNS/ComodoDNS and Chrome's safe browsing with for instance the AVAST extension.

On my Asus Transformer I use NortonDNS plus uBlock Origing with an ad and tracker list I derived from various sources. You can check the increasing-hassle & reducing-benefit yourself by doing a test with my filter list (with 5271 rules) versus all filters enabled uBlock0.

That's surprising. I found somewhere in the past about 15-20% saving with MVPS Host and 50% scriptblocking including first party. I haven't found practical bandwidth savings though like reloading or configuring script-blocking to be more usable like https only or unblock first party or both.
Why Avast in particular though, Ghostery, Disconnect, Adguard DNS+Peter Lowe's in Adguard or Easylist without element hiding+Peter Lowe's/HpHosts in uBlock/uMatrix seem to do the same thing although in here Ghostery/Avast/Englishless Adguard/Easylistless uBlock doesn't block youtube ads specific to this region.

 

[Windows_Security]

Maybe I'm just lucky. I rarely buy stuff online and watch videos from limited sites since most video playing sites suck. I can block Google analytics willy-nilly and everything's still normal.

That's surprising. I found somewhere in the past about 15-20% saving with MVPS Host and 50% scriptblocking including first party. I haven't found practical bandwidth savings though like reloading or configuring script-blocking to be more usable like https only or unblock first party or both.
Why Avast in particular though, Ghostery, Disconnect, Adguard DNS+Peter Lowe's in Adguard or Easylist without element hiding+Peter Lowe's/HpHosts in uBlock/uMatrix seem to do the same thing although in here Ghostery/Avast/Englishless Adguard/Easylistless uBlock doesn't block youtube ads specific to this region.

Ghostery does a bit better than disconnect in my test (but my guess is that these test are influenced by the websites you use to test with). Adguard and uBlock are also great, but although in numbers of connections savings might be relevant (20%), in real bandwith it hardly has impact (less than 5%), that is why I opt (with my surfing habits) opt for the added security of the AV with the most users (ergo seeing the largest share of websites). Avast is typically used a lot in the US, Europe and Brazil, so for people living in those locations the setup outlined is worth a try.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Ghostery does a bit better than disconnect in my test (but my guess is that these test are influenced by the websites you use to test with). Adguard and uBlock are also great, but although in numbers of connections savings might be relevant (20%), in real bandwith it hardly has impact (less than 5%), that is why I opt (with my surfing habits) opt for the added security of the AV with the most users (ergo seeing the largest share of websites). Avast is typically used a lot in the US, Europe and Brazil, so for people living in those locations the setup outlined is worth a try.

But people use Chrome, Firefox a lot. Filters from those would probably be good enough that any addition would be marginal.

 

[BugCode]

I only have @ (Tweaked Yandex) HTTPS everywhere + Scriptsafe & system wide Adquard ++ as always Air

 

[212eta]

You can check the increasing-hassle & reducing-benefit yourself by doing a test with my filter list (with 5271 rules) versus all filters enabled uBlock0.

Your uBlock Origin Filters List is very much appreciated, Kees!
I'm just giving it a try...

 

[brod56]

I just use tweaked uBlock Origin with several added lists for malware protection and tracker blocking, plus HTTPS Everywhere to force secure links. After trying Ghostery, myWot, Avast, Avira, TrafficLight, etc I realized this is by far the most effective combo at least for me.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

@Windows_Security Where did you get those filters?
AdBlocker Lite/Karma Blocker (Firefox only)/No-script Security Suite Lite does seem like something to consider.

 

[tonibalas]

On my tweaked Yandex i have Adguard and WebBoost.
Privacy Badger,HTTPS EveryWhere, uMatrix are nice extensions but they all slow down my browsing.
Ghostery seems to do a good job but i haven't tried it for a while.
Scriptsafe seems to be good but every time i tried an extension for handling scripts my browsing seems to be slow.
Result: if you want fast browsing while having privacy extensions installed just get a 4 core CPU
An SSD on an old laptop does help but combined with a 4 core is much better

 

[Handsome Recluse]

On my tweaked Yandex i have Adguard and WebBoost.
Privacy Badger,HTTPS EveryWhere, uMatrix are nice extensions but they all slow down my browsing.
Ghostery seems to do a good job but i haven't tried it for a while.
Scriptsafe seems to be good but every time i tried an extension for handling scripts my browsing seems to be slow.
Result: if you want fast browsing while having privacy extensions installed just get a 4 core CPU
An SSD on an old laptop does help but combined with a 4 core is much better

Do you mean Scriptsafe and uMatrix is slow from micromanagement or just slow in general?

 

[tonibalas]

Scriptsafe and NoSript Lite causes slow browsing.
About uMatrix i can't recall because i haven't used it for a long time.

 

[Windows_Security]

@Windows_Security Where did you get those filters?
AdBlocker Lite/Karma Blocker (Firefox only)/No-script Security Suite Lite does seem like something to consider.

Visit top 500 websites of Alexa, Inspect page, collect third party call's. Import list in a spreadsheet. For each row in column A do a lookup whether this third party exists in Peter Low's, Adguard Spyware, Ghoster and Electronic frontiere list when exists, add to row in column B up a row, when not drop and repeat. Filter out blanks of column B, copy remaining rows to notepad and copy to new tab. Search right for domains com, net, inf, tv, nl, org, net, nl (I am dutch) copy when match, drop when other high level domain. Copy this to my Filter

 

[Deleted member 178]

Thanks @Umbra, do you have info on which characters it traps? Obviously those deceiving name patters are derived from their phising site data.
Hackers still exploiting eBay’s stored XSS vulnerabilities in 2017 | Netcraft

I guess from their database. i like this extension, he gave a lot of details about the looked-up website.