How many people use 2 filter extensions in browser?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KGBagent47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KGBagent47

Thread author
I'm currently using the Kaspersky extension right now in Chrome but I'm considering enabling the Avira extension along side it.

My only real concern is slowdown, because Ublock is already using 30,000K +

Or is this just redundant?
 
  • Like
Reactions: shmu26, mal1 and Cats-4_Owners-2
kaerula3 said:
Yes, it's really redundant. uBlock + Kas extension already serve you well enough. If I were you, I'd also disable filters for malware/malicious URL in uBlock since Kas already covers them.
Moreover, as your concern, they could (surely for me) give bad impact on your Chrome (even PC) performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've never seen Ublock block a page using their malware filters.

The other day I stumbled upon one of those browser lockers, Chrome couldn't close the tab but for the first time it did allow me to close the application (Chrome) without forcing me to terminate it in task manager. Maybe they improved this with version 55 but it made me consider running two filter extensions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal1, Cats-4_Owners-2 and Venustus
kaspersky extension just helps kaspersky to work more properly but it doesn't block anything except trackings and banners. without the extension, the main app is still filtering. I was using chrome without the extension since the beginning because I don't feel like I need to and it caused some small conflicts with other blocking extensions

you can add avira if you want. They are working fine
 
  • Like
Reactions: shmu26, kaerula3, mal1 and 4 others
by the way, I highly recommend you to disable antibanner (disabled by default by kaspersky) because it is the cause of every problem I have with kaspersky. It caused conflicts with ublock and avira because it will try to redirect the blocked contents to another link and those 2 extensions will also do the same -> you will see the notification for extension conflict althouh it doesn't affect anything but just annoying and feel a bit vulnerable

also antibanner increases CPU usage significanly (a lot and a lot, not slight) in certain websites like facebook and heavy sites. that's why it's not enabled by default. Without antibanner, kasperksy extension is almost useless to keep
 
  • Like
Reactions: shmu26, kaerula3, mal1 and 1 other person
Ublock Origin is indeed effective, actually it blocks some possible malicious websites as I browsed.

So with your Kaspersky + Ublock Origin then definitely a good combination without any additional layer instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KGBagent47
I've used adguard with trafficlight, UO with trafficlight, UO alone, and UO with enhanced filters.
With adguard, visiting fishy sites (which open unwanted new windows) the new pages would get blocked.
With UO+Tl, those windows would open and even load the entire page.
It seemed TL wasn't doing much.
Finally I ticked almost all of the malware domain filters of UO, and it now blocks those pages.

Should I keep TL for it's phishing+anti fraud filters, I don't know if they're redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Handsome Recluse
I haven't noticed that Kaspersky+Avira+UBlock Origin makes my browser slower. I can't tell the difference
 
uBO won't block all malicious sites. I use Web-of-Trust; it does a better job that BD TrafficLight, et. al. in my terse real-world experience with clients falling for fake sites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

You may also like...