New Update Need testers for the new V5.0 of uBol-stripped which has a new feature called Privacy Inspector

Add-on/Extension Page
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ubol-stripped/femdnbckdgobaelpmbbajpidneljkjaa?pli=1
oldschool said:
Not sure I'm a fan of this feature. While your explanation is very good, it assumes that users will take a "deep dive" into the rationale behind the functionality. I have my doubts about most users.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback, I thought it is only 1 click (so not a deep dive) to make average users aware of the websites (fingerprinting them) which they frequently visit but not login. This is a typical perception blind spot. As a sales (I was sales director) who also wanted to understand digital marketing, I thought people need fingerprint protection on websites they often visit but never or occassionally log in. Now you tell me who cares, you are right :)

As a fameous Dutch soccer player said (Johan Cruyff) it is easy to see when you see (understand) it, not realizing most people are not aware of it (I thought Privacy Inspector was a killer feature :cool: ). but who cares about things they are not aware of: nobody 🤣 (I feel like a dancing fool with one leg shorter than the other ;))

It took me a week to squeze the best out of AdGuard Mv3 and uBO-lite to make Privacy Inspector working.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thanks
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge, Jan Willy and 1 other person
LinuxFan58 said:
It took me a week to squeze the best out of AdGuard Mv3 and uBO-lite to make Privacy Inspector working.
Click to expand...
You could make it simpler to let show a popup with the warning fingerprinting detected, do you want to block it, yes or no (is the only user action needed). Or will this take another week?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento
Jan Willy said:
There is also on Wilders a topic opened about uBol-stripped.
Click to expand...
Yes I copy the best from UBol, AG, JShelter (and UI from Noscript), but Brummelchen has no clue about the refactoring.
Jan Willy said:
You could make it simpler to let show a popup with the warning fingerprinting detected, do you want to block it, yes or no (and no more user action). Or will this take another week?
Click to expand...
No i stick to the current workflow. On demand, not active all the time and only website specific. I know you and Oldschool like to have protection always on, but as explained it is not necessary (as the saying goes You need a thief to catch thief's, it really works differently and I worked in the industry)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge and Gandalf_The_Grey
LinuxFan58 said:
I know you and Oldschool like to have protection always on
Click to expand...
No, not fingerprinting protection. Your concept and implementation are great. (y)(y) It's simply that I think average users will not understand its implementation, but I have no suggestions about an alternative one.
 
  • Hundred Points
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge, Gandalf_The_Grey and 1 other person
In Edge, hard to see the text.
Screenshot 2026-07-23 180537.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, Morro and oldschool
@Digmor Crusher and @oldschool

Version 5.0.17 should fix that. I finished refactoring the old code that is why the number is so much higher. When touching old battle tested code it is best to it in small steps, because mature software has that structure for a reason. Also I opted for moving code around and adding coments, in stead of restructuring the monoliths it self:

GitHub - Kees1958/uBol-stripped: a less is more, super efficient, stripped version of uBol-lite


What is changed in 5.0.17?
  • background.js used to route every message through three giant, stacked decision-trees — a message's security check depended on which tree it was written in, invisibly. Those three trees are now gone, replaced by one clear table, message-routes.js, where every message's rules sit right next to its name instead of being implied by position (in simple terms: made transparent what was in the head of Mr Hill when he coded this module).

  • scripting-manager.js (turns filter rules on/off) had its "only one thing at a time" safety rule copy-pasted twice in the same file. That rule now lives once, in a new small file, async-lock.js, shared by both places instead of two copies that could quietly drift apart. Everything scripting-manager.js does shares the same safety rule and touches the same browser feature, so splitting it apart would mean the safety rule could easily end up duplicated again — this time across separate files instead of within one, which is harder to notice and easier to get wrong (so it is better to keep in one place = one JS-module).

  • Scattered duplicate settings got merged, a few bugs were caught and fixed along the way (also the darkmode), and the ESlinter (code check tool) is clean now.
    a) cripting-manager.js — a repeated timing value (15-minute cache-cleanup interval) was written out twice in the same file; now written once.
    b) timing-constants.js (new) — a 5-minute timeout value that four different files had each separately written out by coincidence, now all read from one place.

  • background.js and scripting-manager.js both grew rather than shrank — nothing was deleted, each piece of logic just got its own clearly-named home plus an explanation of why it works the way it does, and that documentation takes real space (to prevent coding landmines and warn others not structure code in smaller chunks, the code shows Mr Hill is an exceptional programmer).


    I will play with it for a while before I send it for review (to make sure everything works fine).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge, Morro and 3 others
Yes you need to provide user script rights as @Parkinsond explained. The fact that mr Hill is building it in indicates that uBol is gearing up to challenge AdGuard Mv3 functionality. This is a big change and as all IT-ers known when a program changes design philosophy (from permission less to full fledged) it
usually is a tough ride.

But I also see an already imported host file list (Dan Pollock's host file), @9724anon7537 seems to have successfully imported a third-party list , I am afraid I am goung to disappoint you: read this W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/README.md at master · Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Hundred Points
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge, Jan Willy and 3 others
Uploaded 5.1 to chrome webstore, solved dark theme issue reported by @Digmor Crusher (not checked myself, but repeated solution from DNR reported earlier by @oldschool) and added new signals in Privacy Inspector with an INFO icon to explain what is monitored (also put an info in DNR monitor, because @oldschool posted that it might be to difficult for average PC users).

Privacy Inspector now is a JShelter lite but on demand (I already explained that you don't need fingerprinting protection all the time in this post, you only need fingerprinting protection for websites you frequently visit but not or nearly never log in to ==> on demand all other explanations are sheer FUD!!!!!!)

1784908393268.png


EDIT: (Gandalf liked this post BEFORE the EDIT was posted, just to be clear that he liked the improvement in general, Privacy Inspector becoming a JShelter lite NOT for below purpose of fingerprinting protection on adult websites)

Just an example for people visiting adult websites (this illustrates also that you don't need ALL protections ALL the time because fingerprinting a few data points is enough in combination with your IP). As posted earlier: you only need a subset of anti-fingerprint on a few websites you visit often but don´t log into.
1784909089697.png


PM me when you would like to NOT SHOW the block rules created for adult websites in the ¨Manage custom rules" panel :-)
(I already added a block all EVAL in the Security & Privacy panel for adult websites and made the website lock feature anonymous in 3P-Matrix-Lite)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • +Reputation
  • Hundred Points
Reactions: Sorrento, Zero Knowledge, Morro and 3 others
Dear friends and fellow country man try Privacy Inspector on AD.NL and BNR.NL :-)
@Jan Willy @Morro @Gandalf_The_Grey
Surprisingly NU.nl and Telegraaf.nl come clean, no fingerprinting

1784924732306.png
1784924817690.png


Dear friend @oldschool try NBC news and CBS news with Privacy Inspector :)
Surprisingly CNN and Fox news come clean, no fingerprinting
1784925642814.png
1784925476062.png
1784926260360.png

I thought that you would value Privacy Inspector as your on demand JShelter lite without the CPU impact and hassle, maybe these examples can convince you to check out the websites you visit often but (nearly) never log in to. V5.1.1 has three more fingerprint signals
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: Sampei.Nihira, Sorrento, oldschool and 2 others

You may also like...