Question On may 31th 2025 Chrome disabled Mv2 extensions, a year has gone. How did it impact your favorite extensions?

[SeriousHoax]

Yes, with no success. What surprises me now is that all uBlock Origin filters are already included in Brave Shields, so I can't understand why the results are different.

adblock-resources/filter_lists/list_catalog.json at master · brave/adblock-resources

Custom resources and scriptlets used for Brave's adblocker - brave/adblock-resources

github.com

Brave Shield didn't support all the uBO advanced rules the last time I checked. It has probably been improved since then but not all of them, I think.

 

[Parkinsond]

Brave Shield didn't support all the uBO advanced rules the last time I checked. It has probably been improved since then but not all of them, I think.

As a cure for popups, adding Hagezi ultimate full help to stop loading the webpage of the popup.
Ghostery fails both in blocking the popup and in stopping webpage loading after popping.

 

[nicolaasjan]

Okay, I know you could run Mv2 extensions longer with flags and policy tweaks and tricks,

Since yesterday this is no longer possible after they merged this commit.
No way to turn them on again:

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

Since yesterday this is no longer possible after they merged this commit.
No way to turn them on again:

View attachment 297947

Hi,
in which version of Chromium/Chrome is it no longer possible to re-enable MV2 extensions?

 

[nicolaasjan]

Hi,
in which version of Chromium/Chrome is it no longer possible to re-enable MV2 extensions?

151.0.7874.0

 

[SeriousHoax]

Since yesterday this is no longer possible after they merged this commit.
No way to turn them on again:

View attachment 297947

Time to embrace MV3 for Chromium users, I guess. Let's see if this commit causes an immediate effect on the next version of other Chromium browsers, especially those that never really said much about MV3 such as Microsoft Edge.

 

[Marko :)]

I don't have problem with ad blocking, but with those annoying cookie banners instead. And none of the extensions block them properly.

uBlock Origin comes with EasyList Cookie and AdGuard Cookie filters. EasyList Cookie causes me redirect loop on some websites (not even uBO team was able to reproduce), while AdGuard Cookie filter sometimes doesn't block cookie notices due to them using different syntax. I was warned not to use both because they are incompatible together by uBO team.
I still don't care about cookies extension relies on built-in list rather than the filter list and along with slow updates, it can take months before the website you reported gets fixed.
Consent-O-Matic is terrible. On websites I visit shows the cookie notice and then I have to wait few seconds for it to reject it.

 

[SeriousHoax]

I don't have problem with ad blocking, but with those annoying cookie banners instead. And none of the extensions block them properly.

uBlock Origin comes with EasyList Cookie and AdGuard Cookie filters. EasyList Cookie causes me redirect loop on some websites (not even uBO team was able to reproduce), while AdGuard Cookie filter sometimes doesn't block cookie notices due to them using different syntax. I was warned not to use both because they are incompatible together by uBO team.
I still don't care about cookies extension relies on built-in list rather than the filter list and along with slow updates, it can take months before the website you reported gets fixed.
Consent-O-Matic is terrible. On websites I visit shows the cookie notice and then I have to wait few seconds for it to reject it.

This is the main reason why I use AdGuard Extension over uBO even though performance and system resource usage wise uBO is better. AdGuard actually fixes issues rather quickly when reported. If you report a cookie banner issue to uBO, most of the time they say to report to EasyList instead and close the issue and when reported on EasyList the chance of your report being checked by someone is very very slim.
AdGuard has recently also given a couple of uBO filter maintainer volunteers access to their AdGuard Filter repo which has further increased the speed of issue fixing.
Here's one issue I reported today which got fixed within 8 minutes.

www.iflscience.com · Issue #232839 · AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters

Issue URL (Annoyance) https://www.iflscience.com/the-solar-system-may-have-ejected-a-fifth-giant-planet-which-would-explain-how-uranus-held-onto-its-moons-83692 Screenshots Screenshot 1 System conf...

github.com

I always report any kind of annoyance I find; not just cookie banner or AdGuard detection. uBO fixes ads report and uBO detections quickly but not other annoyances as they rely on EasyList for that.

 

[LinuxFan58]

I don't have problem with ad blocking, but with those annoying cookie banners instead. And none of the extensions block them properly.

uBlock Origin comes with EasyList Cookie and AdGuard Cookie filters. EasyList Cookie causes me redirect loop on some websites (not even uBO team was able to reproduce), while AdGuard Cookie filter sometimes doesn't block cookie notices due to them using different syntax. I was warned not to use both because they are incompatible together by uBO team.
I still don't care about cookies extension relies on built-in list rather than the filter list and along with slow updates, it can take months before the website you reported gets fixed.
Consent-O-Matic is terrible. On websites I visit shows the cookie notice and then I have to wait few seconds for it to reject it.

A trick I sometimes use to overcome to aggressive cookie filters or ccokie filters blocking cookies on websites I want to login.
- Install uBol with EasyList, Easy Privacy and Peter Low, AdGuard URL paramater tracking plus uBol own filters
- install AdGuard, but enable the option to reverse the allow list (in this mode AG runs only on the websites where it is enabled) and enable/add
a) AdGuard Annoyances
b) Fanboy cookie list: https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt and annoyances https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-annoyance.txt
c) others (you are allowed up to 30.000 dynamic filter rules in AdGuard).

So the default is uBol with a limited set of filters. Because AdGuard has reversed the allowlist it only runs on the websites on which you have enabled it).
When you visit websites often, just enable AdGuard for that website. Because the filters are different, there won´t be much overlap or conflicts.

 

[Moonhorse]

It havent really affected me at all, can achieve same kind of adblocking than before. Sure experienced users may have their own opinions on this but as average joe as i am i dont see any difference

Heres my current setup: ghostery for basic adblocking + aggressive tracker blocking, script stop works as script blocker and helps ghostery to achieve better results

 

[Marko :)]

This is the main reason why I use AdGuard Extension over uBO even though performance and system resource usage wise uBO is better. AdGuard actually fixes issues rather quickly when reported. If you report a cookie banner issue to uBO, most of the time they say to report to EasyList instead and close the issue and when reported on EasyList the chance of your report being checked by someone is very very slim.
AdGuard has recently also given a couple of uBO filter maintainer volunteers access to their AdGuard Filter repo which has further increased the speed of issue fixing.
Here's one issue I reported today which got fixed within 8 minutes.

www.iflscience.com · Issue #232839 · AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters

Issue URL (Annoyance) https://www.iflscience.com/the-solar-system-may-have-ejected-a-fifth-giant-planet-which-would-explain-how-uranus-held-onto-its-moons-83692 Screenshots Screenshot 1 System conf...

github.com

I always report any kind of annoyance I find; not just cookie banner or AdGuard detection. uBO fixes ads report and uBO detections quickly but not other annoyances as they rely on EasyList for that.

I just installed AdGuard extension and will see if it works better than uBO. Thanks!

 

[SeriousHoax]

I just installed AdGuard extension and will see if it works better than uBO. Thanks!

Nice. Btw, regarding reporting issues to AdGuard, try to report only on weekdays. So, Monday - Friday. As most of them are paid employees, they fix issues during their office hours. If you report on weekedns, your issue may get lost among other open issues.

 

[Marko :)]

Nice. Btw, regarding reporting issues to AdGuard, try to report only on weekdays. So, Monday - Friday. As most of them are paid employees, they fix issues during their office hours. If you report on weekedns, your issue may get lost among other open issues.

Thanks. I think they look at priority though. I reported during the week a few cookie notices and one of them got warning for inactivity. After making a comment again, it was quickly solved by one of the employees.

Regarding the extension, I did notice some small slowdown, but again, I prefer website loaded without any placeholders. Whereas uBlock Origin loads page quickly and then removes placeholders during load (so you get the flash).

 

[Halp2001]

Personally, nothing blocks ads on Arabic video streaming sites except uBlock Origin. Even Brave Shields is ineffective against them, with uBlock Origin Lite coming in second place. I've tried every possible solution without success, including importing uBlock Origin's filter lists into the built-in ad-blockers of Brave and Vivaldi, but they do not work as effectively as the extension. Therefore, I believe it is my only viable solution, regardless of which browser I use.

@lokamoka820 I managed to get uBO MV2 working in Brave by copying the folder from Edge and loading it unpacked in developer mode. It works, but keep in mind this is only a temporary patch — Brave is following Chrome and this could break in a future update.For Arabic streaming sites specifically, the most reliable option is Firefox, where uBO still runs with full MV2 power without restrictions ↪

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

My decision to switch to another browser (Brave is the only candidate) that supports uBo (MV2) will depend on these two requirements:

• Faster performance in the Speedometer 3.1 test compared to Chrome + AG
• Ability to enable the Renderer in AppContainer ****

*** Is there any forum member who can confirm that in Brave, the Renderer is not in AppContainer mode?
TH.

 

[Sorrento]

Helium supports MV2 & intends to do so they say?

 

[LinuxFan58]

@Halp2001 and @lokamoka820

Why not use the build in Mv2 extension option of Brave for uBlockOrigin Mv2?

 

[Marko :)]

My decision to switch to another browser (Brave is the only candidate) that supports uBo (MV2) will depend on these two requirements:

• Faster performance in the Speedometer 3.1 test compared to Chrome + AG
• Ability to enable the Renderer in AppContainer ****

*** Is there any forum member who can confirm that in Brave, the Renderer is not in AppContainer mode?
TH.

So essentially what you're looking for is Chromium browser with MV2.

 

[lokamoka820]

@Halp2001 and @lokamoka820

Why not use the build in Mv2 extension option of Brave for uBlockOrigin Mv2?
View attachment 297955

Will it receive updates, or is this an outdated extension version?

 

[Halp2001]

My decision to switch to another browser (Brave is the only candidate) that supports uBo (MV2) will depend on these two requirements:

• Faster performance in the Speedometer 3.1 test compared to Chrome + AG
• Ability to enable the Renderer in AppContainer ****

*** Is there any forum member who can confirm that in Brave, the Renderer is not in AppContainer mode?
TH.

@Sampei.Nihira, actually, Brave does use the AppContainer sandbox for its renderer processes on Windows. I just checked my own running processes in Process Explorer and they split exactly like that for security. The main browser process runs at Medium integrity, while tabs and extensions run at Low and Untrusted. In Chromium, that Untrusted label is the visual proof that the process is strictly isolated inside the AppContainer with no privileges to touch the OS. Here is a screenshot of how it looks on my end.