Q&A Privacy settings in Edge, and when using AdGuard for desktop.

plat1098

Level 24
Verified
Sep 13, 2018
1,388
Yeah, I also switched it (tacking prevention) off in Edge altogether as sites were not loading properly w/latest AdGuard and requiring a refresh. After doing that, pages loaded fine, as they should.

One little caveat for those people running Insider builds. The latest AdGuard has some new features in the Stealth Mode section. I wasn't getting the latest Insiders KB 5003345 (Feature Experience Pack). It turns out I was shut out because somehow the crucial "optional telemetry" setting was toggled to "basic."
One of the new AdGuard features "Disable Windows Telemetry" had been toggled to "on." I switched it off but had to re-enable optional telemetry, restart, blah, blah, blah.

Prob. should review these new features and make sure they're not "on" when you prefer them off.

adguard windows svs.PNG
 

amirr

Level 15
Jan 26, 2020
725
See Should i turn built-in adblocker off in browser?? where it's recommended to turn off your browsers built-in adblocker.
Edit: Another post on Adguard Forum with this advice:
So you turned off the Tracking prevention in the Edge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: venustus and Nevi

Templarware

Level 5
Mar 13, 2021
249
I personally don't have those problems that you are facing, so I'm happy with it. Also, I think that you also know that more extensions lead to a bigger attack surface, slow down browsing speed and also are counterproductive for your browsing fingerprint. But to each his own. (y)
Extensions don't really increase attack surface, because extensions are sandboxed within the browser (a security measure implemented in modern browsers), and because it wouldn't make much sense for attackers to target the kinds of extensions used by those who actually know the risks of online threats and ads and use such tools to enhance their safety/browsing. Source: Malwarebytes Forums Staff
I don't think that using security extensions which millions of people also use will contribute much for your "fingerprint". Not using extensiosn also gives you "fingerprint" ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi

Arequire

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,633
Extensions don't really increase attack surface, because extensions are sandboxed within the browser
I don't agree with that at all. Sure, extensions can't 'infect' a system like traditional malware can, but a compromised extension can potentially access all data stored on that system depending on the permissions granted to it.

it wouldn't make much sense for attackers to target the kinds of extensions used by those who actually know the risks of online threats and ads and use such tools to enhance their safety/browsing.
I don't think the userbase has much bearing on anything. An attacker compromising or purchasing a popular extension and suddenly gaining access to all the data from tens of millions of browsers must be like hitting the jackpot.
 

Nightwalker

Level 22
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
May 26, 2014
1,157
Extensions don't really increase attack surface, because extensions are sandboxed within the browser (a security measure implemented in modern browsers), and because it wouldn't make much sense for attackers to target the kinds of extensions used by those who actually know the risks of online threats and ads and use such tools to enhance their safety/browsing. Source: Malwarebytes Forums Staff
I don't think that using security extensions which millions of people also use will contribute much for your "fingerprint". Not using extensiosn also gives you "fingerprint" ;)

This doesnt make any sense and it is wrong is so many ways, by this logic Chromium browsers are impervious to vulnerabilities because they run in a fairly powerful sandbox with limited rights.

For years browsers extensions have been consistently a source of attacks, this isnt an opinion, it is a fact, because of that Google was forced to adopt Manifest v3 (no, it isnt all about adblockers) and to have more strict control and rules in Chrome Store.

Extensions can be a source of memory leak and other kind of performance problems too, this is all very documented.

Examples:
 

Jan Willy

Level 7
Jul 5, 2019
304
So you turned off the Tracking prevention in the Edge?
IMHO is an important value of the MT-forum to shed lights on issues from different sides. That was the goal of my message. Finally everybody has to make his own choice, which can depend of other choises. I have decided to leave the main part of ad- and tracker filtering on DNS-level. I use Adguard for Windows because of his Stealth Mode and for filtering things that can't be done on DNS-level. There is no task left for the browser.
 

rndmblk

Level 3
Nov 18, 2020
93
IMHO is an important value of the MT-forum to shed lights on issues from different sides. That was the goal of my message. Finally everybody has to make his own choice, which can depend of other choises. I have decided to leave the main part of ad- and tracker filtering on DNS-level. I use Adguard for Windows because of his Stealth Mode and for filtering things that can't be done on DNS-level. There is no task left for the browser.
So true, especially the part about choices depending on one another. I choose to use a particular browser on my phone and benefit from AdGuard on android because otherwise I'd have minimal blocking. However, I prefer to use uBlock on my Windows browser even my licence would allow me to install AdGuard there too.
 

SecureKongo

Level 21
Verified
Malware Tester
Feb 25, 2017
1,069
Extensions don't really increase attack surface, because extensions are sandboxed within the browser (a security measure implemented in modern browsers), and because it wouldn't make much sense for attackers to target the kinds of extensions used by those who actually know the risks of online threats and ads and use such tools to enhance their safety/browsing. Source: Malwarebytes Forums Staff
I don't think that using security extensions which millions of people also use will contribute much for your "fingerprint". Not using extensiosn also gives you "fingerprint" ;)
As the others already stated above, extensions can be a security risk. About the fingerprint, you are definitely right. I mean I am also using extensions that aren’t wide spread, but in the end it’s all about the amout of extensions. Even changing browser settings can increase uniqueness, but it matters how much it affects it. Tbh, I was a little drifting away from my main statement that Adguard Windows isn’t bloat, and I still have the same opinion.
 

Templarware

Level 5
Mar 13, 2021
249
As the others already stated above, extensions can be a security risk. About the fingerprint, you are definitely right. I mean I am also using extensions that aren’t wide spread, but in the end it’s all about the amout of extensions. Even changing browser settings can increase uniqueness, but it matters how much it affects it. Tbh, I was a little drifting away from my main statement that Adguard Windows isn’t bloat, and I still have the same opinion.
If you use any extensions from Chrome store, of course they a security risk. But if you use only carefully trusted selected extensions, especially the likes of uBlock, Malwarebytes or WoT, they won't make you vulnerable. I don't like programs running in the desktop, consuming Ram and CPU when I'm gaming.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Apr 24, 2016
3,793
If you use any extensions from Chrome store, of course they a security risk. But if you use only carefully trusted selected extensions, especially the likes of uBlock, Malwarebytes or WoT, they won't make you vulnerable. I don't like programs running in the desktop, consuming Ram and CPU when I'm gaming.
Mostly agree with you but WOT slipped up in the past.
It was pulled from the stores in 2016 for selling the browsing history of its users.
They had to change that behavior before being accepted in the stores again.
They are not my list of reputable extensions anymore.
And please write uBlock Origin, there is still a (bad fork) uBlock extension on the Chrome store... but that is another story.
 

Templarware

Level 5
Mar 13, 2021
249
Mostly agree with you but WOT slipped up in the past.
It was pulled from the stores in 2016 for selling the browsing history of its users.
They had to change that behavior before being accepted in the stores again.
They are not my list of reputable extensions anymore.
I know, I just mentioned WoT because of it being included in AdGuard for desktop. The debate here is about is Adguard for desktop.
I kinda like WoT... I just don't use it because it makes Facebook extremely slow. And some websites get reviews based on people's tastes... For example, Trump's website gets negative reviews because of his political opinions.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Apr 24, 2016
3,793
I know, I just mentioned WoT because of it being included in AdGuard for desktop. The debate here is about is Adguard for desktop.
I like WoT, I just don't use it because it makes Facebook extremely slow.
I know what is the debate here, but you mentioned extensions...
I don't like WOT, just because of the reason you mentioned: some websites get reviews based on people's tastes.

To add to the debate. I would keep Edge tracking prevention on balanced when using AdGuard desktop because it still blocks the biggest offenders while not interfering with your day to day browsing. Like with security a layered approach helps.
 

Templarware

Level 5
Mar 13, 2021
249
I know what is the debate here, but you mentioned extensions...

To add to the debate. I would keep Edge tracking prevention on balanced when using AdGuard desktop because it still blocks the biggest offenders while not interfering with your day to day browsing. Like with security a layered approach helps.
WoT is WoT, does not matter if it's an extension or part of Adguard's desktop client. My point was that I prefer to use the extension instead of adding more stuff to the entire system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: venustus and Nevi

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Apr 24, 2016
3,793
WoT is WoT, does not matter if it's an extension or part of Adguard's desktop client. My point was that I prefer to use the extension instead of adding more stuff to the entire system.
Well in the case of WOT I would use the AdGuard option, because you are already running and trusting AdGuard on your system instead of adding an extra extension. In the 2016 debacle AdGuard made sure that their implementation of WOT didn't expose the user's browser history to WOT. So at least at that time the AdGuard option was much safer.
 
Top