New Update uBlock 0rigin

[Windows_Security]

Sorry, user filter should be okay. I tested it again with AdGuard and the Admiral Adblock-wall is gone.

@@||googlesyndication.com^$domain=thewindowsclub.com|windowscentral.com|spelletjes.nl,important,third-party

No adblock wall

What do mean by all over the place, I have blanks in stead of advertisements?

Maybe my Script/Iframe flags settings influence the results?

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Sorry, user filter should be okay. I tested it again with AdGuard and the Admiral Adblock-wall is gone.

@@||googlesyndication.com^$domain=thewindowsclub.com|windowscentral.com|spelletjes.nl,important,third-party

No adblock wall
View attachment 173872

What do mean by all over the place, I have blanks in stead of advertisements?
View attachment 173873

Maybe my Script/Iframe flags settings influence the results?
View attachment 173877

I have added the line to my filters and enable the chrome flags you posted, but I still see ads on the site:

And get a admiral notice on Vlindervreugde (the game my wife plays a lot):

I don't get an admiral message on the windows club.

Thanks anyway

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

adguard encountered problem when install on edge or just me ?

Install the App, it will cover Edge, IE, ect., and all net connected apps.

 

[Windows_Security]

@Gandalf_The_Grey I only use Adguard DNS filter when using Adguard, so might enable that one also and try whether the ads are gone.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

@Gandalf_The_Grey I only use Adguard DNS filter when using Adguard, so might enable that one also and try whether the ads are gone.

Works only one time. No worries, Adguard and me are just not compatible. I will go back to uBlock.
Thanks for your help
I'm now using Adguard DNS filter in uBlock.

 

[Windows_Security]

Played today with uBlockOrigin, so I opened a number of websites, clicked the same items and waited until connected domain count stabilized. The column totaal is the total connected domains. It is an indication of the effectiveness of the blocklists used. IFor this test I used: Nu.nl, BBC.com, CNN.com. Volkskrant, NY Times, Frankfurter Algemeine, Huffpost, NBC news, Fox news, CIO.com, Digital Marketing News, Motherboard. I visit a lot news and some tech and marketing websites.

The default list without malware is as good as the default list in ad and tracker blocking (as expected) . When you use google safe browsing or smartscreen there is very little added protection with the malware list enabled in the default blocklists (except for the HpHost malware blocklist but that one is huge and not part of the default set).

The typical 20-80 softspot can be found (with less than 20% of the default rules, you get over 80% of the protection) when you play and vary with blocklists With my surfing habbits that would be the combo uBlock unbreak + Adguard spyware + DNT malvertising. The benefit of not using easylist, is that you run into less adblock wall's or prompts (at least on the websites I often visit).

 

[Handsome Recluse]

The typical 20-80 softspot can be found (with less than 20% of the default rules, you get over 80% of the protection) when you play and vary with blocklists With my surfing habbits that would be the combo uBlock unbreak + Adguard spyware + peter Low's + DNT malvertising

Does DNT means Disconnect? which duplicates Peter Lowe's.
Why the inclusion of Unbreak instead of Experimental and Adguard Base?
Peter Lowe's isn't as effective as Spyware on non news websites so the 80 20 might be different.

 

[SHvFl]

Make sure you don't block stuff with other extensions like umatrix or something because they will block their detection script and you will get the msg about using an adblocker.

 

[Windows_Security]

Does DNT means Disconnect? which duplicates Peter Lowe's.
Why the inclusion of Unbreak instead of Experimental and Adguard Base?
Peter Lowe's isn't as effective as Spyware on non news websites so the 80 20 might be different.

Unbreak included - for people scared of tweaking, Experimental excluded for the same reason. It is just an example, to stimulate members to play (reduce) their lists and see what works best for them.

DNT does mean Do Not Track . DNT and Peter Low's list overlap for 90%. I don't use Peter Low because it breaks some video play (it blocks trackers on some content delivery networks, so it is not an error in Peter Low's list). You caught me on a typo error (you have a sharp mind/are a sharp reader )

I personally use DNT simple ad filter which is the DNT without malvertising. With my personal filter list (see below) I have less than 9k rules. As you can see I copied some redirects of the experimental list. Click on spoiler to see- My Filters and old Chrome trick

------------------------------

Spoiler

# Block external (third-party) websites access to local services
||127.0.^$third-party,important
||localhost^$third-party,important
||[::1]^$third-party,important
||192.168.^$third-party,important

# Block plug-ins for all third-party (I don't use PDF, Flash or Java plug-ins)
*^$object,object-subrequest,third-party

# Scripts are blocked by default in content settings except for high leveld omains NL, COM, NET, ORG and INF

# Block third-party communication except from high leveldomains NL, COM, NET, ORG and INF
*^$subdocument,websocket,xmlhttprequest,third-party,domain=~nl|~com|~net|~org|~inf|

# Copied from uBlock0rigin experimental - redirect Google
||google-analytics.com/ga.js$script,redirect=google-analytics.com/ga.js,important
||google-analytics.com/analytics.js$script,redirect=google-analytics.com/analytics.js,important
||google-analytics.com/plugins/ga/inpage_linkid.js$script,redirect=google-analytics.com/inpage_linkid.js,important
||googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js$script,redirect=googletagservices.com/gpt.js,important

# Block social media third-party
facebook.com^$third-party,important
facebook.net^$third-party,important
twitter.com^$third-party,important
tumblr.com^$third-party,important
instagram.com^$third-party,important
snapchat.com^$third-party,important
pinterest.com^$third-party,important
reddit.com^$third-party,important
stumbleupon.com^$third-party,important
flickr.com^$third-party,important
plus.google.com^$third-party,important
google.nl^$third-party,important

# Copied from Adblock removal list - the blockrules without cosmetic filtering and allow exceptions
/adblock-alerter/js/adblock_alerter.js
/deadblocker/*
/mod_ablockdetector/*
/ad-blocking-advisor/*
/adblock-notice-
/adblock-notify-by-bweb/*
/adblock-warning-teaser/*
/adblock_gate/images/animated.gif?
/adblock_notify.js
/adblocker_message_
/AdblockMessage.
/antiadblockmsg.
/simple-adblock-notice/*
/wp-content/plugins/ad-block-defender/*
/wp-content/plugins/deadblocker/*
/wp-content/uploads/an-temp/*$script,stylesheet


_________________ OLD TRICK TO ALLOW ONLY JAVASCRIPT FROM A FEW HIGH LEVEL DOMAINS IN CHROME _________________

 

[Windows_Security]

HuffingtonPost does not give a $#@! about DoNotTrack requests and sends a webbug (1x1 transparent pixeltag).

QUESTION: uBlock seems to redirect webbugs (yellow line with << mark). Who has more insight info on this?

 

[DeepWeb]

Very interesting finding. I'm more of a fan of Hosts files. The fewer CPU cycles something is using, the better it is for me. uBlock unbreak + Adguard + DNT malvertising sounds like it ends up uses more resources? I'm not too big of a fan of how Adguard works. I find it to be slowing down my lookups and it has a setting to intercept HTTPS which I find disturbing.

 

[karthic1998]

The new version is very buggy for me and it gives errors and by reloading the extension is needed for working

 

[Windows_Security]

Very interesting finding. I'm more of a fan of Hosts files. The fewer CPU cycles something is using, the better it is for me. uBlock unbreak + Adguard + DNT malvertising sounds like it ends up uses more resources? I'm not too big of a fan of how Adguard works.

Unbreak + Adguard + DNT Malvertising has a total of 11093 network rules, while the uBlock0rigin default blocklist has a total of 67736 rules. With 16% of the resources you get 85% of the protection. Sounds like a good deal to me. Also I am posting about using Adguard filter lists in uBlockOrigin extension (not Adguard). Guess my post was ill worded, hope this reply explains it better.

I am not a fan of host files. They used to slow down browsing in Windows 7 and it is not easy to correct broken websites. With host files you miss out on the curation done by Adguard and Raymond Hill. Adguard's Spyware blocklist has a number of allow overrides for Fox (just an example, their are many more). The unbreak list of uBlock0rigin corrects some overzealous blocks of Peter low's blocklist (DNT simple ad blocklist overlaps for 90% with Peter Low's that is why I also enabled uBlock unbreak). I like it when others do the hard work for me.

When using host files the Fox news website would not play videos.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

@Windows_Security What about Ghostery now that it's more automatic?
Nano Adblocker seems to have more improvements to play with.
The aggressive ABP Japanese Filters for lesser used browsers.

 

[Windows_Security]

Well, I really like ghostery, but I have the idea that it has less corrective rules as Adguard (maybe because Ghostery is so focussed on rules efficiency). Also a news site in the Netherlands only gives the long in-video-advertisement option (20 secs duration) when it detects add blocker.

That news website does not recognise adguard DNS and Do Not track simpel ad filter (it has a s a bit weird adblock detection because it does not detect Avast browsing extension as Adblocker, but does recognise Avira and Panda).

Source : study from may 2017 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03193.pdf of Alexa top 150 websites shows uBlock with default set outperforms all others (so I am happy with my 85% performance with only 15% of the rules using Nano Blocker now)

 

[Windows_Security]

@TerrakionSmash

First thanks for pointing me out to Nano Adblocker. To me it seems a uBlock0riging fork with better editor for rules creation at My Filters (as a matter of fact, it pointed me out to errors I had in my filter rules, by making the wrongly types keywords red ). I have replaced uBlock with Nano Adblocker and I trying to figure whether there are more differences.. Do you have some more info/links on Nano Adblocker?

 

[Handsome Recluse]

@@||*.com^$ping,script,subdocument,websocket,xmlhttprequest,third-party

Won't this unnecessarily whitelist sites?

study from may 2017

Did they use defaults?

 

[ozone]

*^$object,object-subrequest, ping,script,subdocument,websocket,xmlhttprequest,third-party

I think there shouldn't be space between object-subrequest, and ping

 

[Windows_Security]

Won't this unnecessarily whitelist sites?

OEPS, yes you are right .

Did they use defaults?

Source : study from may 2017 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03193.pdf of Alexa top 150 websites shows uBlock with default set outperforms all others . . .

 

[Windows_Security]

eNew favourite blocklists, (the two I only use now)
- Adguard spyware filter:
- Squidblaclist: http://www.squidblacklist.org/downloads/sbl-adblock.acl

Squidblacklist has 2100 domains the same as DNT simple Ad filter. Because Squid has explicit third-party limitation behind domain, they are not recognized as the same domains (because DNT also block first party). In practice domain ABC.com$third-party works as good as ABC.com^

Squid has 4.5K network rules when (I always disable cosmetic filtering), with Adguard spy the total networks rules is 10.5K rules with a few Adblock wall popups and very little website breakage.