New Update uBlock 0rigin

[212eta]

How come Squidblaclist is Not included in FilterLists ?

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Squidblaclist

It's like a mini Easylist. Has $third-party so little duplicates with it.
A good complement to Spyware.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Well, I really like ghostery, but I have the idea that it has less corrective rules as Adguard

The new Ghostery is supposed to be more one-click and more automatic now. Things might have changed. I think they also fix breakages.

 

[ozone]

How come Squidblaclist is Not included in FilterLists ?

Too bad Squidblacklist is Not https

http://www.squidblacklist.org/downloads/sbl-adblock.acl

it has https

https://www.squidblacklist.org/downloads/sbl-adblock.acl

 

[Windows_Security]

It's like a mini Easylist. Has $third-party so little duplicates with it.
A good complement to Spyware.

Quote from Squidblacklist website

So IMO for effective uBlock0rigin list you can reduce the default blocklist rules (66.9K network rules and 45.1 cosmetic rules = 115K rules) by:

Stick to the default list, but make it leaner:

• Enable "Ignore generic cosmetic filters" (reduces CPU load)
• Disable malware filters when you have enabled Google safe Search or Microsoft Smartscreen (you could also add a DNS service with malware blocking like Comodo, Norton, OpenDns or Quad9)
• This leaves you with 51.4K network and 27.4K cosmetic filters (78.8K total = 68% of default).
• The benefits for this scenario is that the block rate is nearly the same (99% of the default lists) while resource usage is 30% less. Because the default enabled Easylist blocklists are used, you will still face some website breakage and the occasional anti-adblock wall/pupup.

Switch to "less is more" tactic:

• Enable "Ignore generic cosmetic filters"
• Disable all defaults, but enable the wel maintained spyware filter from Adguard
• Add the also daily cleaned adblock Squidblacklist Blacklist from (thx @ozone: https://www.squidblacklist.org/downloads/sbl-adblock.acl)
• This leaves you with 10.5 K network and only 104 cosmetic rules
• These two well curated blocklists will break less website with 85% block rate of full default set with 9% of the resources/rules. I don't notice any difference in regards to blocked advertisements.

Use a "best of both worlds" approach:

• Ignore generic cosmetic filters AND disable cosmetic filtes (reduces CPU load & filter resources)
• Disablle all defaults, but enable the wel maintained spyware filter from Adguard
  
• Add the wel curated Adguard English filter by cpying this link in the custom section and choose apply changes (English filter from https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/chromium/filters/2.txt)
• This leaves you with 44.5 K network and zero cosmetic rules (38% of default rules)
• These two well curated blocklists will break less website while the block rate is not noticeably impacted (95% blockrate of default lists).

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Note when you increase update frequency disable Adguard Spyware filter from default list (in Nano Adblocker) and add the Adguard spyware list to custom list also (https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/chromium/filters/3.txt)

Why is that? Does the tweak not apply?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

6. Set autoUpdatePeriod to 2 (two days)

I think it's hours, not days
the default value is 7 hours. It's okay, IMO
Advanced settings · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

 

[Windows_Security]

I think it's hours, not days
the default value is 7 hours. It's okay, IMO
Advanced settings · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

Thx, I am sure I read somewhere (a discussion between GorHill and developer of Nano Adblocker) about update frequencies and strain on free github. Can't find it now so I deleted the post. Again thx for pointing out

 

[Windows_Security]

Does anyone know whether it has any security benefits to block eval scripts.

I don't know whether I have the syntax correct also, hints and tips appreciated

! Block EVAL scripts in websites
||*##script:inject(noeval.js)

 

[Mr.X]

Does anyone know whether it has any security benefits to block eval scripts.

Perhaps this could help out a bit:
What are the security issues with "eval()" in JavaScript?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13167699
javascript eval() and security

 

[Mr.X]

So IMO for effective uBlock0rigin list you can reduce the default blocklist rules (66.9K network rules and 45.1 cosmetic rules = 115K rules) by:

If I use one of three approaches you propose do I need to uncheck "Parse and enforce cosmetic filters" ?

 

[Windows_Security]

If I use one of three approaches you propose do I need to uncheck "Parse and enforce cosmetic filters" ?

No you only have to enable "ignore general cosmetic filters" , you can leave "parse and enforce cosmetic filters" enabled/

 

[Windows_Security]

Perhaps this could help out a bit:
What are the security issues with "eval()" in JavaScript?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13167699
javascript eval() and security

Thanks Mr X. I was aware of Eval and Function being discussed. This adds background info.

Still unsure wheter those extra lines in My Filter really work. I understand what they could achive, but since I just copied them, I am really doubting on correct filter syntax and whether these extra security rules are doing what I think they might be doing.

! Block access to local services
||127.0.^$third-party,important
||localhost^$third-party,important
||[::1]^$third-party,important
||192.168.^$third-party,importan

! Block eval scripts in websites
||*##script:inject(noeval.js)

 

[Windows_Security]

This morning a cousin called me for help (by phone), that his browser did not work after installing an extension. He told me that he de-installed the extension, but it turned out he had only hidden it from the menu (okay I admit, this is a moment to become skeptical about the PC-skills of people). I found out when I asked him to press SHIFT+ESC to start Chrome Task Manager to check what was running.

So I told him to install uBlock to replace ScriptSafe. To check (via phone) whether everything worked as intended, I asked him to start Chrome Task Manager again and he said Yeah, I am seeing two instances of uBlock. So I was surprised to hear that two instances were running and I replicated the situation afterwards (so ScriptSafe in settings which got his "browser working again" and uBlock in setting I used on Chrome)

When you run Chrome incognito, I also noticed two instances of uBlock were running. See picture below. My cousin uses Bruce's New Blank Tab because this extension also replaces incognito new tab. He always uses Chrome incognito (probably has his reasons based on his browsing habits I guess).

So it seems that a trimmed down version of uBlock uses more memory than ScriptSafe with all its host files enabled.

Anyone known why (or what I am doing wrong)?

I have attached both ScriptSafe (running as ad&tracker blocker only) settings and UBlock settings to compare

 

[Prorootect]

This morning a cousin called me for help (by phone), that his browser did not work after installing an extension. He told me that he de-installed the extension, but it turned out he had only hidden it from the menu (okay I admit, this is a moment to become skeptical about the PC-skills of people). I found out when I asked him to press SHIFT+ESC to start Chrome Task Manager to check what was running.

So I told him to install uBlock to replace ScriptSafe. To check (via phone) whether everything worked as intended, I asked him to start Chrome Task Manager again and he said Yeah, I am seeing two instances of uBlock. So I was surprised to hear that two instances were running and I replicated the situation afterwards (so ScriptSafe in settings which got his "browser working again" and uBlock in setting I used on Chrome)

When you run Chrome incognito, I also noticed two instances of uBlock were running. See picture below. My cousin uses Bruce's New Blank Tab because this extension also replaces incognito new tab. He always uses Chrome incognito (probably has his reasons based on his browsing habits I guess).

View attachment 179289

So it seems that a trimmed down version of uBlock uses more memory than ScriptSafe with all its host files enabled.

Anyone known why (or what I am doing wrong)?

I have attached both ScriptSafe (running as ad&tracker blocker only) settings and UBlock settings to compare

- Are you sure, that you don't have downloaded two uBlock Origin extensions: one called uBlock Origin, then another called uBlock Origin dev build?...or have you two Incognito windows maybe?...
In my Task Manager of CENT, with New Incognito window with one tab, I have one only instance of uBlock Origin...

Memory use (in Task Manager):
ScriptSafe: 21,908 KB
nano Adblocker: 30,400 KB
uBlock Origin: 37,332 KB (origin settings)

Of these three, I use ScriptSafe only, and sometimes, rarely nano Adblocker...

 

[Windows_Security]

Updated chromium, installed uBlock origin with default settings (not the dev) and ....

Versus Scriptsafe with default blocklists

 

[Prorootect]

miraculous multiplication...are these two in your chrome://extensions tab or not?
Disable and remove another.

PS. Maybe it's result of syncing with another chrome browser you have?

...and unnotch "Allow in incognito" in Settings/extensions/uBlock Origin?

 

[MalwareTypes]

That behavior is normal. uBlock Origin works in split mode to prevent some problems:
Incognito mode Google Chrome · Issue #172 · gorhill/uBlock · GitHub

 

[Prorootect]

So change to nano Adblocker, or better to ScriptSafe, that's all

 

[Windows_Security]

@MalwareTypes THX for the explanation.

@Prorootect done (on Chrome replaced uBlock with ScriptSafe on Firefox for NanoAdblocker)