uBO Lite (uBOL) is an efficient content blocker based on the MV3 API.........
GitHub - uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home: uBO Lite home (MV3)
GitHub - uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home: uBO Lite home (MV3)
uBlock Origin Lite - General Discussions
- Thread starter Sampei.Nihira
- Start date
Nice post by the Bot here, in breaking down the 3 profiles:
Nice post by the Bot here, in breaking down the 3 profiles:
The filtering mode selector is specific to each website.
So it's easy to change when necessary.
I recommend full filtering.
See what happens on this website when using optimal filtering:
And I am not mentioning the various elements on other websites that are not blocked.
The filter lists that I have enabled:
Why enable anti-malware filters if the extension updates roughly every week?
It's better to use a DNS that does this job better.
Why enable anti-malware filters if the extension updates roughly every week?
It's better to use a DNS that does this job better.
Otherwise, could it detect false positives?
Or fail to detect malware in time?
I use the Bitdefender "Traffic Light" extension on my Linux PC/laptop, while on my Windows PC/laptop, I have Bitdefender's WEB protection. That would actually be redundant.
And in my case in using a VPN, I find the real time protection of my AV's browser extension to work very well, as NextDNS is bypassed when using a VPN.
I find that to be a nice combination along with using uBOL on Chrome, and Brave's Ad block set on Aggressively block.
I find that to be a nice combination along with using uBOL on Chrome, and Brave's Ad block set on Aggressively block.
In a week, so many links to phishing/malware content are created that would not be blocked.
And, of course, just as many disappear.
But in my case, I don't go to enough sites for this to be an issue
But in my case, I don't go to enough sites for this to be an issue
Just visit a single website, clean yesterday, compromised today.
If your filter lists are not up to date...
Read this:
Dynamic filtering: Benefits of blocking 3rd party iframe tags
This is why Dynamic filtering is advantageous.
It cannot be applied to uBoL in Strict Mode, but it can be applied with a series of exclusions (TLDs).
However, I assume this topic is a little too complicated for you.
P.S.
Speaking of strict, if you want to try strict blocking:
uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
Just enter contentabc.com.
Unfortunately, the strict blocking page for a custom DNR rule applied is not very explanatory.
But I will not notify Gorhill about this issue.
Yes, in general you're right, that's why I like to be informed, but is also why I use what I use, to help simplify things, and let blockers and AV extensions do more of the work for me so I'm not doing a lot of filtering, settings, adding into rules etc. etc. I am not IT tech, but a curious normal Joe so I try to keep things to what I know and understand and can more easily resolve if an issue comes upHowever, I assume this topic is a little too complicated for you.
P.S.
Speaking of strict, if you want to try strict blocking:
uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
Just enter contentabc.com.
Unfortunately, the strict blocking page for a custom DNR rule applied is not very explanatory.
But I will not notify Gorhill about this issue.
Nice 2nd link
Last edited:
Modification of filter lists for harmonization with AG and uBO:
P.S.
Explanation.
I added the following DNS-level filters:
There are several reasons behind this choice.
The two most interesting ones are that DNS-level filter lists are updated more frequently than uBoL (and also AG).
Privacy is essentially network filtering.
P.S.
Explanation.
I added the following DNS-level filters:
- AdGuard Tracking Protection filter
- EasyPrivacy
There are several reasons behind this choice.
The two most interesting ones are that DNS-level filter lists are updated more frequently than uBoL (and also AG).
Privacy is essentially network filtering.
Last edited:
I will insert the different custom rule block notice:
uBoL:
AG:
With uBoL, the notification is anonymous; all you know is that the website is blocked by an extension.
With AG, you get more information.
P.S.
Another problem with uBoL, as many of you have already noticed, is the block counter, which reports excessive block values (strange to most).
AG is more consistent with a number of blocks compatible with that detectable in uBlock Origin.
uBoL:
AG:
With uBoL, the notification is anonymous; all you know is that the website is blocked by an extension.
With AG, you get more information.
P.S.
Another problem with uBoL, as many of you have already noticed, is the block counter, which reports excessive block values (strange to most).
AG is more consistent with a number of blocks compatible with that detectable in uBlock Origin.
Last edited:
How does AdGuard compare to uBlock in terms of performance?
Personally I find AdGuard feels heavier and I notice the impact during my daily browsing.
Personally I find AdGuard feels heavier and I notice the impact during my daily browsing.
AG consumes about 9/10 times the RAM used by uBoL.
I tried to make a fair comparison, but it is not possible due to the different filter lists subscribed to.
We are roughly at these values:
uBoL = 25 MB RAM
AG = 227 MB RAM
Although, in terms of performance, I prefer to compare the work of the two extensions with uBo.
P.S.
The Browserleaks WEBRTC test, for example, can never be passed by uBoL:
I tried to make a fair comparison, but it is not possible due to the different filter lists subscribed to.
We are roughly at these values:
uBoL = 25 MB RAM
AG = 227 MB RAM
Although, in terms of performance, I prefer to compare the work of the two extensions with uBo.
P.S.
The Browserleaks WEBRTC test, for example, can never be passed by uBoL:
Last edited:
AdGuard is definitely a very nice and comprehensive extension, but it's just a shame that it uses a lot of RAM compared to uBOL and Ghostery.
If it weren't for the excessive RAM usage, I'd use AdGuard with both hands.
@Sampei.Nihira what do you think of Ghostery?
If it weren't for the excessive RAM usage, I'd use AdGuard with both hands.
@Sampei.Nihira what do you think of Ghostery?
Hi,
Given that I don't use Ghostery, your question would be specific to the browser used.
For example, if you ask me about
@Kongo
who uses Ghostery in Firefox, I would say that he is doing the right thing because his browser guarantees the necessary privacy/security without extensions.
And before using AG, obviously the best choice in Firefox would be uBo.
Any other user who uses Ghostery in a Chromium-based browser, other than Brave, is almost certainly giving up privacy/security that is lower than what can be achieved even with uBoL.
Last edited:
The reason for the resource usage is all of the hacks and MV3 workarounds that Adguard developers need for some of its features.
I believe you're splitting hairs with your testing and claims about privacy with your extension comparisons. Tracking methods across the web far outweigh the limited means of any 'privacy' extension.
You may also like...
-
uBlock Origin Lite for Safari released for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS- Started by silversurfer
- Replies: 3
-
-
ChatGPT and WebRTC blocking (in Ublock Origin)- Started by Sampei.Nihira
- Replies: 13
-
uBlock Origin Lite Users, What is Your Experience Compared to uBlock Origin?- Started by lokamoka820
- Replies: 8
-
Ublock origin on Edge-addons has finally been updated to 1.64.0, ownership has been transferred to Gorhill (Raymond Hill)
- Started by Defenderfan
- Replies: 3