Serious Discussion uBlock Origin Lite - General Discussions

I'm trying to limit (it's impossible to completely prevent) the automatic addition of search engines to Chrome.
I've written 4 rules for uBo/AG and these rules for uBoL:

Code: 
action:
  type: block
condition:
  urlFilter: /opensearch.xml
  resourceTypes:
    - other
    - xmlhttprequest
---
action:
  type: block
condition:
  urlFilter: /searchplugins/
  resourceTypes:
    - other
---
action:
  type: block
condition:
  urlFilter: /searchplugin/
  resourceTypes:
    - other
---
action:
  type: block
condition:
  requestDomains:
    - wikipedia.org
  resourceTypes:
    - other
---

The rules above will not prevent the specific search engine from being added after performing a search on the following websites:

  • Amazon
  • Github
  • eBay
  • Stack Overflow
This issue does not affect Edge, which has a unique policy,not found in Chrome,that prevents websites from adding new search engines to the default one.
The three rules I’ve chosen above are as non-intrusive as possible.

This extension is also completely useless:

Don't add custom search engines - Chrome Web Store
 
  • Like
  • Hundred Points
  • +Reputation
Reactions: ForgottenSeer 116559, lokamoka820, 7Oz-64 and 2 others
Oups!!
Capture.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, ForgottenSeer 116559, Halp2001 and 2 others
oldschool said:
@Sampei.Nihira have you tried to block them using NextDNS? Or would it not achieve your objective?

Why do you feel the need to block the list in settings? 🤔
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking.:unsure:

My goal is to block an internal Chrome feature that automatically adds search engines to

Code: 
chrome://settings/searchEngines

Unfortunately, this feature isn't based solely on OpenSearch but also on form parsing.
At the DNS level, it's not possible to set up complex rules like the ones you can use in adblockers.
Instead, it is possible to block a domain, but the result would, at best, be a malfunction of the website that adds the search engine.

Setting aside the annoyance of ending up with a list of unwanted added search engines, more and more often, some websites use this method to perform actual user fingerprinting.

P.S.

This is the main reason for the UC flag.
There are also websites that have nothing to do with search engines that abuse this feature.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Applause
Reactions: Sorrento and Halp2001
Sampei.Nihira said:
My goal is to block an internal Chrome feature that automatically adds search engines to ...

Setting aside the annoyance of ending up with a list of unwanted added search engines, more and more often, some websites use this method to perform actual user fingerprinting. ... This is the main reason for the UC flag.
Click to expand...
This is, very simply, privacy theater.
 
  • Like
  • Hundred Points
Reactions: Sorrento, Halp2001 and Sampei.Nihira
Last edited:
  • Like
  • +Reputation
  • Applause
Reactions: Moonhorse, toto_10, Gandalf_The_Grey and 4 others
uBol started as a permission less DNR blocker, next added the option to add DNR rules (in YAML format), next it added a cosmetic filter option (with the best rule constructor), next added transforming old ABP rules to cosmetic rules (you can just copy your old ABP rules in to it) and old ABP rules to DNT (well YAML) format. The only prerequisite is that the old ABP rules are constructed correctly (when uBol finds an error it stops).

After these major milestones we got support for procedural rules (currently only accepted through uBol's own filters on uBo Assets) and now it starts to accept scriptlets, making it a great Mv3 extension which is nearly as good as AdGuard (Mv3).

Reallt impressive work mr Gorhill (y)(y)(y)
 
  • Like
  • Applause
Reactions: Nunzio_77, Khushal, Virtuoso and 5 others
LinuxFan58 said:
Do you know which scriptlets it allows or do you have to write your own scripts?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't know specifically which scripts are allowed and which are not.
For example, this (which I wrote) one is not allowed:

Code: 
*##+js(set-constant, navigator.globalPrivacyControl, true)

These are allowed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions/youtube/

https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-agegate.txt

I would have tried to have the AI analyze whether there is a “common denominator,” but unfortunately I really don't have much time to devote to this right now.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento and LinuxFan58
It's absurd that the latest available version of uBoL for Firefox was updated from GitHub when there are usually no updates for weeks on end.

And in CWS, we're still on version 507.2008 (two weeks without any updates to the filter lists).
The same goes for uBo in Firefox, which is stuck at version 1.70.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lokamoka820 and Nunzio_77
Sampei.Nihira said:
It's absurd that the latest available version of uBoL for Firefox was updated from GitHub when there are usually no updates for weeks on end.

And in CWS, we're still on version 507.2008 (two weeks without any updates to the filter lists).
The same goes for uBo in Firefox, which is stuck at version 1.70.0.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the developer had a problem with Firefox when he added the uBoL to the Mozilla add-ons, so he removed it.

And Chrome had a problem with him once regarding his other extension, so I believe he gave MS Edge precedence over Chrome.

In contrast to uBoL, uBo on Firefox does not require constant updating because the lists are updated automatically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parkinsond and Marko :)
Sampei.Nihira said:
It's absurd that the latest available version of uBoL for Firefox was updated from GitHub when there are usually no updates for weeks on end.
Click to expand...
I don't think uBOL has priority over regular uBO when it comes to Firefox. There's not a single reason why anyone should use uBOL on Firefox when regular uBO works wonders.
Sampei.Nihira said:
And in CWS, we're still on version 507.2008 (two weeks without any updates to the filter lists).
The same goes for uBo in Firefox, which is stuck at version 1.70.0.
Click to expand...
Filter lists in uBO are updated regularly and independently from the extension so the version number doesn't really matter; your ad blocking capability remains the best. Gorhill uses uBO updates to improve extension; not to update filters.

On the other hand, situation with uBOL is completely different and filter lists are updated along with extension as Chrome's MV3 doesn't let extensions fetch assets from remote sources. So yes, the quality of uBOL ad blocking largly depends on Google, how fast they will approve new uBOL update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, lokamoka820 and Nunzio_77
Marko :) said:
On the other hand, situation with uBOL is completely different and filter lists are updated along with extension as Chrome's MV3 doesn't let extensions fetch assets from remote sources. So yes, the quality of uBOL ad blocking largly depends on Google, how fast they will approve new uBOL update.
Click to expand...
Ghostery allows for updates in Chrome with MV3 and if I'm not mistaken, Ad Guard filters are now also updated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento, Parkinsond, Marko :) and 1 other person
Marko :) said:
I don't think uBOL has priority over regular uBO when it comes to Firefox. There's not a single reason why anyone should use uBOL on Firefox when regular uBO works wonders.

Filter lists in uBO are updated regularly and independently from the extension so the version number doesn't really matter; your ad blocking capability remains the best. Gorhill uses uBO updates to improve extension; not to update filters.

On the other hand, situation with uBOL is completely different and filter lists are updated along with extension as Chrome's MV3 doesn't let extensions fetch assets from remote sources. So yes, the quality of uBOL ad blocking largly depends on Google, how fast they will approve new uBOL update.
Click to expand...

u-RraaLL (a Gorhill collaborator) and I use uBo + uBoL together, although for different reasons.

The goal is to improve the extension,that is, to fix bugs and add new features that are currently missing in this version of Firefox.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento and Marko :)

You may also like...