New Update uBlock Origin Lite - MV3-based content blocker

rashmi

Level 17
Jan 15, 2024
841
Tried with Chrome
uBOL on "Complete" filtering mode with default, badware risks, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "No" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
AdGuard MV3 with base, tracking protection, social media, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "Yes" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
 

oldschool

Level 85
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
8,006
Tried with Chrome
uBOL on "Complete" filtering mode with default, badware risks, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "No" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
AdGuard MV3 with base, tracking protection, social media, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "Yes" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
Yes, this is odd. I tried it on all 3 settings and received the "None" result with each. But then I deleted all cookies for that site and got a "Partially protected" result. Another strange thing is that it was the same result after deleting cookies, changing protection settings and reloading, and then repeating the sequence, for each of the 3 tests. Go figure.

Maybe someone has an explanation for what's happening. Hmmm ... 🤔

BTW, Privacy Badger scores a "Good protection" result and is my favorite MV3 extension so far. It's "good enough" for me. ;)
 
Last edited:

lokamoka820

Level 27
Verified
Well-known
Mar 1, 2024
1,606
Tried with Chrome
uBOL on "Complete" filtering mode with default, badware risks, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "No" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
AdGuard MV3 with base, tracking protection, social media, and annoyances filter lists, the CoverYourTracks website shows "Yes" for tracking ads and invisible trackers.
This is odd, I'm using uBOL on "Complete" filtering mode with default filters, and it shows "Yes" for both:

2025-04-06 at 06-05-31 vivaldi.png
 

oldschool

Level 85
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
8,006
This is odd, I'm using uBOL on "Complete" filtering mode with default filters, and it shows "Yes" for both:

View attachment 287999
Oops! :rolleyes: I was using newly-installed Chrome Canary and had neglected to block 3rd party cookies, and after changing setting, re-tested with good results. @rashmi - check your 3rd party cookies setting.
 

silversurfer

Super Moderator
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Staff Member
Malware Hunter
Aug 17, 2014
11,696

oldschool

Level 85
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
8,006
A significant new issue opened by @gorhill. Use host_permissions instead of optional_host_permissions #326

Description​

Using optional_host_permissions leads to too many pain points, especially for deployment of uBO Lite.
Once the changes are completed, uBOL will install with broad permissions at install time.
Users who still want to avoid broad permissions can use the extension settings provided by the browser to remove the default broad host permissions:

When the setting is "On click", uBOL will automatically switch the default mode to "Basic", and users will have to explicitly grant host permissions by clicking on the toolbar icon to first enable uBOL on a given site, then again if they want to raise filtering mode to Optimal or Complete on that site.
Browsers are moving toward having users control host permissions for extensions (source), so it's best to let the browser manage these than try to manage these from within an extension such as uBOL, which is naturally geared toward having broad host permissions.
Changes required:
  • Revisit all the store descriptions (tedious)
  • Ensure uBOL default to Basic mode when losing broad host permissions
  • Ensure uBOL default to Optimal mode when gaining broad host permissions
  • Remove the need for automatically opening dashboard at install time
  • Remove permissions management in various part of the code, the browser will entirely manage these now -- uBOL will only react to host permission changes to configure itself in a way that matches the available hosts permissions
This will lead to some worries when uBOL update with these changes due to the scary warning, but it is what it is.
👍2
 
Last edited:

wat0114

Level 13
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 5, 2021
624
EFF shows Partial using Brave browser without it's own filtering enabled.

EFF test on brave browser.png

uBlock Origin Lite 2025.4.6.1238

Lately I've gone back to using Floorp, using using uBO 1.63.2, because it filters out ads better than uBO lite on Brave.
 

oldschool

Level 85
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
8,006
Lately I've gone back to using Floorp, using using uBO 1.63.2, because it filters out ads better than uBO lite on Brave.
Why would you use UBOL in Brave? I don't see the point of adding an ad blocker extension when Brave has very good adblocking, and you also sacrifice Brave's other privacy features, e.g. fingerprint protection, link cleaning, etc. when you disable Shields.
 

wat0114

Level 13
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 5, 2021
624
Why would you use UBOL in Brave? I don't see the point of adding an ad blocker extension when Brave has very good adblocking, and you also sacrifice Brave's other privacy features, e.g. fingerprint protection, link cleaning, etc. when you disable Shields.

No particular reason, other than I was trying to simplify things by not having to manually add custom filter lists to Brave's built-in ad blocking shields, and also I wanted to see how uBOL would stack up to only using Brave's Shields. Nothing more than experimentation on my part. Honestly, ad blocking is not that important to me anymore, so long as I can block most ads on the few websites I visit these days.
 

silversurfer

Super Moderator
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Staff Member
Malware Hunter
Aug 17, 2014
11,696

oldschool

Level 85
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
8,006
@gorhill's latest response to issue Use host_permissions instead of optional_host_permissions #326
plus correct me if i'm wrong because it's a long time ago, but MV2 plugins including original UBO do ask the users to confirm that the plugins needs to be allowed to "read or change all your data on all websites"
Yes, all reputable content blockers (Adguard, ABP, AB, Ghostery, Privacy Badger, NoScript, etc) require broad host permission by default regardless on MV2/MV3, uBOL was the only exception before the change.

I am not aware of any reputable content blocker not requiring "read or change all your data on all websites" at the moment, so people worried about the warning will receive the exact same warning when trying to install another content blocker, except that those blockers are impractical to use in "On click" mode, at least uBOL can still be configured to persist the host permission for any given site when raising the filtering mode to Optimal or Complete in "On click" mode (it will request "Allow" or "Deny" just as before), which will cause the extension to fall into "On specific sites" mode.
How do you set the default filteringMode?
I will add this capability in a future release, along with site-specific filtering modes for Basic, Optimal, and Complete (currently only noFiltering is supported).
What he says about "On click" mode is true for other ad blocking & anti-tracking extensions. This change will make UBOL more usable for the minimalist Chromium user.
 
  • +Reputation
Reactions: simmerskool

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top