New Update uBlock Origin/Nano Adblocker - User Tips, Questions and Issues Thread

[Lenny_Fox]

Anyone have easylist alternative? Easylist works for youtube, twitch ads and the other ones...but i have been trying to get smaller list while keeping those ads away. I can live with the easylist cookie for cookie annoyances.
I can use medium mode on my personal account, but with family members setup i prefer simple mode

Current setup:
View attachment 234827

Switch to Adguard extension using optimized filters for default profile, add another profile for your own using ubo with third party blocking with peter low and mvps host only.

Make sure desktop shortcuts etc start with default profile. Don't comprise with one size fits all, use different profiles for different browsing purposes.

 

[blacksheep]

Sad that uBlock devs don''t accept any donations. Would love to donate some money to them.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Anyone have easylist alternative? Easylist works for youtube, twitch ads and the other ones...but i have been trying to get smaller list while keeping those ads away. I can live with the easylist cookie for cookie annoyances.
I can use medium mode on my personal account, but with family members setup i prefer simple mode

Current setup:
View attachment 234827

you can add these following filters. These are basically sub-filters of easylist but they work for all websites because they are all general/generic rules

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/easylist/easylist/master/easylist/easylist_general_block.txt

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/easylist/easylist/master/easylist/easylist_general_block_dimensions.txt

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/easylist/easylist/master/easylist/easylist_general_block_popup.txt

this one can be big 20k lines of element hiding

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/easylist/easylist/master/easylist/easylist_general_hide.txt

 

[HarborFront]

@Evjl's Rain

One side question

Any idea what happens to Squid Black Malicious List it seems not updating?

Thanks

 

[Evjl's Rain]

@Evjl's Rain

Any idea what happens to Squid Black Malicious List it seems not updating?

Thanks

I don't know. Perhaps, nobody knows about it so they may decide not to update it anymore
for me, BDTL and WDBP are better than all malicious filter lists combined

did a quick test with emsisoft extension, still poor as usual

 

[Burrito]

@Evjl's Rain

One side question

Any idea what happens to Squid Black Malicious List it seems not updating?

Thanks

Yeah, I used two of the squidblacks -- and liked them.

It may be over for the squidblacks.

 

[oldschool]

It appears that some (many?) users are misusing µBO's advanced user mode so this change is coming and is available in 1.27.11b.14

Make the creation of _allow_ rules in panel an opt-in feature · gorhill/uBlock@162e537

There have been too many examples out there of users opting-in to "I am an advanced user" and yet still misusing dynamic filtering by creating _allow_ rules where _noop_ rules should be u...

github.com

 

[PotentialUser]

I followed your instructions and have played around with uBlock Origin in Hard Mode on both Microsoft Edge Chromium and Mozilla Firefox. I installed the Chrome Webstore extention on Edge Chromium, not the one from the Microsoft Edge Store as that one isn't created by gorhill himself AFAIK.

I found something odd. Websites seemed to break more on Mozilla Firefox instead of Edge Chromium. I looked into this and realized certain blocked domains on Mozilla Firefox weren't even present on Edge Chromium. Edge Chromium didn't even list them as loading up on the webpage. And those specific domains were the ones that were blocked by default (and caused websites to break) in Hard Mode on Mozilla Firefox.

So since they don't seem to show up on on uBO in Edge Chromium, I can only conclude the addon operates differently and simply allows them through without notifying the user. Whereas in Mozilla Firefox, those domains are noticed, automatically blocked (as they should be in Hard Mode), and then I have to manually unblock them on a per site basis.

Here is an example with oldschool.runescape.com (a popular online game/MMORPG).

On Mozilla Firefox (image below) -- the main web domain is runescape.com. But in order for the site to work, you must allow jagex.com (the developer's website) to also load up. Otherwise runescape.com doesn't operate correctly and breaks in some places. By default, uBO will block jagex.com in Hard Mode since it is a third-party domain. However, once allowed, runescape.com functions normally. That's great and how it should be!

Now take a look at what happens in Edge Chromium. As you can see in the image below, the domain jagex.com isn't even shown as trying to load up. And the website doesn't break at all when visited. This means uBO on Edge Chromium is somehow allowing jagex.com to load without even acknowledging it is there. Why would that be? It should be blocking all third-party domains by default and notifying the user so they can manually unblock them if needed.

This is pretty odd behavior and could be a potential security risk. uBO on Mozilla Firefox seems to detect and block more domains by default whereas in Edge Chromium, the extension appears to let certain content load without even letting the user know it is loading! And if this is happening on Edge Chromium, I'm fairly certain it happens on Google Chrome too.

Thoughts? @oldschool

 

[redsworn]

@PotentialUser uBO is able to do this because Firefox has API which supports CNAME uncloaking technique. It was being done mainly to combat 1st party tracking. Unfortunately, Chrome and other Chromium based browsers don't seem to support this. So that's why it behaves differently on Chromium. Check out the links below for further reference.
uBO version 1.25.0 changelogs
Address 1st-party tracker blocking #780

 

[oldschool]

uBO is able to do this because Firefox has API which supports CNAME uncloaking technique.

Precisely.

Chrome and other Chromium based browsers don't seem to support this.

The FF API is unique to it, neither Chrome/Chormium have similar support.

 

[oldschool]

I should have added that Brave browser may start to tackle this fairly new menace (cloaked CNAME tracking) with its built-in Shields feature in future builds. Only time will tell, especially in the Corona Era.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

For blocking those first party trackers (cloaked CNAME tracking) I'm using the first-party only trackers blocklist form here:

Geoffrey Frogeye's block list of first-party trackers

hostfiles.frogeye.fr

 

[paulderdash]

For blocking those first party trackers (cloaked CNAME tracking) I'm using the first-party only trackers blocklist form here:

Geoffrey Frogeye's block list of first-party trackers

hostfiles.frogeye.fr

Yes, I have that custom list - (often shows 'broken link' actually) but now I'm wondering ... is it redundant in Firefox?

 

[Jan Willy]

Or use AdguardDNS or NextDNS.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yes, I have that custom list - (often shows 'broken link' actually) but now I'm wondering ... is it redundant in Firefox?

If i read the Firefox part of the uBlock Origin changelog I don't think it's redundant. The first party trackers are visible in Firefox but not always blocked.

Release 1.25.0 · gorhill/uBlock

Commits to master since this release To install the stable build: Chromium: Install from the Chrome store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm....

github.com

 

[PotentialUser]

@PotentialUser uBO is able to do this because Firefox has API which supports CNAME uncloaking technique. It was being done mainly to combat 1st party tracking. Unfortunately, Chrome and other Chromium based browsers don't seem to support this. So that's why it behaves differently on Chromium. Check out the links below for further reference.
uBO version 1.25.0 changelogs
Address 1st-party tracker blocking #780

Precisely.

The FF API is unique to it, neither Chrome/Chormium have similar support.

Thank you both for replying. And I appreciate the links @redsworn! I took a look at the GitHub pages redsworn linked and did some of my own research on the topic as well and have a question for both of you (feel free to both reply if you can ).

I found this article (among many others) detailing this recently-released feature. It states the resources are highlighted in blue with the uncloaked sites displayed in a smaller font size under the canonical names. I've included the article's example image in this post. As you can see in the image below, a cloudfront.net domain was attempting to mask a mailmunch.co domain (which the Firefox version of uBO noticed and highlighted in blue).

However, when you take a look at the two images I supplied in my earlier post in this thread, in uBO Firefox, neither the jagex.com, nor the runescape.com domains, were blue or had uncloaked sites listed in a smaller font underneath. Forgive me if this is a misunderstanding but doesn't this mean jagex.com is not loading up as hidden first-party tracker? It is simply loading up like any other domain would and Microsoft Edge just didn't pick it up for some odd reason but Mozilla Firefox did?

Which means in this case (only), this doesn't have anything to do with Chromium-based browsers lacking the ability to uncloak CNAMES. Because if this was a CNAME issue, then in Firefox, the jagex.com domain would be listed under the runescape.com domain in smaller font and both would be highlighted in blue to show that it was attempting to sneakily load up -- similar to how the mailmunch.co domain was listed under the cloudfront.net domain with both highlighted in blue in the image above.

Again, my apologies if this is completely off the mark. I am a new user to uBO (my second day messing with it) but I thought I'd ask this question anyway since it was something I noticed.

Thanks once again for your replies you two!

--

Also, off-topic but do you still use Brave on a regular basis @oldschool? I ask because I read the recent "scandal" regarding some affiliate links or something and it didn't seem like such a big deal to a layman like me. But I've seen others say you use(d?) around here so I'm interested to hear your opinion.

 

[oldschool]

Which means in this case (only), this doesn't have anything to do with Chromium-based browsers lacking the ability to uncloak CNAMES. Because if this was a CNAME issue, then in Firefox, the jagex.com domain would be listed under the runescape.com domain in smaller font and both would be highlighted in blue

You may be correct. I don't know exactly what the reason is for the difference you are seeing between browsers. I haven't investigated and I don't use Firefox. Maybe @SeriousHoax or @Lenny_Fox, etc. can help cipher this.

And yes, I use Brave. Nothing is perfect.

 

[PotentialUser]

You may be correct. I don't know exactly what the reason is for the difference you are seeing between browsers. I haven't investigated and I don't use Firefox. Maybe @SeriousHoax or @Lenny_Fox, etc. can help cipher this.

And yes, I use Brave. Nothing is perfect.

Ok good. I was concerned that maybe my interpretation of how Firefox's CNAME blocking looks like graphically on the uBO GUI was incorrect. It seems like some other funny business is going on. Definitely will appreciate any and all help from @SeriousHoax and @Lenny_Fox.

BTW, if you two are reading this, this occurs on other webpages as well. For example, on apple.com, uBO Hard Mode (Firefox) will block some Akamai domains (akamaiedge.net) by default which will break the Apple.com homepage (like it should). It's easy to fix by setting in a noop rule. However, when visiting apple.com in Edge Chromium and Brave, akamaiedge.net doesn't appear to load up in uBO (it obviously is loading but Edge/Brave addon isn't picking it up) and the Apple homepage doesn't break.

TL;DR: The uBO addon in Hard Mode on Chromium-based browsers is, for whatever reason, not detecting/ignoring some third-party domains and allowing them to load up whereas the uBO addon in Hard Mode on Firefox is detecting and blocking them (like it should!). And this is an issue seemingly un-related to Firefox API giving uBO the the ability to uncloak first-party trackers. This is a completely different (and odd) issue.

--
@oldschool - I was only asking because I started using Brave recently as a secondary browser and was considering making it my primary browser. I don't think the affiliate thing was a big deal and after reading your response, I'm glad you don't either otherwise you wouldn't continue to use it. I will probably make Brave my primary browser in the near future. I know the company behind it is for-profit and aren't some white knights out there to save the internet but the way they do business is definitely more ethical than Google harvesting all of their users' data. Bills have to be paid somehow and as long as I can disable features I don't use like BAT and Crypto stuff, all is well. Plus, I just like the aesthetics in Brave more.

 

[redsworn]

That's because the domains list is collapsed by default. You need to do this expand it.

Quick guide: popup user interface

uBlock Origin - An efficient blocker for Chromium and Firefox. Fast and lean. - gorhill/uBlock

github.com

You can also expand them individually by clicking the empty space on the left of the domain names.

 

[oldschool]

That's because the domains list is collapsed by default. You need to do this expand it.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Quick-guide:popup-user-interface#the-overview-panel

You can also expand them individually by clicking the empty space on the left of the domain names.

I hadn't read that section recently. You learn something new everyday.