- Jul 5, 2019
- 607
IMHO is a great advantage of uBO the use of dynamic rules besides static rules. It makes it possible to use uBO in so called Medium Mode (MM) or Hard Mode (HM).
View Blocking mode · gorhill/uBlock Wiki
When Google Manifest 3 (MV3) enters into force next year, most probably the dynamic rules will no longer work in Chromium based browsers. The absence of those rules in uBO Lite, that is intended to cooperate with MV3, points in that direction.
Can we simulate MM and HM in uBO Lite? In any case not at this moment. uBO Lite doesn’t offer the possibility to add custom rules.
But Adguard experimental browser extension MV3 does. The rules are very simple:
HM = ||*^$third-party
MM = ||*^$script,subdocument,third-party
Especially HM will break many sites. And even in MM one has to whitelist many third party sites. It’s not difficult but not as easy as in uBO. And it can start to irritate after a while.
Example of a site-specific whitelist rule in HM (example.com = third party):
@@example.com^$third-party
If you want to whitelist the third party only on a specific first party site, the whitelist rule in HM is:
@@example.com^$third-party,domain=firstparty.com
With these examples it’s easy to think of rules for MM.
A complicating factor is that Adguard MV3 still doesn’t log events. For now the most practical approach to this problem is, to use the MM rule and in advance to whitelist most common domainextensions. The blocking rule is then focussed on unusual and possible suspected third parties. I would regard this as a kind of backstop and not as a replacement of third party filterlists (such as https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt).
An example of such a softened MM blocking rule:
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party,denyallow=com|eu|inf|io|ms|net|nl|org
Domainextension .nl is from my country.
If you want to whitelist a blocked domainextension there are two possibilities.
1.Add the domainextension to aforementioned rule.
2.Make a separate whitelist rule just for that case. E.g. regarding the domainextension .video (yes this really exists). An example:
@@.video$script,subdocument,third-party,domain=firstparty.com
As I said, Adguard MV3 still doesn’t log events. Besides above-described practical approach I use for the time being also the authentic Adguard browser extension, that also accepts the filter rules, to view the log.
For the here discussed solution I was strongly inspired by the thread “uBlock0rigin in Medium mode for Lighter and Stronger Protection, with Less websites breakage and hassle”
View Blocking mode · gorhill/uBlock Wiki
When Google Manifest 3 (MV3) enters into force next year, most probably the dynamic rules will no longer work in Chromium based browsers. The absence of those rules in uBO Lite, that is intended to cooperate with MV3, points in that direction.
Can we simulate MM and HM in uBO Lite? In any case not at this moment. uBO Lite doesn’t offer the possibility to add custom rules.
But Adguard experimental browser extension MV3 does. The rules are very simple:
HM = ||*^$third-party
MM = ||*^$script,subdocument,third-party
Especially HM will break many sites. And even in MM one has to whitelist many third party sites. It’s not difficult but not as easy as in uBO. And it can start to irritate after a while.
Example of a site-specific whitelist rule in HM (example.com = third party):
@@example.com^$third-party
If you want to whitelist the third party only on a specific first party site, the whitelist rule in HM is:
@@example.com^$third-party,domain=firstparty.com
With these examples it’s easy to think of rules for MM.
A complicating factor is that Adguard MV3 still doesn’t log events. For now the most practical approach to this problem is, to use the MM rule and in advance to whitelist most common domainextensions. The blocking rule is then focussed on unusual and possible suspected third parties. I would regard this as a kind of backstop and not as a replacement of third party filterlists (such as https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt).
An example of such a softened MM blocking rule:
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party,denyallow=com|eu|inf|io|ms|net|nl|org
Domainextension .nl is from my country.
If you want to whitelist a blocked domainextension there are two possibilities.
1.Add the domainextension to aforementioned rule.
2.Make a separate whitelist rule just for that case. E.g. regarding the domainextension .video (yes this really exists). An example:
@@.video$script,subdocument,third-party,domain=firstparty.com
As I said, Adguard MV3 still doesn’t log events. Besides above-described practical approach I use for the time being also the authentic Adguard browser extension, that also accepts the filter rules, to view the log.
For the here discussed solution I was strongly inspired by the thread “uBlock0rigin in Medium mode for Lighter and Stronger Protection, with Less websites breakage and hassle”
Last edited:
