Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
General Apps
AdGuard
uBO medium mode in Adguard browser extension
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jan Willy" data-source="post: 1014213" data-attributes="member: 80838"><p>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).</p><p>View <a href="https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode" target="_blank">Blocking mode · gorhill/uBlock Wiki</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>But Adguard experimental browser extension MV3 does. The rules are very simple:</p><p></p><p>HM = ||*^$third-party</p><p>MM = ||*^$script,subdocument,third-party</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Example of a site-specific whitelist rule in HM (example.com = third party):</p><p>@@example.com^$third-party</p><p></p><p>If you want to whitelist the third party only on a specific first party site, the whitelist rule in HM is:</p><p>@@example.com^$third-party,domain=firstparty.com</p><p></p><p>With these examples it’s easy to think of rules for MM.</p><p></p><p>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 <a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US%2Bmost_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt" target="_blank">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt</a>).</p><p></p><p>An example of such a softened MM blocking rule:</p><p>||*^$script,subdocument,third-party,denyallow=com|eu|inf|io|ms|net|nl|org</p><p></p><p>Domainextension .nl is from my country.</p><p></p><p>If you want to whitelist a blocked domainextension there are two possibilities.</p><p></p><p>1.Add the domainextension to aforementioned rule.</p><p></p><p>2.Make a separate whitelist rule just for that case. E.g. regarding the domainextension .video (yes this really exists). An example:</p><p>@@.video$script,subdocument,third-party,domain=firstparty.com</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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”</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jan Willy, post: 1014213, member: 80838"] 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 [URL='https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode']Blocking mode · gorhill/uBlock Wiki[/URL] 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 [URL='https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US%2Bmost_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt']https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks.txt[/URL]). 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” [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
