Advice Request uBo or AdGuard + NoScript

[n8chavez]

I'm interested in you thoughts on this one, because I genuinely do not know. Assuming all the filtersets are the same, would you prefer uBo in medium mode or AdGuard + NoScript? Essentially, this comes down to the connection blocking capabilities of uBo's medium mode versus those of NoScript (since ad/tracker lists are identical for both uBo and Adguard) I don't know that I like the idea of putting too much into a singular basket, but I could just be over-thinking this Right? Am I just dumb?

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Never used NoScript recently, but security wise it makes sense to use as less extensions as possible, so uBlock Origin.

 

[Nevi]

I also use UBlock Origin.

 

[n8chavez]

I like uBo. But an issue for me is that uBo in medium mode gives no indication on whether or not there's a rule made for a particular site, since there's no text and just red a nd gray squares. Light red, dark red, light gray, and dark grey all mean something different. With NoScript that's not the case. It clearly says if a site is untrusted or trusted, there's no guess work involved. If I did not create the trust rule it's untrusted by default. With uBo, since there's also the filters to consider, who knows if I made the rule or not.

 

[Guilhermesene]

In my personal experience, uBo is more than enough, besides, Adguard makes my browsing a bit slow

 

[Jan Willy]

But an issue for me is that uBo in medium mode gives no indication on whether or not there's a rule made for a particular site, since there's no text and just red a nd gray squares. Light red, dark red, light gray, and dark grey all mean something different.

Everything you want to know about blocked items you can find in the logger. Look at: The logger · gorhill/uBlock Wiki

 

[Scirious]

I'm using Adguard Desktop Client and I'm really satisfied by it. The desktop client enables for easy use of NextDNS and Control D and easy of switching between them and it allows me to have filtering enabled system wide and not just in the browser.

 

[n8chavez]

I'm using Adguard Desktop Client and I'm really satisfied by it. The desktop client enables for easy use of NextDNS and Control D and easy of switching between them and it allows me to have filtering enabled system wide and not just in the browser.

Agreed. I very much like it too. However, I did come across something interesting. Below is the results of a test I ran that supposedly tests adblockers (see here). AdGuard for Windows is clearly running and blocking things, as you can see from the filter log. The legacy assistant is also there in Vivaldi's lower right hand side. So it is working. However the test results in a 0%. I don't understand why.

 

[Scirious]

I can't comment about these tests, but I notice that I don't see any adds while browsing and using my PC.

 

[oldschool]

. With uBo, since there's also the filters to consider, who knows if I made the rule or not.

It has the My Rules and My Filters sections.

 

[n8chavez]

Correct. I was referring to

It has the My Rules and My Filters sections.

Correct. I was referring to its visual representations not being as clear as "Not Trusted" and "Trusted", which is what NoScript does

 

[n8chavez]

Another thing worth mentioning is that with uBo, I can have a site allow rule while at the same time having that same site denied a custom user rule. If I run, for example, the site test I ran earlier, you'll see that the site's connections are allowed because they are allowed in uBo's medium mode even if they are denied in uBo's "My filters". Getting specific:

My Rules:

twitter.com cdn-apple.com * noop
twitter.com twimg.com * noop
twitter.com twitter.com * noop
* ads-twitter.com * block
d3ward.github.io ads-twitter.com * block
d3ward.github.io static.ads-twitter.com * block
d3ward.github.io twitter.com * block
d3ward.github.io ads-api.twitter.com * block
d3ward.github.io advertising.twitter.com * block

You can see that some of twitter is allowed using this rule method.

My Filters:

||ads-api.twitter.com^
||advertising.twitter.com^
||ads-twitter.com^

And here you see twitter denied using my filters. Which one takes over? It's not deny by default. Using this method I fail the test, even though I have the blocklist created by the developer as a cheat.

One rule aspect says block, yet the other says allow. This is why I'm doubting uBo. It seems like a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. Obviously the test doesn't reflect real world, I'm just using it to illustrate my point.

 

[oldschool]

@n8chavez I think you've found your answer since you are clearly more comfortable with NoScript.

In case you haven't seen this from the µBO Wiki Dynamic filtering: precedence · gorhill/uBlock Wiki

 

[n8chavez]

@n8chavez I think you've found your answer since you are clearly more comfortable with NoScript.

In case you haven't seen this from the µBO Wiki Dynamic filtering: precedence · gorhill/uBlock Wiki

Have I? As I've stated, I have history of being a self-proclaimed idiot. Maybe I'm not thinking of everything. Also, uBo can block site-connection at a global level and site-by-site. NoScipt cannot. I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

I'm interested in you thoughts on this one, because I genuinely do not know. Assuming all the filtersets are the same, would you prefer uBo in medium mode or AdGuard + NoScript? Essentially, this comes down to the connection blocking capabilities of uBo's medium mode versus those of NoScript (since ad/tracker lists are identical for both uBo and Adguard) I don't know that I like the idea of putting too much into a singular basket, but I could just be over-thinking this Right? Am I just dumb?

When you start to create script block rules on a per-site basis, you will quickly find that managing the rules becomes a huge headache.

 

[n8chavez]

When you start to create script block rules on a per-site basis, you will quickly find that managing the rules becomes a huge headache.

Perhaps. But once you create those rules about what site elements can and cannot be made on any given site you are the one in control. Not anyone else. And let's nor pretend that people generally visit more than 60 sites with any kind of regularity. Once it's done, it's done.

 

[Sorrento]

According to the ;dward' Ad Checker AdGuard for Windows recently blocks almost nothing, much less than AdGuard extension which works fine or just about anything else - Not sure what's happened & appreciate it's just a test but interesting? Wondered if anyone else has this issue? At moment using the AdGuard extension on Edge & built in system on Brave.

Edit:
Looks like user: n8chavez has the similar results?
DWard

 

[SeriousHoax]

Agreed. I very much like it too. However, I did come across something interesting. Below is the results of a test I ran that supposedly tests adblockers (see here). AdGuard for Windows is clearly running and blocking things, as you can see from the filter log. The legacy assistant is also there in Vivaldi's lower right hand side. So it is working. However the test results in a 0%. I don't understand why.

View attachment 269635

If HTTPS filtering is working on Vivaldi as well as the filtering log, then don't worry about the results. Test sites like this can not provide a real world experience. They can misunderstand what's going on, probably due to HTTPS filtering.
A quote by an Adguard contributor regarding this site:

Sites like this do not reflect the actual effectiveness.

BTW, are you using the old version of the Adguard assistant extension? In that case, you should probably use the new one.

 

[Sorrento]

Initially I though something may be blocking AdGuard's effectiveness, such as Armor or my AV/O&O etc but I proved this was not the case, and there was a small point on the forum.

 

[n8chavez]

BTW, are you using the old version of the Adguard assistant extension? In that case, you should probably use the new one.

I wish I could. But I can't. The newer versions, the actual extension assistant, does not allow for communication between itself and AdGuard for Windows when the browser is sandboxed with sandboxie. And there's no way I'd ever access the internet without that, ever.