Advice Request uBo or AdGuard + NoScript

[n8chavez]

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

Well, at least I know I'm not insane.

 

[SeriousHoax]

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.

Oh, I see. But does using a browser in sandbox really add a lot of benefits? Data stealers/cookie stealer malware are mainly dangerous for browsers I think, but such type of malware can still steal data from the browser regardless of it being in sandboxie or not.

 

[n8chavez]

Oh, I see. But does using a browser in sandbox really add a lot of benefits? Data stealers/cookie stealer malware are mainly dangerous for browsers I think, but such type of malware can still steal data from the browser regardless of it being in sandboxie or not.

It does if you consider the fact that I can set restrictions as to what gets written to the drive; what filetypes and by what process. It also allows me to do a lot of testing of different extensions and settings, yet knowing that I can close my browser and everything will get reset. Particularly with Vivaldi's m3, it's nice to have restrictions as to what can and cannot run in the sandbox.

I'd sooner unplug by system than compute without it.

 

[oldschool]

Test sites like this can not provide a real world experience. They can misunderstand what's going on, probably due to HTTPS filtering.

And are only meant to be used for reference purposes as a rough guide.

 

[n8chavez]

And are only meant to be used for reference purposes as a rough guide.

If I were to get cancer, would I then be justified in only being mad at the doctor who told me I had cancer or would I get mad at the disease itself? The face is, sites like these are important because they demonstrate that things are not working the way they should. You can blame the test site all you want but it doesn't change the validity of the result, especially since there's more than one user having the same issue.

 

[oldschool]

sites like these are important because they demonstrate that things are not working the way they should.

Indeed, they are useful for this.

Are you and @Sorrento using Adguard along side Brave Adblock? If so, that is the reason.

 

[n8chavez]

Indeed, they are useful for this.

Are you and @Sorrento using Adguard along side Brave Adblock? If so, that is the reason.

I have never used brave, as I find their slight towards cryto unnerving. I like crypto, but it has no place in a browser. Vivaldi has a built-in ad blocker too, but I disable it when testing. It was disabled for that test.

 

[SeriousHoax]

If I were to get cancer, would I then be justified in only being mad at the doctor who told me I had cancer or would I get mad at the disease itself? The face is, sites like these are important because they demonstrate that things are not working the way they should. You can blame the test site all you want but it doesn't change the validity of the result, especially since there's more than one user having the same issue.

I think @oldschool & I know exactly what you are talking about, but what we said is also true. I don't use Vivaldi, but I tested Chrome with Cloudflare DNS + ADG Windows and got 10%. So your 0% indeed seems like an odd result.
Anyway, you can directly ask Adguard about your issue in details, who'll give you a better answer. There are multiple closed issue on GitHub regarding this site on GitHub where the Adguard team consider this test site useless. Check the comments of each one and create a new issue if required to know if there's any incompatibility with Vivaldi and its built-in adblocker.

Issues · AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters

AdGuard Content Blocking Filters. Contribute to AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[ErzCrz]

uBO is just as capable as NS and Matrix. Running my tweaked hard mode, the scripts on that test side are blocked and it just spinning logo and nothing happening. What I do like with NoScript is the option to look up Urls.

Spoiler: uBO Tweaked HardMode

Dynamic Rules:

no-csp-reports: * true
no-large-media: behind-the-scene false
no-popups: * true
no-strict-blocking: 192.168.0.1 true
* * 3p block
* * 3p-frame block
* * 3p-script block
* com * noop
* eu * noop
* info * noop
* io * noop
* net * noop
* org * noop
* uk * noop

Static Filters:
! Block beacons, plugins and websockets everywhere
||*$ping,object,websocket

! Block potentially unsafe third-party content to unencrypted websites
|HTTP://*$third-party,~document,~stylesheet,~image,~media
! Block opening webpages on top level domains and countries I never visit
||*$document,~stylesheet,~image,~media,~script,~subdocument,~xmlhttprequest,domain=~com|~info|~io|~eu|~net|~org|~uk

Spoiler: Blocked Log

 

[n8chavez]

uBO is just as capable as NS and Matrix. Running my tweaked hard mode, the scripts on that test side are blocked and it just spinning logo and nothing happening. What I do like with NoScript is the option to look up Urls.

Spoiler: uBO Tweaked HardMode

Dynamic Rules:

no-csp-reports: * true
no-large-media: behind-the-scene false
no-popups: * true
no-strict-blocking: 192.168.0.1 true
* * 3p block
* * 3p-frame block
* * 3p-script block
* com * noop
* eu * noop
* info * noop
* io * noop
* net * noop
* org * noop
* uk * noop

Static Filters:
! Block beacons, plugins and websockets everywhere
||*$ping,object,websocket

! Block potentially unsafe third-party content to unencrypted websites
|HTTP://*$third-party,~document,~stylesheet,~image,~media
! Block opening webpages on top level domains and countries I never visit
||*$document,~stylesheet,~image,~media,~script,~subdocument,~xmlhttprequest,domain=~com|~info|~io|~eu|~net|~org|~uk

Spoiler: Blocked Log

View attachment 269698

Oh....I like those rules. I'll look at them more closely after I get back from my nephew's track meet. Thanks for sharing!!

 

[Jan Willy]

@ErsCrz
Perhaps we are going off-topic, but can you explain the exception (~) you made in next filter rule?

 

[Sorrento]

I don't use AdGuard in Brave it's disabled and use Brave's own system - It really is weird to get less than 50% with that site and get much more using the same filters with an extension or even less - It's been fine until the the last two weeks or when I ran the test last - AdGuard forum doesn't say much at all & most posts here are by those who don't use AdGuard for Windows - A bit busy at moment with work so reverted to UBlock so no really issue - My main (only) issue was that changed a lot recently with 22H2 etc & wondered if that or other changed were the problem.

 

[Jan Willy]

It really is weird to get less than 50% with that site ...

It is said before in this thread, take the results from that so called test site with a grain of salt. This morning I 'tested' my Adguard for Windows. Wow, only 98%. Other times100%. Great panic, what could be wrong? Adguard missed ads.reddit.com and ads.youtube.com. Then I visited the Reddit and Youtube sites and saw in my Adguard-log that there were no connections to ads.reddit.com and ads.youtube.com. Now I can sleep safely again.
More about the test site in the thread 'Evaluate your content blocker with Ad Block Tester'.

 

[ErzCrz]

@ErsCrz
Perhaps we are going off-topic, but can you explain the exception (~) you made in next filter rule?

View attachment 269713

They are inverse type options e.g. ~script means that the filter should not be applied to scripts. But it's not something I'm expert at. Got these from here: Ublock Origin Thread

 

[Jan Willy]

They are inverse type options e.g. ~script means that the filter should not be applied to scripts. But it's not something I'm expert at. Got these from here: Ublock Origin Thread

IMO the exceptions are unnecessary.The goal is to block the whole site. You can simplify the rule to | |*$document,domain=~com|~info|~io|~eu|~net|~org|~uk
I've tried it at the German site WELT - Aktuelle Nachrichten, News, Hintergründe & Videos
Would you like to visit German sites, just add |~de to the rule.
Edit: If you want, you can replace the rule by adding a more specific list: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LennyFox/Blocklists/master/Block_countries_with_bad_reputation.txt

 

[n8chavez]

I enjoy learning about all these things, so I guess from my perspective there's no such thing as going OT. At the end of the day if I know more now they I did yesterday I consider that a win.

That being said, I think manifest v3 really messed everything up; the same solution is not viable for gecko browsers and it is for blink browsers. uBo is better for Firefox but not for Chromium. Right? uBo is considerable less effection in Chromium than in Gecko. Who knows how much longer firefox will remain viable.

 

[oldschool]

uBo is better for Firefox but not for Chromium. Right?

µBO for Firefox has more capabilities like CNAME lookup, which has always been the case since chromium browsers lack a certain API unique to FF. MV3 only makes matter worse for chromium.

Who knows how much longer firefox will remain viable.

Only time will tell.

 

[n8chavez]

Correct. So, in answer to the poll, I guess it depends. uBo for firefox and Adguard + NoScript for Chromium? All this to come to an inconclusive conclusion? Yep, that sounds about par for the course!

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

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.

I was talking within the framework of using strict blocking of JavaScript.

The complexity of the rules depends upon 1) if the user adopts a strict blocking model and 2) the websites themselves. Websites do change behind the scenes. A user that frequents Team Server, GitHub, BitBucket, TestRails, etc are going to do a lot of rules tweaking and management. SSO login represents a unique problem when blocking scripts. That's more rules tweaking and management.

The "inconvenience" is not overwhelming, but it can be an occasional nuisance. It certainly involves time. Enough time that one has to weigh the benefits of a strict blocking model to the time spent creating and managing the rules. Personally I calculated that the benefit was not worth it. I suppose it boils down to how patient and willing the user is. Then there are those occasions where a rule does not fix a website breakage; and the extension has to be disabled for a site.

 

[oldschool]

Enough time that one has to weigh the benefits of a strict blocking model to the time spent creating and managing the rules. Personally I calculated that the benefit was not worth it.

I was an "advanced user" of µBO and over time have come to the same conclusion. Balancing privacy-security-usability is the key.

I still keep advanced user rules in place in case I do dodgy web browsing.