Lenny_Fox

Level 14
Verified
@Shiz, you can import the static (ABP) rules in the My Filters tab and the dynamic (uBO) rules in the My Rules tab,

Remember you have to replace the rules
* nl * nooop
* uk * noop

For the country codes of the languages you speak, e.g. for Italian
* it * noop

For German
* de * noop
* at * noop
* ch * noop

etc
 

Attachments

  • my-ublock-static-filters.txt
    236 bytes · Views: 36
  • my-ublock-dynamic-rules.txt
    155 bytes · Views: 37

ErzCrz

Level 7
Verified
@Shiz, you can import the static (ABP) rules in the My Filters tab and the dynamic (uBO) rules in the My Rules tab,

Remember you have to replace the rules
* nl * nooop
* uk * noop

For the country codes of the languages you speak, e.g. for Italian
* it * noop

For German
* de * noop
* at * noop
* ch * noop

etc

Out of curiosity, are you not longer using the rules to block common TLDs in your static filters list?

Also, the default dynamic rules now also include behind-the-scene noop rules by default. Should I be removing those if using medium mode or my modified version of it?

no-large-media: behind-the-scene false
behind-the-scene * * noop
behind-the-scene * 1p-script noop
behind-the-scene * 3p noop
behind-the-scene * 3p-frame noop
behind-the-scene * 3p-script noop
behind-the-scene * image noop
behind-the-scene * inline-script noop

Just looking at simplifying things some with my setup. Tempted to play around with Adguard extension but just experimenting which works best. I'm find with default lists but may look at your top 500 suggestion.

Page loads faster in default mode so I'm trying to weak things so medium mode runs just as quick. Probably because I had to many static filters.

Anyway, that's OT. Sad to see uMatrix going though I never tried it myself.
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 14
Verified
@ErzCrz you are sharp to notice the difference (y)

Reason for removing them: ApGuard seems to deal better with TLD's than uBO. Also with the third-party dynamic rules for script (easy medium mode), requests to those TLD's will (hopefully) be harmless anyway (because of 3p-scrpt and 3p-frame block).

With behind the scene * * noop, all other behind the scene noops are redundant. I added the * * * noop for documentation purpose (uBO apples a noop by default as far as I know).

This is my last post about uBO in uMatrix, apologize for stealing this thread
 

oldschool

Level 56
Verified
Some time ago an academic study showed that adblockers with around 3K rules (Ghostery, Disconnect and Privacy Badger) did as good on the Alexa Top 100.000 as adblockers with over 100.000K rules (uBlockOriging, AdblockPlus and Adblock).
The problem that Manifest V.3 poses for these "smart" adblockers is made clear in the link from my Post #13 above. I've italicized a couple of salient points:

ghostwords commented on Jan 29, 2019
edited

An overview of the Manifest V3 proposal's impact upon Privacy Badger
Privacy Badger is a browser extension that automatically learns to block invisible trackers.
Instead of keeping lists of what to block, Privacy Badger learns by watching which domains appear to be tracking you as you browse the Web. Privacy Badger sends the Do Not Track signal with your browsing. If trackers ignore your wishes, your Badger will learn to block them. Privacy Badger starts blocking once it sees the same tracker on three different websites.
The Manifest V3 proposal thoroughly breaks this description. It appears that Privacy Badger will no longer be able to dynamically learn to block trackers, report what it blocked on a page, block cookies from being set or sent, strip referrer headers, nor properly support EFF's Do Not Track policy.
If you remove what makes Privacy Badger unique, replacing it with basic list-based blocking, what are you left with?

Replacing persistent background pages with ServiceWorkers
A non-persistent event-driven background page does not work well for extensions that need to keep ephemeral state.
  • Privacy Badger maintains per-tab data that includes things like which third-party domains were detected and/or blocked on the page.
  • It may be possible to continuously save and restore state from storage as a workaround, but this runs counter to the stated performance goals of moving away from persistent background pages. It seems that persistent background pages are a much better fit for certain (stateful) types of extensions.
  • As Privacy Badger requires the webRequest API (more on this below), a persistent background page is required as per Chrome extension docs:
    The webRequest API is incompatible with non-persistent background pages.
There are likely other issues (will a ServiceWorker background page support functioning in Incognito contexts, which is essential for privacy and security extensions?), but they are eclipsed by the fundamental mistake of trying to shoehorn stateful extensions into an exclusively event driven model.
Restricting origin access / Manifest Host Permission Specification
Making users confirm extension access (host_permissions) does not seem to make sense for general-purpose content blocking (adblocker/privacy/security) extensions. Outside of edge cases (for example, a Facebook.com-specific extension), content blockers need access across all URLs. Redundantly prompting users for permission to run these scripts (on top of the existing notification users see when initially installing Privacy Badger) will be unhelpful and confusing.
As Chrome extension docs for permissions state:
Use required permissions when they are needed for your extension’s basic functionality.
Dynamic Content Scripts
Many of Privacy Badger's content scripts need to run on all pages in order to do things like detect localStorage-based tracking and canvas fingerprinting, or deny JavaScript access to cookies and localStorage to "yellowlisted" third-party domains.
It would be great to finally have dynamic, before-anything-else injection of content scripts (478183 - chromium - An open-source project to help move the web forward. - Monorail). However, as per the host_permissions note above, it doesn't make sense to make users have to re-confirm this access via permission dialogs.
WebRequest
Removing "blocking" (synchronous request/response interception) from webRequest will break core Privacy Badger functionality.
The declarativeNetRequest API is an entirely inadequate replacement as it supports onBeforeRequest blocking and redirection only (not header/body inspection or modification), and seems to support (a limited number of) hardcoded rules only.
  • Privacy Badger needs to dynamically create rules.
  • Privacy Badger's rules interact with each other. A request that would be blocked may be overriden to "cookie-blocked" instead by the user, or it may be registered as a DNT-compliant domain and thus allowed.
  • Rules need to be further qualified by things like whether the request/response domain is third-party to the top-level document.
  • Privacy Badger needs to report what it did (blocked, etc.) on a page.
  • Privacy Badger needs to be able to modify content headers (block cookies, strip referrers, perhaps modify ETag headers, ...).
  • Privacy Badger would benefit from being able to modify response bodies like WebExtensions can in Firefox. The webRequest API should be gaining, not losing functionality.
  • Privacy Badger needs to encourage privacy-respecting ads by continuing to enforce the EFF Do Not Track policy. This means Privacy Badger needs to continue being able to check blocked domains for declarations of DNT compliance.
The above is not meant to be an exhaustive list. The point is that it is a fundamental mistake to try to shoehorn all content intercepting extensions into the limited-by-design declarative model.
 
Top