Hot Take [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

[Evjl's Rain]

Comparison between browser extensions

Test 29/12
Q&A - [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 24/11
Q&A - [Updated 24/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 12/11
Q&A - [Updated 12/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 7/11
Q&A - [Updated 7/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 6/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 3/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 2/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test, quick 1/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Fun test 25/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 24/7/2018 (most comprehensive, as possible)
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 19/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 18/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 10/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 7/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 7/6/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 3/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 3/6/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 25/4/2018
Poll - [Updated 25/4/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Update: 23/3/2018
Poll - [Updated 23/3/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings


Browser: Google Chrome 65 x64
Malware and phishing links: 10 malc0de, 10 vxvault, 10 openphish, 10 verified phishtank, 10 unverified phishtank
Total: 50 links

Spoiler: Links

Dropbox - link test 17-3-2018.txt

Extensions: recently downloaded from Chrome Web Store
- Google Safe Browsing (built-in chrome's protection)
- AdGuard AdBlocker: default settings, uses Google Safe Browsing (delayed) and their own database
- Avira browser safety: default settings
- Norton Safe Web: default settings
- Bitdefender Trafficlight: default settings, it rarely blocks any malware links, just old ones
- Avast Online Security: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- Netcraft Extension: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- uBlock Origin with some additional filters

Spoiler: ublock origin filters

http://hosts-file.net/emd.txt
http://hosts-file.net/exp.txt
http://hosts-file.net/pup.txt
http://hosts-file.net/psh.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_DOMBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_IPBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_URLBL.txt

NOTE: the result can vary from day-to-day. Tomorrow with different links, the result can be very different. All are live links but they can be dead a few minutes after the test. No duplication

Results:

Winner: Google Safe Browsing

 

[Yellowing]

What do you mean "default filter"? I have 27 not including those easylist variation for countrys.
And default settings do also have more than these four enabled.

 

[Moonhorse]

@Yellowing You basically have default filters, you just add / make sure you have those 4 filters enabled + import linked ones

You enable easylist + the country you are from, from that country list

Like i have easylist + FIN: finnish addition to easylist

 

[Evjl's Rain]

What do you mean "default filter"? I have 27 not including those easylist variation for countrys.
And default settings do also have more than these four enabled.

to clarify, I enable only 4 and disable everything else. Then, I add extra filters + enable my regional/country filter
if you use my recommended filters, other "enabled by default" filters are not needed

 

[Yellowing]

I can't measure an performance impact if I have my uBlock on or not.
I tested with 650,840 network filters ＋ 111,022 cosmetic filters. Measured with inspect and performance function in Chrome.
I have a very old laptop from 2011 that I can barely watch 1080p @ 60fps videos with. (i3)

Then why is it a problem if a filter list is big?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I can't measure an performance impact if I have my uBlock on or not.
I tested with 650,840 network filters ＋ 111,022 cosmetic filters. Measured with inspect and performance function in Chrome.
I have a very old laptop from 2011 that I can barely watch 1080p @ 60fps videos with. (i3)

Then why is it a problem if a filter list is big?

it might be a problem, I think >200k is too big
however, if you want to watch youtube with less lag, you must install h264ify. This extension consumes 0 ram and CPU
for chrome
h264ify

for firefox
h264ify – Add-ons for Firefox

another thing, after watching some videos for 1h, you should close the youtube tab and open another one because after a period of time, youtube memory consumption will be very high and it will be very laggy

 

[Moonhorse]

I can't measure an performance impact if I have my uBlock on or not.
I tested with 650,840 network filters ＋ 111,022 cosmetic filters. Measured with inspect and performance function in Chrome.
I have a very old laptop from 2011 that I can barely watch 1080p @ 60fps videos with. (i3)

Then why is it a problem if a filter list is big?

Not sure is the situation same but, some people have many many extensions installed and that causes instability wich may be bigger security issue than someone having these same extensions just built in their browser

Im not sure is it really security issue, but may cause instability and you will be possibly affected by slower browsing speed and so on

Imo you should just get rid of ads/ trackers and let antivirus software do web filtering

 

[Yellowing]

it might be a problem, I think >200k is too big
however, if you want to watch youtube with less lag, you must install h264ify. This extension consumes 0 ram and CPU
for chrome
h264ify

for firefox
h264ify – Add-ons for Firefox

another thing, after watching some videos for 1h, you should close the youtube tab and open another one because after a period of time, youtube memory consumption will be very high and it will be very laggy

Duuuuuuude! This is awesome! You're the best! Now I don't have to change the priority of chrome to high anymore!
Without it I drop about 1/5 of the frames of a 60fps video. With it just 1/14! And this is with Process Explorer running, using 10% CPU, so that I can observe the usage! Without it I wont drop anything. This is great!
I never had to close the tab though. I usually have it open for days. I FEEL no improvement after closing it.

It might be a problem? Yea I thought so too. But I don't feel a slow down.

Not sure is the situation same but, some people have many many extensions installed and that causes instability wich may be bigger security issue than someone having these same extensions just built in their browser

Im not sure is it really security issue, but may cause instability and you will be possibly affected by slower browsing speed and so on

Imo you should just get rid of ads/ trackers and let antivirus software do web filtering

I don't think a bunch of rules in a filter are causing instability. They're not even causing a slow down for me.

 

[Moonhorse]

@Yellowing its just extra ram for zero benefit. Well i can give vouch for trying out vivaldi 32 bit or comodo dragon 32 bit, those are more lightweight than chrome64

 

[Yellowing]

@Yellowing its just extra ram for zero benefit. Well i can give vouch for trying out vivaldi 32 bit or comodo dragon 32 bit, those are more lightweight than chrome64

It takes 141MB RAM now, with 761,862 filters. (I assume they are all unique) I don't even think it has changed at all.
And why is there zero benefit? I don't want to get tracked or see ads or get malware.

 

[Moonhorse]

It takes 141MB RAM now, with 761,862 filters. (I assume they are all unique) I don't even think it has changed at all.
And why is there zero benefit? I don't want to get tracked or see ads or get malware.

you can have all that with less filters, if youre fine with current setup why not go with that

I would just use rains setup with privacy possum + norton safe web, decent dns , decent antivirus with webfilter or different webfilter software like k9 / fortinet its alot less resources than chrome with nano cpu/ memory wide

edit: oh haha i have 231k filters currently and using 125mb ram with nano currently. guess its not that resource hog then.

I could add the malware lists myself

 

[Terry Ganzi]

I'm uh split second guy my ublock uses 994,607 network filters ＋ 124,327, browsing the web everything opens in a split second no loading problems no malware or phishing no ads no tracking problems as some claim with ublock.
but then there the millisecond guy or girl out there using ublock that see things in milliseconds so to him there will be or might have loading problems who is me to say there isn't. I no for a fact there is no amount of talk here that can make me use less filters when i see the difference, they will also have default settings people who claim its best, props to them, but i uses default settings for no security software its misleading and over rated at best.
But people have to understand this is the world we live in, no 1 man is alike so i don't push my experiences or preferences on people, so to all my peeps out there take this with uh glass of water. Thank you.

O i forgot tunnelbear blocker alongside ublock origin.

 

[Moonhorse]

I'm uh split second guy my ublock uses 994,607 network filters ＋ 124,327, browsing the web everything opens in a split second no loading problems no malware or phishing no ads no tracking problems as some claim with ublock.
but then there the millisecond guy or girl out there using ublock that see things in milliseconds so to him there will be or might have loading problems who is me to say there isn't. I no for a fact there is no amount of talk here that can make me use less filters when i see the difference, they will also have default settings people who claim its best, props to them, but i uses default settings for no security software its misleading and over rated at best.
But people have to understand this is the world we live in, no 1 man is alike so i don't push my experiences or preferences on people, so to all my peeps out there take this with uh glass of water. Thank you.

O i forgot tunnelbear blocker alongside ublock origin.

wow thats insane, haha. Adguard will give you warning after you add few custom filters that it maybe affect into slower browsing.. ive been thinking its same with ublock.. actually my browser goes throught fortinet proxy/ comodo servers so its a bit slower than chrome anyways


You guys make me unsure, should i go for massive filters or just go for lightest i can... i can run anything so thats not a problem

Tunnelbear were bit buggy with nanoblocker , so i went for privacy possum for fingerprints

 

[Terry Ganzi]

wow thats insane, haha. Adguard will give you warning after you add few custom filters that it maybe affect into slower browsing.. ive been thinking its same with ublock.. actually my browser goes throught fortinet proxy/ comodo servers so its a bit slower than chrome anyways


You guys make me unsure, should i go for massive filters or just go for lightest i can... i can run anything so thats not a problem

Tunnelbear were bit buggy with nanoblocker , so i went for privacy possum for fingerprints

Your're going to get people that spews out this phrase (thats more than enough) But for who or whom,next adguard isn't ublock so please don't assume what applies to adguard goes for Ublock it all boils down to what your combination is with extensions, who made the extension, is it coded properly,some things just don't perform good together all those things need to be considered. A bike with a 36 spoket and a 16 ratchet (is more than enough) to get a person form point A to point B but when, so then why buy a mountain bike or racer?

 

[Moonhorse]

Your're going to get people that spews out this phrase (thats more than enough) But for who or whom,next adguard isn't ublock so please don't assume what applies to adguard goes for Ublock it all boils down to what your combination is with extensions, who made the extension, is it coded properly,some things just don't perform good together all those things need to be considered. A bike with a 36 spoket and a 16 ratchet (is more than enough) to get a person form point A to point B but when, so then why buy a mountain bike or racer?

tldr; why change something if it works. Yeah i understand your point.

I like tunnelbear, but ublock blocks those ' we use cookies on this site' pop ups when tunnelbear doesnt, you cant add filter lists there. also tunnelbear is very effective with fingerprints, but i couldnt find the source what its blocking, when privacy possum does show the thing it blocks.

Also i dont see point running two so called adblockers together, because one of them will do the work

Well i could give a go with nanoblocker and get alot more filters and see how it works out..

I have always used adblocker as adblocker, and done web filtering by norton safe web or k9 / forticlient web filtering/ parental control and decent dns

 

[Terry Ganzi]

tunnelbear blocker block things that ublock don't, you can check here: chrome-extension://bebdhgdigjiiamnkcenegafmfjoghafk/settings.html

 

[Moonhorse]

tunnelbear blocker block things that ublock don't, you can check here: chrome-extension://bebdhgdigjiiamnkcenegafmfjoghafk/settings.html

I know, thanks. The problem i had and why i removed it were that fingerprint blocked flash client, and i couldnt run even i disabled the flash blocking

Edit: and it still occurs even i disable tunnelbear on that site..

 

[Terry Ganzi]

My combos just work, proof in the pudding so to speak.

 

[Yellowing]

View attachment 192299View attachment 192299
My combos just work, proof in the pudding so to speak.

Why isn't your uBlock detected? What did you do? Mine is detected.

 

[Moonhorse]

View attachment 192299View attachment 192299
My combos just work, proof in the pudding so to speak.

Yeah i have same results, privacy possum alone wont pass fingerprint test, but tunnelbear does.

Only reason i would add more filters are just the malware ones but my dns, antivirus, webfilter does do same thing.

 

[Terry Ganzi]

Why isn't your uBlock detected? What did you do? Mine is detected.

As i said somethings don't go well together research,research,research boom success my friend.
I use webapi manager

WebAPI Manager

You really need to know what you are doing with this extension so be warned.
snyderp/web-api-manager