Advice Request What Browser Extensions are you using in 2020?

[blacksheep]

Just trying to update my own list and see, if there something new worth installing. Let's go.

1. uBlock Origin
2. PrivacyBadger
3. BitWarden
4. I don't care about cookies
5. Firefox containers

 

[blackice]

None extension in the world can spoof the whole unique fingerprint.
Not even the Tor browser can do that.

Extensions can only change the fingerprint, which makes it unique again. Using more anti-fingerprint extensions even make the fingerprint more unique in comparison without these.

Of course you can say that changing fingerprint helps, at least a little bit. But in the end it (sadly!) Doesn't.

Only one thing helps:
Many, many, many user using the same browser without any modifications AND without JavaScript. Period.
And we all know that this will never happen

Chrome with popular extensions is the closest you get. We are doomed.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Chrome with popular extensions is the closest you get. We are doomed.

Sadly yes.

 

[ErzCrz]

In ABP's advanced setting I leave the fanboy's filters as they are and these will not be included in uBO.

Scriptsafe works but some settings might not work well with some test sites. I mainly use the fingerprinting features. This is typical for extensions with similar fingerprinting features. You may need to combine extensions for effective blocking. The other features I have other extensions to cover.

You can actually subscribe to those lists from the Filterlists.com website or github itself. Just search for Fanboy using the magnifying glass icon next to "name". Lots and lots of other lists there as well

 

[oldschool]

None extension in the world can spoof the whole unique fingerprint.
Not even the Tor browser can do that.

Extensions can only change the fingerprint, which makes it unique again. Using more anti-fingerprint extensions even make the fingerprint more unique in comparison without these.

Of course you can say that changing fingerprint helps, at least a little bit. But in the end it (sadly!) Doesn't.

Only one thing helps:
Many, many, many user using the same browser without any modifications AND without JavaScript. Period.
And we all know that this will never happen

Chrome with popular extensions is the closest you get. We are doomed.

Sadly yes.

Very true. There is only so much one can do. I say "Keep it lean, and keep it mean." Plus, use compartmentalization with different browsers. And even then - WE ARE DOOMED!

 

[HarborFront]

uBlock Origin has fanboy's filters. Which filters specifically are you talking about here?

These are the default filters in ABP and, btw, I'm aware of what filters are in uBO and filterlists.com

 

[HarborFront]

As @SeriousHoax said, Fanboys can be used in uBO. Why use ABP?
You can handle main functionality of CookieAutoDelete and I Don't Care About Cookies (using Annoyance filters), ClearURLs (using Stealth mode config) with Adguard extension.
Decentraleyes can be replaced by other extensions in use and their filters.
Blocking font detection in BP Privacy Block All Font and Glyph Detection can be handled by ScriptSafe font anti-fingerprinting (only <canvas> though, not JS...). Is it anyway necessary?
Preventing keyboard behavioral profiling done by Keyboard Privacy can be achieved with ScriptSafe's. Is it buggy?
Detect Zero-Width Characters already does what Zwblocker does, perhaps more.
You can use anonymizing browser flag or Adguard to do what WebRTC Control tries to achieve. WebRTC Control blocks multiple components, though the outcome is equivalent.
You can spoof the user-agent in ScriptSafe itself instead of using a dedicated extension like Random User-Agent.

Somethings you're trying to achieve look unnecessary to me. Also you're installing "one more extension for that" just to get a little more of something.
I am not saying that all of these can be exactly replaced. However the trade-off is worth it IMO. Minimal yet sufficient.
I believe you know that the attack surface increased (internal & external of the extension) as a result of adding more and more is not generally worth it. Having a huge trawl net does not mean that you collect tons of different fishes on the boat at the same time

Like I mentioned some extensions do come with the feature but not as effective as the dedicated extension doing the same job

The top picture shows the effect with fonts and glyph in the use of BP Privacy Block All Font and Glyph Detection extension. The below picture shows with Block Canvas Font Access feature in Scriptsafe. This is a typical example of a feature vs a dedicated extension.

 

[HarborFront]

@Parsh

Ok, here's another one of feature vs dedicated extension in user-agent spoofing

You said

Quote

You can spoof the user-agent in ScriptSafe itself instead of using a dedicated extension like Random User-Agent.

Unquote

FYI, User-Agent Spoofing feature don't work in Scriptsafe (see below pictures) and you can't randomize it automatically unlike Random User-Agent

The below picture shows the feature setting in Scriptsafe and the top picture shows when the feature was tested at browserleaks.com

 

[SeriousHoax]

These are the default filters in ABP and, btw, I'm aware of what filters are in uBO and filterlists.com

View attachment 238226

Why use ABP then? It literally has no benefits over uBlock Origin. Just use your preferred filters in uBlock Origin.

 

[HarborFront]

@Parsh

zwBlocker vs Detect Zero-Width Characters. See the difference? I won't be going into the rest of the extensions you mentioned.

Top picture shows the use of Detect Zero-Width Characters (the icon on the right of ClearURLs) and below picture shows the use of zwBlocker (the icon on the right of ClearURLs)

As for Adguard

Your quote

You can handle main functionality of CookieAutoDelete and I Don't Care About Cookies (using Annoyance filters), ClearURLs (using Stealth mode config) with Adguard extension.

Unquote

Yes, the mentioned extensions can be replaced using Adguard Adblocker extension which I'm using in Brave browser but without uBO. Adguard Adblocker is similar to uBO but lacks of 'Block hyperlink auditing' feature and it also lacks the fine granular settings like in uBO. I can try Adguard Adblocker extension in Ungoogle Chromium but I'll need to disable all its filters so that they'll not be duplicated in uBO. Also, Cookie AutoDelete gives better cookie control over 1st-party cookies something which Adguard Adblocker extension don't recommend. Thanks

Oh yah. Maybe you should show me how the below are possible from your quotes.

Quote

Decentraleyes can be replaced by other extensions in use and their filters.

and

Preventing keyboard behavioral profiling done by Keyboard Privacy can be achieved with ScriptSafe's. Is it buggy?

Unquote

 

[bayasdev]

Bitwarden and uBlock for browsers that lack built-in adblocker.
Edit: I think having tons of privacy oriented extensions will make your browser more unique and more trackeable aside from slowing things down.

 

[HarborFront]

Why use ABP then? It literally has no benefits over uBlock Origin. Just use your preferred filters in uBlock Origin.

and by @Parsh as well

Quote

As @SeriousHoax said, Fanboys can be used in uBO. Why use ABP?

Unquote

Below is a small experiment to see the effectiveness in blocking by adding the 4 default filters in ABP to uBO and using ABP with uBO.

The top 2 pictures show the use of uBO with ABP (and its default 4 filters). Some can be duplicate blocking by ABP but can't find that out in ABP. Maybe ABP fine tune its blocking who knows? No harm as long as the default ABP filters are not duplicated in uBO. Total (uBO + ABP) blocks = 31

The below 2 pictures show the use of uBO with the 4 filters from ABP taken from filterlists.com. Here ABP has been disabled

Total (uBO with ABP filters) blocks = 22

 

[LDogg]

Chrome Edge
-umatrix
-nano adblocker (69k network filter + 143k cosmetic. Using mainly for cosmetics. I use Adguard DNS home with a bunch of lists)
-nano defender pro
-ghostery
-dashlane
-netcraft (don't know if netcraft or malwarebytes addon is better)
-trace
-localCDN (fork of decentraleyes)
-Google voice
-Clearurls
-Application guard extension
-MixrElixir
-BetterTTV
-Auto Refresh

Netcraft doesn't and can't block malware links, it mainly specialise in phishing links which it's a complete expert in blocking. The extension also has a component to block XSS attacks similar to NoScript but isn't the main point. The company which makes Netcraft is local to my area as well.

~LDogg

 

[Lenny_Fox]

@HarborFront check whether your user agent extension really hides the user agent at this W3C test

W3Schools online HTML editor

The W3Schools online code editor allows you to edit code and view the result in your browser

www.w3schools.com

You have to click on the tryit button on the right panel

 

[HarborFront]

@HarborFront check whether your user agent extension really hides the user agent at this W3C test

W3Schools online HTML editor

The W3Schools online code editor allows you to edit code and view the result in your browser

www.w3schools.com

You have to click on the tryit button on the right panel

Actually, you can either

1) Fake with a fixed user-agent
2) Randomize your user-agent or
3) Hide your user-agent

I choose to randomize it. The above also applies to other fingerprints

 

[Lenny_Fox]

@HarborFront
I tested it with Random User-Agent extension and this test shows that it did not work. Random user agent extensions (and probably all other extensions claiming to change the user agent) show real user agent when this is retrieved using javascript. It is a fake-privacy promise. That is why I posted the link of the WWW standards organization so you could see for yourself.

Brave shows a neutral-plain Chrome user agent. Showing the latest user agent from the most used browser is your best to hide in the masses. Musch better than randomizing the user agent with old browser versions. Now you are the guy using Firefox who tries to use fake user agent id's. Since few people are using this, you are actually making yourself an easy identifiable target.

From a privacy perspective it makes more sense to use Brave (with build-in privacy features) for surfing and Firefox (with containers) for website sign-in. But then again you know how to add blocklists in uBlockOrigin and still choose to use ScriptSafe and AdBlockPlus in parallel, so you are a mystery man to me.

 

[Nautilus]

Currently :

Microsoft browser defender- https everywhere - netcraft - privacy possum- decentraleyes - trace - lastpass

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

I tested it with Random User-Agent extension and this test shows that it did not work. Random user agent extensions (and probably all other extensions claiming to change the user agent) show real user agent when this is retrieved using javascript. It is a fake-privacy promise. That is why I posted the link of the WWW standards organization so you could see for yourself.

This is exactly what I say again and again.

Also a lot of Missinformation and fake-privacy extensions/ how to exist on internet. Even from big groups like PrivacyToolsiO.

 

[HarborFront]

@HarborFront
I tested it with Random User-Agent extension and this test shows that it did not work. Random user agent extensions (and probably all other extensions claiming to change the user agent) show real user agent when this is retrieved using javascript. It is a fake-privacy promise. That is why I posted the link of the WWW standards organization so you could see for yourself.

Brave shows a neutral-plain Chrome user agent. Showing the latest user agent from the most used browser is your best to hide in the masses. Musch better than randomizing the user agent with old browser versions. Now you are the guy using Firefox who tries to use fake user agent id's. Since few people are using this, you are actually making yourself an easy identifiable target.

From a privacy perspective it makes more sense to use Brave (with build-in privacy features) for surfing and Firefox (with containers) for website sign-in. But then again you know how to add blocklists in uBlockOrigin and still choose to use ScriptSafe and AdBlockPlus in parallel, so you are a mystery man to me.

FYI, I use Scriptsafe mainly for its fingerprinting feature

Random User-Agent only randomizes and NOT hiding the user-agent. If that test is to determine whether the user-agent is hidden then it'll not work for Random User-Agent. You'll need another means or extension to HIDE it.

The above 2 pictures show the user-agent changed after using Random User-Agent. The last picture is the correct one WITHOUT using Random User-Agent. So Random User-Agent works for randomization of the user-agent. Like I mentioned you can either

1) Fake with a fixed user-agent
2) Randomize your user-agent or
3) Hide your user-agent

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Random User-Agent only randomizes and NOT hiding the user-agent.

That doesn't make a difference as you change it which is then not the same from JavaScript result.
That increase uniqueness.

Also modify useragent don't increase privacy in any way. Not even if that wouldn't make you unique.

 

[SeriousHoax]

and by @Parsh as well

Quote

As @SeriousHoax said, Fanboys can be used in uBO. Why use ABP?

Unquote

Below is a small experiment to see the effectiveness in blocking by adding the 4 default filters in ABP to uBO and using ABP with uBO.

The top 2 pictures show the use of uBO with ABP (and its default 4 filters). Some can be duplicate blocking by ABP but can't find that out in ABP. Maybe ABP fine tune its blocking who knows? No harm as long as the default ABP filters are not duplicated in uBO. Total (uBO + ABP) blocks = 31

View attachment 238240


View attachment 238235

The below 2 pictures show the use of uBO with the 4 filters from ABP taken from filterlists.com. Here ABP has been disabled

Total (uBO with ABP filters) blocks = 22

View attachment 238238



View attachment 238233

You're just looking at numbers which is wrong way to look at things here. Check the logs instead, if you see missing ads, empty ads plaeholders then compare. ABP is absolutely useless if you import the same filters in uBlock Origin.