Advice Request Which block lists do you use with UBO, AG and ABP ?

[floalma]

These are among others the one I'm using from my different browsers FF, Brave and Chrome based.

AdGuard Annoyances

Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list

Top500 most used ad & trackers in West Europe & North America

http : // vxvault . net/URL_List . php

Block-EU-Cookie-#####-List

I don't care about cookies

Online Malicious URL Blocklist

Reduce Google nuisances on search, maps and youtube


Which block list do you use for now ?

How do you cope with the overlapped lists ? Do you compare, cleaned your list ?

Do you make your own customized list ?

Any comment or contribution will be great, thank you all.

 

[Lenny_Fox]

I just checked on my Desktop: uBO with TOP_EU_US_ads_trackers only the total percentage blocked is 14 percent, On my girlfriends laptop with uBO - no cosmetic filtering - and only Optimized filters (Easy List+Privacy and AG Annoyances) 15 percent. I have to say I only surf to a limited number of websites, so the optimized filters have been challenged more.

I checkd a few times and these results are pretty consistent (optimized with variable browsing scores a littlie better than routine browsing using smart lists) Considering the fact that my browsing has much routine an my girlfriend's surfing is much more diversed, I am inclined to say that the use of optimized filters combined with your local language filter when available provides the best results.

I cant imagine that Microsoft would use a below average performing tracking protection (when the battle of the browsers is so importance in terms of marketing money), so I would say Optimized filters with your local language filter score best, and a blocklist with less than 5000 rules (e.g. Kees1958, Ghostery, Disconnect, FYI, Peter Low's) performs (nearly) as good as people using half a million rules.

When you don't have a medium to premium CPU with a fast SSD-card, using half a million rules will take half a second longer start time of your browser (because the rules have to be read and indexed/tokenized by the extension). So for me with my old i7-950 and 'traditional' SSD drives it still has performance benefits to use a small list like Top-EU-EU-ads-trackers.

 

[FireHammer]

I use Adguard Family with default settings & Adguard DNS with Malware Filtering.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I cant imagine that Microsoft would use a below average performing tracking protection (when the battle of the browsers is so importance in terms of marketing money), so I would say Optimized filters with your local language filter score best, and a blocklist with less than 5000 rules (e.g. Kees1958, Ghostery, Disconnect, FYI, Peter Low's) performs (nearly) as good as people using half a million rules.

I agree. Many people still use too many filters without any gain
However, it depends on the regions where we live. For example, all the filters you mentioned are almost completely useless in websites in my country (Asia). They are designed for EU/US countries => I have to seek for alternatives
The list from Kees has virtually blocked nothing for me that I'm considering turning it off
the big lists like stevenblack and 1hosts mini outperform most other blocklists for my browsing habits => they are overkill for US/EU users

 

[Nautilus]

In Adguard desktop I added the following lists :

Fanboy's
- enhanced tracking list
- anti facebook list
- anti 3rd party fonts
- social blocking list
- Fanboy's annoyances

other added lists :

Adblock warning removal list
I don't care about cookies
No coin filter list
Adguard DNS filer
Barblock

 

[Tutman]

Currently trying Nano Adblocker, but the list is just about the same as when I use uBO. It's more than just enough for me because I also use AdGuard Home as my main filtering engine.
I've been trying to find cosmetic-only filter list but couldn't find any. I would've used the extension to do just cosmetic filtering if I could. But no luck so far.

I found this warning about Nano!



Part of this thread says:

Nano Adblocker & Nano Defender was sold and should now be considered malware.​

I know a lot of people here have recommended these addons in the past, so I would suggest that you uninstall them. Only the Chromium version seems to be affected. (Chrome, Chromium, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave). The Firefox version was maintained by a third party, and that version will no longer receive any updates.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I found this warning about Nano!



Part of this thread says:

Nano Adblocker & Nano Defender was sold and should now be considered malware.​

I know a lot of people here have recommended these addons in the past, so I would suggest that you uninstall them. Only the Chromium version seems to be affected. (Chrome, Chromium, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave). The Firefox version was maintained by a third party, and that version will no longer receive any updates.

Discussed here:

New Update - Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender to change ownership

As some of you might have noticed, Nano Adblocker is now months behind upstream. It became clear that I simply do not have enough time to properly maintain the Nano projects. At the beginning, there was no backlogs. As the projects grow, I added a backlog system to better manage open issues...

malwaretips.com

Conclusion:
Remove Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender now!

 

[JasonUK]

I've been using AdGuard Desktop for the last few weeks but have decided to tinker again as although it's good, it's noticeably slower than either the AdGuard or UBO extension, is heavier on the system and.. I've discovered in-browser DNS over HTTPS

So I've enabled DNS over HTTPS in my two main browsers (Brave & Firefox) using Cloudflare's Malware (1.1.1.2) Quad9's DNS. I figured that with in browser screening, my AV's web protection & Cloudflare's Quad9's malware/phishing filters I can remove the Online Malicious URLs & Phishing Army's filter list.

I'm using the optimised AdGuard & Easyprivacy lists still. I've probably got a few too many cosmetic filters still but I've been pruning the overall filters numbers from a high of c300k down to c110k which is going in the right direction.

Edited: Changed Cloudflare Malware DNS for Quad9 DNS (which also filters Malware/Phishing sites) after Gandalf_the_Gray's post below.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I've been using AdGuard Desktop for the last few weeks but have decided to tinker again as although it's good, it's noticeably slower than either the AdGuard or UBO extension, is heavier on the system and.. I've discovered in-browser DNS over HTTPS

So I've enabled DNS over HTTPS in my two main browsers (Brave & Firefox) using Cloudflare's Malware (1.1.1.2) DNS. I figured that with in browser screening, my AV's web protection & Cloudflare's malware/phishing filters I can remove the Online Malicious URLs & Phishing Army's filter list.

I'm using the optimised AdGuard & Easyprivacy lists still. I've probably got a few too many cosmetic filters still but I've been pruning the overall filters numbers from a high of c300k down to c110k which is going in the right direction.

View attachment 250480

I would change Cloudflare's Malware DNS for Quad9:

Malicious site filters on DNS in 2020 – Skadligkod.se

Verdicts
Starting with the newcomer Cloudflare families, I’m not impressed by it’s results. Non of the domains connected to phishing links where blocked. When it comes to malware links, here at least 25% of the domains where blocked.

Quad9, CleanBrowsing and OpenDNS are very good in blocking phishing links (100 – 92%).

On the malware blocking test, CleanBrowsing did still block 50% of the tested doamins.

Sadly, OpenDNS did not block any malware domain tested, having a high score on blocking Phishing they also need to improve their filtering of malware domains.

AdGuard DNS on the other hand has rather equal results in blocking Phishing and Malware domains (42 % / 67 %). Using Adguard would also give you the advantage of blocked advertisement in your browsing traffic.

The total winner of this test is Quad9. Blocking 96% of everything I tested in this review. All 12 phishing domains where block and only one malware domain did it let go through. Very impressive results!

I was first thinking about giving Cloudflare families a try to be my main DNS service. But I was expecting much better results from Cloudflare, a company having a huge Content Delivery Network around the world as they have. But after my review it’s clear for me, to continue using Quad9 as my DNS service on all devices as I have done for about two years now.

 

[JasonUK]

Interesting, I was using Quad9 in AdGuard home already so I'll switch.

 

[Jan Willy]

I've been using AdGuard Desktop for the last few weeks but have decided to tinker again as although it's good, it's noticeably slower than either the AdGuard or UBO extension, is heavier on the system and.. I've discovered in-browser DNS over HTTPS

So I've enabled DNS over HTTPS in my two main browsers (Brave & Firefox) using Cloudflare's Malware (1.1.1.2) DNS. I figured that with in browser screening, my AV's web protection & Cloudflare's malware/phishing filters I can remove the Online Malicious URLs & Phishing Army's filter list.

I'm using the optimised AdGuard & Easyprivacy lists still. I've probably got a few too many cosmetic filters still but I've been pruning the overall filters numbers from a high of c300k down to c110k which is going in the right direction.

View attachment 250480

You use in browser screening. Isn't that enough to block malicious and phishing sites?

 

[JasonUK]

You use in browser screening. Isn't that enough to block malicious and phishing sites?

Probably But if the big browsers think it's worth having both smartscreen and DNS-over-HTTPS then who am I too question it?

 

[Jan Willy]

Probably But if the big browsers think it's worth having both smartscreen and DNS-over-HTTPS then who am I too question it?

It doesn't mean that you have to choose a DNS provider who offers malware protection.

 

[JasonUK]

It doesn't mean that you have to choose a DNS provider who offers malware protection.

Fair point. Why also bother with AdBlocker extensions when most browser's have increasingly effective in-built ones. Extra layers of protection are at best marginal but it's still fun tinkering.

 

[JasonUK]

Trying something new (again!)...

Now, using YogaDNS Client, trying NextDNS with all security options & NextDNS/AdGuardDNS privacy filter lists enabled. Running alongside that I'm using the AdGuard AdBlocker browser extension with optimised filters and some user rules. If the 300k free queries limit proves inadequate I'll switch default DNS server to Quad9 again in YogaDNS. I'll drop one of the DNS filter lists once I see which is more effective.

Trying to find best combinations for speed and hassle free blocking. I found the DNS-over-HTTPS in-browser didn't always work - watching the NextDNS webpage it was constantly flicking between saying I was using NextDNS and the next moment my ISP in both Brave (& Firefox until I changed network.trr.mode then some pages didn't load/timed-out).

 

[JasonUK]

Well the above experimental setup is going well ~ pretty fast and effective. Shortly after posting above post I decided to load up the Privacy settings on NextDNS with all the main AdGuard/Easy/Fanboy/Peter Lowe/1Host/Steven Black filter lists (in addition to NextDNS & AdGuardDNS) and see which were blocking the most. After two days of visiting a lot of websites I've reviewed the 'blocked' log and can say that ALL the blocked sites/elements were blocked by one or more of NextDNS, AdGuardDNS or 1Host (Mini) filters. Sometimes other filter lists would also have blocked some entries too but these three filterlists do the same job between them. So added 1Host (Mini) to NextDNS & AdGuardDNS and removed the rest. Above AdGuard AdBlocker extension settings I've left as they were. Keeping this setup (for now)

 

[Jan Willy]

So added 1Host (Mini) to NextDNS & AdGuardDNS and removed the rest.

Nice work. Nearly a 1/3 of the rules in 1Host (mini) are covered by AdguardDNS. In the NextDNS-log you will see that often both lists block the same queries. Obviously in that case they handle the most common 'risky' queries. I'm curious what's the added value of the more as 42,500 additional rules in 1Hosts (mini).

 

[JasonUK]

Nice work. Nearly a 1/3 of the rules in 1Host (mini) are covered by AdguardDNS. In the NextDNS-log you will see that often both lists block the same queries. Obviously in that case they handle the most common 'risky' queries. I'm curious what's the added value of the more as 42,500 additional rules in 1Hosts (mini).

In NextDNS Analytics when I ran just the three lists NextDNS blocked 38%, 1Host 32%, AdGuardDNS 30%. Pretty even, even with the overlap. Quite a few queries were blocked only by 1Host. Total privacy rules for NextDNS, AdGuardDNS & 1Host (Mini) c160k which isn't excessive given that, for example, the 1Host (Pro) list on its own is 178k.

 

[SeriousHoax]

 

[oldschool]

I have followed his work on Brave Community which has only increased my confidence in his lists.

 

[Lenny_Fox]

I have posted often that the two big flaws in community maintained blocklists are:
1. Many contributors add rules, but few maintain them (removing dead and obsolete rules)
2. Community blocklists contain many rules for website you will never vist

With Brave maintaining Easylist filters and AdGuard optimized filters (rules with low hot rates are omitted), the impact of those two major flaws becomes minimal. We have to thank Google for that to make that happen (rules limitations in Manifest 3). To quote one of the greatest philosopher and soccer player of the previous century "every disadvantage has an advantage".