Local Host

Level 17
Verified
Lately ive noticed that ublock origin alone or either with nano defender couldnt pass this test anymore
View attachment 211669


Any ideas how to pass(?), since nano defender had the site blacklisted to pass the test before

@Windows_Security sorry for tagging you, but youre the expert here
Sorry to inform you that at least uBlock Origin never passed that test, the developer simply added a rule for that website, which he does a lot to cheat results.

But in the wild the results where always different obviously, adding rules to a test website to fool your userbase to think they protected is a toxic behaviour.

I vote nano from these two, but I rather use Adguard Desktop anyday.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 20
Verified
Sorry to inform you that at least uBlock Origin never passed that test, the developer simply added a rule for that website, which he does a lot to cheat results.

But in the wild the results where always different obviously, adding rules to a test website to fool your userbase to think they protected is a toxic behaviour.

I vote nano from these two, but I rather use Adguard Desktop anyday.
To be clear it was the developper of Nano who cheated, not the developper of uBlock origin.
IMO a reason to go for uBlock Origin instead of Nano.
 

Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
To be clear it was the developper of Nano who cheated, not the developper of uBlock origin.
IMO a reason to go for uBlock Origin instead of Nano.
Well ublock origin is enough , so why need to have nano anyways..gorhill probably wouldve done nano defender like extension if he had to, theres no need to do one. He has done umatrix, scope etc. wich are more impressive than ublock alone/ nano defender

I think im going to give ublock origin a go , and leave nano defender + adblocker for now. Bigger userbase sometimes just is sign of truthfullnes
 

Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator

Local Host

Level 17
Verified
How common even is the CSS vulnerability, since disabling javascript wont block it? Some people said the extension is useless on GHACKS, but never did research about it. Ive mainly just followed the @Windows_Security opinions on extensions
It's dangerous for relying solely in CSS, but shouldn't be common.
Okay, don't really understand what happens there, but that leaves us with AdGuard only, or did they cheat also?
I know Adguard with default settings will be detected, but I really don't care, I'll just create a rule to remove the Anti-Adblock script.

As for the CSS exploit, Adguard won't protect you from that. It's an ad-blocker not an anti-exploit, I just find it misleading to cheat in those tests like uBlock Origin and Nano do.
 

Windows_Security

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Hi,

I will not go into what is better, I only use Disconnect simple ad filter with some manual AdBlock rules. Reason for using Disconnect, is because it is used in Firefox and they do a good job in balancing adblocking and not breaking website functionality. Another advantage of using so little block rules is that I only encounter an anti-adblock wall occasionally (very little, not enough to get irritated by it).

Don't know about the authors either, simply because I have not followed that and have no info on it.

CSS style sheets are always overruled by styles applied in HTML, so website owners can mitigate it easily (although it is not good practise to mix CSS and HTML style editing). I must say that the author makes a fuzz, but he has a point. Third-party CSS is (nearly) always allowed, because website look ugly or even fall back to text and hyperlinks only when CSS is blocked. So when there is a way to capture data (although the example mentioned is far fetched and not easy to implement) he addresses a real issue (which will should be addressed in W3C standards IMO).

On the other side: a few years ago browsers had less means to spot XSS problems (remember they are mostly server side and partly client side) and W3C standaards (on HTML, CSS and Javascript) allowed for more room to operate and my bank did not challenge my entries with an offline token and . . . it did not stop me from doing online banking and shopping.

Regards Kees

I will have a look at it tomorrow, for now Game of Thrones is out in the Netherlands so . .


NEXT DAY EDIT: It is a concern, but not a deal breaker for using uBlock IMO (you could install the extension of the guy addressing the issue).
 
Last edited:

South Park

Level 1
I tried AdGuard AdBlocker for several days, and for me, the internet became slower but I admit that it blocks all ads.

The problem is the slowness.
I had occasion to use AdGuard on Edge since uBO had stopped working on it. I found AdGuard for Edge pleasantly light on resources, though its default lists don't block some of Microsoft's more aggressive ad reinsertions (Instart Logic).