3 ms·
I started using Brave in addition to Firefox recently and I was curious if it supports this. Seems like it does (https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ https://br
by blub 6y ago
I started using Brave in addition to Firefox recently and I was curious if it supports this. Seems like it does (https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/) and uBlock origin was the inspiration for that feature.
I never used uBlock, but I did use uMatrix (discontinued, but still working) which allows you very fine grained control over scripts and other resources based on the domain. Unfortunately it was a pain to get some things to work with that, especially online payments which use many subdomains and redirects. Paying for anything online was a game of enabling 10 domains on average, reloading the website, re-inputting payment info, etc. Some websites (like twitter) simply didn't work even if one enabled all the domains which appeared in the matrix.
Brave is pretty decent at blocking JS. Not as fine grained as uMatrix, and it apparently doesn't remember that you enabled things (at least in private browsing). I think it doesn't perform what uBlock calls HTML filtering, because it still makes requests to websites which were completely neutered by uMatrix.
All in all it's more pleasant to surf using Brave than Firefox, because fewer websites are broken by the blocking.
I wasn't pleased with Safari's native tracking protection + a simple Safari blocking extension which only looks at URLs. Websites work the best, but it's making requests to many unwanted domains still. Maybe it's blocking cookies and scripts, no idea, but I'm not happy even with the simple requests for resources going through.
- surround 6y agoBrave is Chromium-based and suffers from all of the limitations stated in the parent article. (Except for CNAME cloaking. However, their CNAME uncloaking only applies to their built-in tracking protection. AFAIK, if you use uBo on Brave it will be still unable to uncloak CNAMES.)
- blub 6y agoWhile uBlock inside Brave suffers from the same limitations as uBlock within Chrome, the more interesting question is if Brave's native blocking makes that irrelevant or not. Brave does have a few intriguing privacy features, like plugging WebRTC IP leaks while still allowing use of WebRTC (Firefox is off or on while Safari's always on AFAIK), so that's not excluded. The main problem with Brave is that they're building on a browser which is designed to leak privacy like a sieve. It seems that they're being careful and monitoring all the anti-features Google's adding, but who knows.
- nonbirithm 6y agoIt doesn't make it irrelevant. For example, sponsored Tweets on the Twitter web app aren't blocked in Brave (at least the last time I checked).
- tedivm 6y agoBrave even openly admits this in that blog post announcing their support for native CNAME uncloaking- > In version 1.25.0, uBlock Origin gained the ability to detect and block CNAME-cloaked requests using Mozilla’s terrific browser.dns API. However, this solution only works in Firefox, as Chromium does not provide the browser.dns API. To some extent, these requests can be blocked using custom DNS servers. However, no browsers have shipped with CNAME-based adblocking protection capabilities available and on by default.
- antonok 6y ago> Brave is Chromium-based and suffers from all of the limitations stated in the parent article. Only for extensions. Brave Shields is implemented in natively compiled Rust and C++ (which is even more efficient than WebAssembly), is able to load rules before making any network requests, uses a compressed filter list data representation, and prefetching is disabled entirely in Brave. The only thing currently missing from that list is HTML filtering, which is fairly rare in practice and generally has fallback rules in popular lists anyways.
- Hiopl 6y agoAnd it's still only half as effective as uBO on Firefox. The amount of pop-ups that manage to get through is absurd and it's one of the main reasons why Firefox remains my daily driver.