6 ms·

If this wasn't Mozilla I would agree with your post. However I believe Mozilla killing support for the webRequest API without a suitable replacement would be su

If this wasn't Mozilla I would agree with your post. However I believe Mozilla killing support for the webRequest API without a suitable replacement would be suicide with its core user base. I know for me the moment uBlock Origin is crippled on Chrome is the moment I go Firefox full time. Browsing the internet without it is simply a non-starter

Narishma 5y ago
> I know for me the moment uBlock Origin no longer works as well as it does on Chrome is the moment I go Firefox full time. Hasn't that been the case for a while now?
- wnevets 5y ago
  As far as I've noticed uBlock Origin works just as well now than it ever has on Chrome. I've certainly haven't noticed a downgrade in performance or increase in adverts.
  - sharps1 5y ago
    There is no cname uncloaking in chrome. Load up Firefox + ublock pick any heavy site and you can see the items that cname cloaked.
    - wnevets 5y ago
      How does CNAME cloaking increase the number the adverts in Chrome compared to Firefox?
      - kadoban 5y ago
        Because CNAME cloaking allows obscuring some ads, so uBlock won't be able to trigger on them if it can't pierce the veil. On Firefox it can, on Chrome it reportedly can't.
        wnevets 5y ago
        I thought CNAME cloaking was being used to get around third party tracking protections rather than delivering advertising. Does anyone have examples of CNAME cloaking being used to display advertising because I haven't been seeing more adverts on Chrome compared to Firefox.
        throwaway77112 5y ago
        I think most tracking is not visible to the user, as in seeing an ad. About CNAME, I think this is what you're looking for: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09301 https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09301
        wnevets 5y ago
        Your link just says what I said.
  - rasz 5y ago
    Chrome does not wait for extension initialization when loading first website after being started. Result is ALL uBlock Origin filters (ads and privacy ones) are bypassed for every website that you left your session when closing browser last time.
jackewiehose 5y ago
> If this wasn't Mozilla ... They already disabled (private) extension support on the Windows build (you have to upload your extension to Mozilla servers) and they completely disabled extension support on Firefox mobile (no, that small list of approved extensions isn't enough). I'm not sure they care much about their user base.
- derefr 5y ago
  In practice, private extensions are malware. 99+% of them. "Put a thing at a path on disk, the web browser picks it up and runs it un-sandboxed and gives it access to all your web traffic" — that's a Grand Canyon-sized security hole in the middle of an otherwise-secure design, and widely exploited. (And there's nothing you can do to plug it through local security, since a virus running with your account's permissions can do all that just as well.) Have you noticed that public-use PCs (in e.g. libraries, hotel lobbies, kiosks) used to have Firefox installs, but now mostly have Chrome installs? It's not that the IT people setting these up are any less fans of FOSS than they used to be. It's that Chrome has, for a while now, only persistently loaded local extensions if they're declared in an MDM policy (this being remote security), while Firefox has continued to trust the local filesystem. Public PCs with Firefox (and without some OS change-reversion tool like Faronics DeepFreeze) have been cesspools of malware extensions since ~2011. Besides — if your private extension isn't malware, why not just upload it to Mozilla's servers, but never set it to public, instead just personally being its only user? (What, are you burning evidence of illegal activities into browser extensions or something? That's bad engineering! Make your illegal activities runtime state!) > they completely disabled extension support on Firefox mobile (no, that small list of approved extensions isn't enough). That's the platforms' idiocy, not Mozilla's. Apple and now Google both say that all non-sandboxed executable code an app ever runs must be part of the app's submission package, to be checked over and approved by the platform owner. That "small list of approved extensions" is a set of extensions that gets burned into the Firefox Mobile binary and audited by the platform-owner during publication. It's small because every extension on it is another chance for a Firefox update to be shot down during QA by an overzealous platform owner. The extensions in the approved set are the ones whose developers understand well exactly what's required to ship code as part of Firefox Mobile, and who therefore do what they can to appease the platform-owners in each release.
dralley 5y ago
I guess you're a Firefox user now? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
- wnevets 5y ago
  Those are examples of Firefox having performance benefits for uBO over other browsers instead of examples of the Chrome version being crippled after the fact, e.g killing of the webRequest API. Killing the webRequest API (without a real replacement) would absolutely cripple uBO on Chrome. The Firefox version having access to WebAssembly without an extra permission isn't preventing the Chrome version from working.
  - sharps1 5y ago
    CNAME uncloaking is crippled on chrome. The only chromium based browser with cname uncloaking is brave.
  - throwaway77112 5y ago
    But your parent link indeed shows that ublock origin on chrome is crippled when compared to firefox, not just performance benefits. More about CNAME: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347110

Narishma 5y ago

> I know for me the moment uBlock Origin no longer works as well as it does on Chrome is the moment I go Firefox full time. Hasn't that been the case for a while now?

wnevets 5y ago
As far as I've noticed uBlock Origin works just as well now than it ever has on Chrome. I've certainly haven't noticed a downgrade in performance or increase in adverts.
- sharps1 5y ago
  There is no cname uncloaking in chrome. Load up Firefox + ublock pick any heavy site and you can see the items that cname cloaked.
  - wnevets 5y ago
    How does CNAME cloaking increase the number the adverts in Chrome compared to Firefox?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Because CNAME cloaking allows obscuring some ads, so uBlock won't be able to trigger on them if it can't pierce the veil. On Firefox it can, on Chrome it reportedly can't.
      - wnevets 5y ago
        I thought CNAME cloaking was being used to get around third party tracking protections rather than delivering advertising. Does anyone have examples of CNAME cloaking being used to display advertising because I haven't been seeing more adverts on Chrome compared to Firefox.
        throwaway77112 5y ago
        I think most tracking is not visible to the user, as in seeing an ad. About CNAME, I think this is what you're looking for: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09301 https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09301
        wnevets 5y ago
        Your link just says what I said.
- rasz 5y ago
  Chrome does not wait for extension initialization when loading first website after being started. Result is ALL uBlock Origin filters (ads and privacy ones) are bypassed for every website that you left your session when closing browser last time.

jackewiehose 5y ago

> If this wasn't Mozilla ... They already disabled (private) extension support on the Windows build (you have to upload your extension to Mozilla servers) and they completely disabled extension support on Firefox mobile (no, that small list of approved extensions isn't enough). I'm not sure they care much about their user base.

derefr 5y ago
In practice, private extensions are malware. 99+% of them. "Put a thing at a path on disk, the web browser picks it up and runs it un-sandboxed and gives it access to all your web traffic" — that's a Grand Canyon-sized security hole in the middle of an otherwise-secure design, and widely exploited. (And there's nothing you can do to plug it through local security, since a virus running with your account's permissions can do all that just as well.) Have you noticed that public-use PCs (in e.g. libraries, hotel lobbies, kiosks) used to have Firefox installs, but now mostly have Chrome installs? It's not that the IT people setting these up are any less fans of FOSS than they used to be. It's that Chrome has, for a while now, only persistently loaded local extensions if they're declared in an MDM policy (this being remote security), while Firefox has continued to trust the local filesystem. Public PCs with Firefox (and without some OS change-reversion tool like Faronics DeepFreeze) have been cesspools of malware extensions since ~2011. Besides — if your private extension isn't malware, why not just upload it to Mozilla's servers, but never set it to public, instead just personally being its only user? (What, are you burning evidence of illegal activities into browser extensions or something? That's bad engineering! Make your illegal activities runtime state!) > they completely disabled extension support on Firefox mobile (no, that small list of approved extensions isn't enough). That's the platforms' idiocy, not Mozilla's. Apple and now Google both say that all non-sandboxed executable code an app ever runs must be part of the app's submission package, to be checked over and approved by the platform owner. That "small list of approved extensions" is a set of extensions that gets burned into the Firefox Mobile binary and audited by the platform-owner during publication. It's small because every extension on it is another chance for a Firefox update to be shot down during QA by an overzealous platform owner. The extensions in the approved set are the ones whose developers understand well exactly what's required to ship code as part of Firefox Mobile, and who therefore do what they can to appease the platform-owners in each release.

dralley 5y ago

I guess you're a Firefox user now? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

wnevets 5y ago
Those are examples of Firefox having performance benefits for uBO over other browsers instead of examples of the Chrome version being crippled after the fact, e.g killing of the webRequest API. Killing the webRequest API (without a real replacement) would absolutely cripple uBO on Chrome. The Firefox version having access to WebAssembly without an extra permission isn't preventing the Chrome version from working.
- sharps1 5y ago
  CNAME uncloaking is crippled on chrome. The only chromium based browser with cname uncloaking is brave.
- throwaway77112 5y ago
  But your parent link indeed shows that ublock origin on chrome is crippled when compared to firefox, not just performance benefits. More about CNAME: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347110