4 ms·

What I don't get from this is how uBOL (MV3) compares to uBO (MV2). Anyone?

by e40 4y ago

skyfalldev 4y ago
Since MV3 adds quite a lot of limits on what uBO can do, you have to grant permission for each site to have cosmetic filtering.
- nottorp 4y ago
  So we need to build something external to the browser that will detect uBlock Origin asking for permissions and automatically grant them :) Edit: doesn't this mean that any site you visit will get a chance to track you the first time, until you manage to click to grant permission?
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    From the blog post on how adguard built their v3 extension the ads themselves are blocked but aren't removed from the page if the cosmetic filters aren't run
- SquareWheel 4y ago
  That limitation has nothing to do with MV3. Adguard does not suffer from this problem. Making it opt-in is a specific design consideration that gorhill took with this version of uBlock to reduce its permission scope. I wish people were not so quick to share misinformation like this.
  - chlorion 4y ago
    The amount of misinformation in these comments is absolutely wild. For some reason people are just itching to spread FUD about this topic and Google in general. I don't understand where it comes from or why it happens but it's really annoying.
zamalek 4y ago
CNAME cloaking is one of the more significant differences. It's typically used for tracking (and is becoming increasingly common), but also works for advertising. Instead of linking images/scripts/etc. to ads.advertisingcompany.com you can simply set up a CNAME under your TLD that points to the advertising company. Now the domain no longer appears in the blocklist, so all the requests (uploading tracking data, or downloading adverts/scripts) work just fine. With MV2, uBlock is able to inspect the DNS record while it is vetting the request, thwarting this workaround.
- foepys 4y ago
  > With MV2, uBlock is able to inspect the DNS record while it is vetting the request, thwarting this workaround. Not in Chrome-based browsers. Only in Firefox.

What I don't get from this is how uBOL (MV3) compares to uBO (MV2). Anyone?

by e40 4y ago

What I don't get from this is how uBOL (MV3) compares to uBO (MV2). Anyone?

Since MV3 adds quite a lot of limits on what uBO can do, you have to grant permission for each site to have cosmetic filtering.

nottorp 4y ago
So we need to build something external to the browser that will detect uBlock Origin asking for permissions and automatically grant them :) Edit: doesn't this mean that any site you visit will get a chance to track you the first time, until you manage to click to grant permission?
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  From the blog post on how adguard built their v3 extension the ads themselves are blocked but aren't removed from the page if the cosmetic filters aren't run
SquareWheel 4y ago
That limitation has nothing to do with MV3. Adguard does not suffer from this problem. Making it opt-in is a specific design consideration that gorhill took with this version of uBlock to reduce its permission scope. I wish people were not so quick to share misinformation like this.
- chlorion 4y ago
  The amount of misinformation in these comments is absolutely wild. For some reason people are just itching to spread FUD about this topic and Google in general. I don't understand where it comes from or why it happens but it's really annoying.

zamalek 4y ago

CNAME cloaking is one of the more significant differences. It's typically used for tracking (and is becoming increasingly common), but also works for advertising. Instead of linking images/scripts/etc. to ads.advertisingcompany.com you can simply set up a CNAME under your TLD that points to the advertising company. Now the domain no longer appears in the blocklist, so all the requests (uploading tracking data, or downloading adverts/scripts) work just fine. With MV2, uBlock is able to inspect the DNS record while it is vetting the request, thwarting this workaround.

foepys 4y ago
> With MV2, uBlock is able to inspect the DNS record while it is vetting the request, thwarting this workaround. Not in Chrome-based browsers. Only in Firefox.