5 ms·

I somewhat wished that when Chrome switches to manifest v3, uBlock Origin would stop supporting Chrome and its clones. Firefox is the only browser where uBlock

by foepys 4y ago

I somewhat wished that when Chrome switches to manifest v3, uBlock Origin would stop supporting Chrome and its clones. Firefox is the only browser where uBlock Origin is actually working as intended, Chrome on the other hand (even in manifest v2) is blocking so many features that uBO isn't actually able to work as a privacy and anti-malware tool. CNAME uncloaking is essential because websites can counter any filter rule by just aliasing the Google Analytics domain but Chrome doesn't have an API for that. Instead you need a gigantic list of filter rules, one for each domain, making loading web pages slower. uBO is even slower in Chrome because Chrome doesn't allow extensions to use wasm. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

sharps1 4y ago
uBlock Lite is already in testing. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite... EDIT: Discussion from 6 months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911640
- tyingq 4y ago
  I wished it had been named "uBlock Neutered" or something that more strongly highlighted the relationship to uBlock Origin.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    Or uBlock Chrome Edition. When it doesn't work as good as uBO on FF, let it be known whose fault it is.
    - favaq 4y ago
      Chrome will still be faster even if ublock doesn't block as much as FF does. In fact the new declarative filters will most likely be faster than the current ones.
      - tyingq 4y ago
        In the same way that a car is faster if you make it lighter by removing parts that aren't technically needed to drive down the road :) Airbags, ABS, Crossmembers? Meh.
      - bornfreddy 4y ago
        How much faster does it need to be? I have some complaints about FF, but not on the account of speed. I don't care about microbenchmarks, for me it works fast enough to not notice any lag. Besides, I really don't care how fast it it when displaying ads and tracking me. I'd prefer not to see them, thank you very much.
    - dpkirchner 4y ago
      uBlock Reduced Functionality exclusive to Chrome
  - NBPEL 4y ago
    uBlock Gutted imo.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    "uBlock Crippled Edition" sounds good.
charcircuit 4y ago
>CNAME uncloaking is essential >Chrome doesn't have an API for that. It rolled out a year ago. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1151047 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=115104... >Chrome because Chrome doesn't allow extensions to use wasm. Chrome doesn't allow loading remote web assembly in mv3 extentions. You can't run remote javascript either. It's fine if you bundle the wasm with your extension.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Loading remote wasm after installing should be allowed. Your extension would still need bindings in javascript for whatever the wasm is doing.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Just knowing the bindings isn't enough to be able to classify a wasm file as being malicious.
- rasz 4y ago
  >remote javascript When Google says "remote" they really mean "remote to Google". You cant execute any of your own code from local drive, everything must be controlled by Google.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    How can a malware scan be effective if all the code can't be scanned? Imagine if antimalware only scanned exe files and ignored dll files.
therealmarv 4y ago
There is a solution for Chromium based browsers: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust but you will only have it built-in in Brave currently.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
"Instead you need a gigantic list of filter rules, one for each domain, making loading web pages slower." By not using recursive DNS, including open resolvers or other third party DNS providers, I avoid this problem. I do not need to maintain a list of domains to block,^1 I only need to maintain a list of domains for hosts that I actually want to access. I do not even make remote DNS lookups because generally I already have the DNS data stored (gathered in bulk beforehand), so the web becomes faster, not slower. One of the requirements for the web to suck the way it does, and for so-called "tech" companies to proliferate by collecting data and selling ad services, is that the web browser and webpages must be give free reign to resolve any domain name. IME over nearly 20 years of controlling own DNS, restricting that ability makes the web instantly readable, even so-called "dumpster fire" webpages. 1. AFAICT no one actually does this anyway. They delegate the task to third parties, "blocklist" maintainers.
- flas9sd 4y ago
  while I do some dnsmasq tweaks to raise minimum ttl on my terms, doing bulk gathering ahead of time and sinkhole anything not cached (I assume) is interesting. What's your refresh interval? source of domains you query in bulk (browser history / bookmarks?). Any place you described your process to read into?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- LennyPenny 4y ago
  do you mind sharing your setup for this? sounds like umatrix but on the dns level
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- NBPEL 4y ago
  But DNS has its own weakness, that's dealing with first party ads and anti-adblockers, which websites use a tons nowadays.

by foepys 4y ago

sharps1 4y ago

uBlock Lite is already in testing. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite... EDIT: Discussion from 6 months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911640

tyingq 4y ago
I wished it had been named "uBlock Neutered" or something that more strongly highlighted the relationship to uBlock Origin.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Or uBlock Chrome Edition. When it doesn't work as good as uBO on FF, let it be known whose fault it is.
  - favaq 4y ago
    Chrome will still be faster even if ublock doesn't block as much as FF does. In fact the new declarative filters will most likely be faster than the current ones.
    - tyingq 4y ago
      In the same way that a car is faster if you make it lighter by removing parts that aren't technically needed to drive down the road :) Airbags, ABS, Crossmembers? Meh.
    - bornfreddy 4y ago
      How much faster does it need to be? I have some complaints about FF, but not on the account of speed. I don't care about microbenchmarks, for me it works fast enough to not notice any lag. Besides, I really don't care how fast it it when displaying ads and tracking me. I'd prefer not to see them, thank you very much.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    uBlock Reduced Functionality exclusive to Chrome
- NBPEL 4y ago
  uBlock Gutted imo.
- lenkite 4y ago
  "uBlock Crippled Edition" sounds good.

charcircuit 4y ago

>CNAME uncloaking is essential >Chrome doesn't have an API for that. It rolled out a year ago. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1151047 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=115104... >Chrome because Chrome doesn't allow extensions to use wasm. Chrome doesn't allow loading remote web assembly in mv3 extentions. You can't run remote javascript either. It's fine if you bundle the wasm with your extension.

postalrat 4y ago
Loading remote wasm after installing should be allowed. Your extension would still need bindings in javascript for whatever the wasm is doing.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Just knowing the bindings isn't enough to be able to classify a wasm file as being malicious.
rasz 4y ago
>remote javascript When Google says "remote" they really mean "remote to Google". You cant execute any of your own code from local drive, everything must be controlled by Google.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  How can a malware scan be effective if all the code can't be scanned? Imagine if antimalware only scanned exe files and ignored dll files.

therealmarv 4y ago

There is a solution for Chromium based browsers: https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust but you will only have it built-in in Brave currently.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

"Instead you need a gigantic list of filter rules, one for each domain, making loading web pages slower." By not using recursive DNS, including open resolvers or other third party DNS providers, I avoid this problem. I do not need to maintain a list of domains to block,^1 I only need to maintain a list of domains for hosts that I actually want to access. I do not even make remote DNS lookups because generally I already have the DNS data stored (gathered in bulk beforehand), so the web becomes faster, not slower. One of the requirements for the web to suck the way it does, and for so-called "tech" companies to proliferate by collecting data and selling ad services, is that the web browser and webpages must be give free reign to resolve any domain name. IME over nearly 20 years of controlling own DNS, restricting that ability makes the web instantly readable, even so-called "dumpster fire" webpages. 1. AFAICT no one actually does this anyway. They delegate the task to third parties, "blocklist" maintainers.

flas9sd 4y ago
while I do some dnsmasq tweaks to raise minimum ttl on my terms, doing bulk gathering ahead of time and sinkhole anything not cached (I assume) is interesting. What's your refresh interval? source of domains you query in bulk (browser history / bookmarks?). Any place you described your process to read into?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
LennyPenny 4y ago
do you mind sharing your setup for this? sounds like umatrix but on the dns level
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NBPEL 4y ago
But DNS has its own weakness, that's dealing with first party ads and anti-adblockers, which websites use a tons nowadays.