43 ms·
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dingdingdang 3y ago"uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension."
- Macha 3y agoSo this is basically the manifest v3 version for Chrome, ported to Firefox?
- input_sh 3y ago> MV3-based content blocker Yes.
- devit 3y agoI assume Firefox doesn't have Chrome's arbitrary limit on the number of filtering rules, right?
- input_sh 3y agoI do know that Firefox has no plans to deprecate webRequests API (that the non-lite version depends on), while also supporting declarativeNetRequest (that the lite version depends on) for compatibility. What I don't know is: 1) whether their implementation of declarativeNetRequest has that arbitrary limitation 2) whether uBO Lite ships the same (limited) filters in the Firefox release. I'm guessing 2) is true for simplicity, but that's purely a guess.
- eco 3y agoWhile I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319 4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm8AY70eZBAYI4m836bvQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srkkCJkl4X2KOOUwnpDd-kvm...
- Timshel 3y agoWith the ability to whitelist domain to have full blocking.
- tyingq 3y ago"hence its limited capabilities out of the box compared to uBlock Origin"
- nextaccountic 3y agoDoes this mean that uBOL is less capable and can't block certain ads? Is this expected to be eventually remedied?
- Macha 3y agoI don't believe the full version is planned to be replaced by this one. I think this is basically since they did the work to get this version that would work in Chrome after they reduce the permissions available to adblockers, they just launched it for firefox too in case anyone is really bothered by ublock's permissions.
- dblohm7 3y agoThe fully-capable version is regular uBlock Origin.
- Larrikin 3y agoThe remedy is to switch to Firefox and continue using the extensions that aren't being broken on purpose by a company abusing their monopoly position. But there will be a bunch of posts in this thread about people bemoaning Firefox because they have to have thousands of tabs open all at once everyday and Firefox renders them a second or two slower. There will also be people who will complain that the dev tools aren't exactly like what they learned in college/their boot camp so they can't spend dozens of minutes learning the Firefox tools so they can make their CRUD SPA can load megabytes of JSON outside of Chrome
- AshamedCaptain 3y agoI don't particularly blame Mozilla/Firefox for this but it is obvious to me the writing is on the wall for the "non-lite" version of the extension, due to Chrome stealing all the manpower towards the lite version. The fact that the author is now publishing the "lite" extension also for Firefox itself looks as confirmation to me. The author's description even seems to praise Manifest v3 in the same way Google PR did. Who wouldn't? It's one less version to maintain, and you're not going to stop maintaining the one most people use.
- pottertheotter 3y agoI have a question about this. The page says that uBOL has "limited capabilities out of the box" due to it "not [requiring] broad 'read and modify data' permission". But you can give it broad permission ("Complete mode"). Does that mean that if someone uses uBOL in Complete mode (a) it will have the same capabilities as uBO", and (b) it will use less resources than uBOL (no permanent process)?
- eipi10_hn 3y ago(a) No, uBOL will still have many missing capabilities comparing uBO even in full mode, more prone to anti-adblock/ads-reinsertion (problems with `redirect-rule` and unable to fast updates) and ads/trackers/popups can slip through if cannot be caught by regex filters.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jxy 3y agoWould this be ported to Safari?
- yankput 3y agoThe safari rules are even less capable that that, last time I checked.
- tech234a 3y agoOngoing discussion: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/52 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/52
- yankput 3y agoInteresting. I tried to make a Safari extension and it is a really ridiculous experience. You need to write basically two “wrapper” native Swift/ObjC apps, in addition to the javascript extension. I thought they were making fun of me. And in addition to THAT nonsense, the extension is far less powerful than in other browsers (random things not implemented).
- midoridensha 3y agoIf you're worried about blocking ads, Safari is not the browser to use. Just use something better.
- kwstas 3y agoCool to have this available in FF too. Other than less permissions I can also compare the behaviour directly with chrome now.
- thisisthenewme 3y agoFWIW, Firefox and uBlock on my Android phone will always keep me on that ecosystem. My desire to go into the Apple ecosystem (because of supposed privacy protections) faded as soon as I learned I can't really have a good ad blocking solution there.
- mtzaldo 3y agoI dont see it in firefox for android :(
- greazy 3y agoI believe Firefox curates the installable extensions on android/mobile.
- eco 3y agoThey are going to finally crack open the full add-on library soon. Sometime after September if I remember correctly.
- throwthat1 3y agoYou can already install any addon by creating a collection but its a pain in the ass...
- cpeterso 3y agoYep! > In the coming months Mozilla will launch support for an open ecosystem of extensions on Firefox for Android on addons.mozilla.org (AMO). We’ll announce a definite launch date in early September, but it’s safe to expect a roll-out before the year’s end. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/08/10/prepare-your-firefox-desktop-extension-for-the-upcoming-android-release/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/08/10/prepare-your-fire...
- midoridensha 3y agoDon't use Firefox on Android. Use Firefox Nightly instead.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago>Use Firefox Nightly instead. Don't. Use Fennec instead https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/
- rc_kas 3y agoHow is this different that the uBlock Origin addon for Firefox that I have been running for the last 5 years?
- captn3m0 3y agoIt uses browser provided APIs for filtering, instead of running script injection on every page. This improves security, and performance at the cost of some capability. The reduction in capability comes from the inability to do all kinds of cosmetic filtering, but it lets you enable this on a per site basis. Check the details on the extension page for more information.
- 38 3y ago> improves security, and performance > reduction in performance huh?
- captn3m0 3y agoTypo, reduction in capability. Corrected above.
- afterburner 3y ago> The reduction in capability comes from the inability to do all kinds of cosmetic filtering Oh, that's too bad. The cosmetic filtering is incredible. I wonder how much I would be impacted by switching to Lite. Guess I'll try one day.
- eclipticplane 3y agoIt's definitely jankier without cosmetic filters. You end up with content holes and weird layouts when trackers or ads don't load -- much like browsing on bad wifi. You still avoid (most) ads. The new method will almost certainly allow site/ad network operators to work around the block filters more easily than they could uBlock Origin.
- mission_failed 3y ago
- FiloSottile 3y agoThis is the uBlock Origin edition based on the much-maligned WebExtensions Manifest V3, which implements blocking declaratively instead of allowing/requiring live request interception. Firefox—my daily driver—still supports the "main" uBlock Origin (and I'm a somewhat heavy user of features unavailable in Lite like custom filters), but I had been waiting for Lite to be available and immediately went ahead and replaced uBlock Origin with uBlock Origin Lite. The security win can't be understated: with its permission-less design (enabled by MV3) I am down to zero third-party developers that can get compromised and silently push an update that compromises all my web sessions. Sure, attackers could still get into Mozilla, Apple (as I run macOS), or cause a backdoored update to be pushed via Homebrew (how I install unsandboxed applications when no web app is available, which thanks to the likes of WebUSB is getting less common), but unsandboxed browser extensions were clearly the lowest hanging fruit, so this update (and MV3) significantly raised my security posture (and transitively that of projects I have access to, and that of their users).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sneak 3y agoYou could also just turn off extension autoupdate.
- captn3m0 3y agoThat only makes a difference if you’re auditing each extension update. Switching to extensions with per-site permissions reduces the attack surface drastically and you don’t have to worry about auditing or disabling updates.
- FiloSottile 3y agoI considered that a few times, but eventually complex things like modern ad-blockers rot, so I would be forced to update every once in a while, and let's be honest: I am neither qualified nor prepared to audit the diff. I guess deferring updates would give me lead time to let others get targeted / detect an issue before it's likely I would get the update. Still, installing the permission-less version is so much simpler and reassuring.
- npace12 3y agoOne interesting thing I noticed while trying to port little-rat to FF, using the same declarativeNetRequest API as uBOL last week: In Chrom*, extensions can intercept calls from other extensions, while in Firefox, they can't. If anyone happens to have any insight, please let me know. EDIT: removed links as I'm being downvoted, not trying to promote, just would love to make it work in FF.
- syntaxing 3y agoThree questions, is this less resource intensive and does it still block YouTube ads? Also, since it uses manifest v3, how slim are the chances it’ll be ported to safari?
- thangalin 3y agoCan you run both versions? Here's my config for uBlock Origin: ||accounts.google.com/gsi/*$xhr,script,3p ##.ytp-endscreen-content youtube.com##.ytp-scroll-min.ytp-pause-overlay youtube.com##.ytp-ce-covering-shadow-top youtube.com##.ytp-pause-overlay youtube.com##.ytp-ce-covering-overlay youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element ! 2021-06-10 https://www.statista.com statista.com##.vertical-align-content.default.otCenterRounded instagram.com##.RnEpo instagram.com##body:style(overflow: auto !important) ! 2023-07-08 https://www.roadandtrack.com www.roadandtrack.com##journey-modal-meter YouTube ads are blocked, as are those pervasive sign-in requests from Google.
- ripdog 3y agoThis new addon can't do any cosmetic filtering. It doesn't run any code on the page, only declares filters for network requests.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoI guess a year late Google might release sone ad CDN on their domain that embedds third party ads and then you are out of luck. Same as Microsoft already did that with news. They try to embed themselves as gatekeepers here too.
- palmer_fox 3y agoManifest v3 extensions have access to DOM via the content script (same as Manifest v2). Why would they not do cosmetic filtering? Is that something uBlock Origin developers announced?
- ripdog 3y ago
- hendersoon 3y agoKind of a brilliant compromise, actually. By default it's a declarative content-blocker, but if you run into a specific site that shows ads you can enable the full-fat uBlock Origin featureset there.
- eipi10_hn 3y agoNo, it's not full-fat uBO. It's more prone to anti-adblock/ads-reinsertion (problems with `redirect-rule` and unable to fast updates) and ads/trackers/popups can slip through if cannot be caught by regex filters.
- slater 3y agoSomeone should make a hardware equivalent, something like a Rpi that sits between your wifi router and modem, that just blocks any advertising JS. Yes, pi-hole exists, but i get the feeling that's considered "too nerdy". I mean something that's about the size of a rubik's cube, ethernet in/out, power, and works out of the box with zero configuration needed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tech234a 3y agoThat would require decrypting connections to HTTPS websites and would require deploying a root certificate to all client devices on the network, which is probably more complicated than installing a browser extension.
- BenjiWiebe 3y agoAt minimum you'd need to install another SSL certificate in your browser to allow it to intercept HTTPS.
- AA-BA-94-2A-56 3y agoNextDNS is what I use after running into various networking issues with RPi.
- Pesthuf 3y agoI just configured my Router to use AdGuard's DNS over TLS. No additional device needed that you need to maintain, yet all sorts of advertising domains are blocked. Still, that alone is not as effective as an extension that sits in the browser, that understands and can see the contents of the HTTP requests and responses.
- cubefox 3y agoUnpopular take. Wouldn't it be more ethical to not visit ad supported websites in the first place? Instead of removing the source of their income while still consuming their content? Someone should make an extension "SiteBlock Origin": Everytime it detects the presence of an ad, the whole website gets blocked, not just the ad. That would be ethically consistent.
- nottorp 3y agoI'll be ethical about ads when the ads are ethical about me :)
- kbrosnan 3y agoI ran without an adblocker for a long time with a similar sort of reasoning. What got me to finally install an adblocker is an increase in malvertising. Going to legitimate sites with third party ads resulted in drive by downloads, fake update warnings, fake AV warnings, attempts to get you to install shady extensions, etc. I disable the adblocker for websites that use better ad sourcing methods. Ex. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/i-found-fake-firefox-update https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/i-found-fake-firefox-up...
- qrio2 3y agoI think this is a key to the argument for ad-block. If it was literally just banner ads without tracking, sure, go right ahead. Modern web advertising is so much more than that (aggressive tracking, data collection without consent, or worse). I miss getting those banner ads for decreasing my mortgage rates as a 14 year old who doesn't even pay rent yet
- lobsterthief 3y agoUnfortunately “better ad sourcing methods” require a lot of human capital to support (direct-sold ads, constant monitoring of inventory, being able to afford higher bid floors, etc.) or ultimately access to better advertisers by having a large amount of traffic. All of these are features of larger publishers, unfortunately, which means that smaller publishers suffer more malvertising. So you’re basically just supporting large publishers. Which is definitely better than supporting none, so I still commend you :)
- zlg_codes 3y agoWhy is gorhill entertaining Manifest V3 when it's explicitly meant to kill ad-blocking? We need an opinionated browser that isn't bought-and-paid-for opposition like Mozilla is to Google, and standards committees who aren't beholden to corporate profits. The Web is supposed to be for everyone, not just Google.
- stkuser 3y ago[dead]
- stkuser 3y ago[dead]
- nuker 3y agoNow its time to revive uBO for Safari, same model imho.
- EMM_386 3y agoI was a Firefox user since Phoenix/Firebird and only recently switched to Brave for performance (although I think I'm going back, given the recent performance gains). I have also been using uBlock Origin heavily since the start. I'm not sure I fully understand the purpose of this. If this is a Manifest V3 thing, I thought Mozilla wasn't adopting it ... so why would uBlock need to adopt it on Firefox? I'm clearly missing something.
- cosmojg 3y agoI believe the plan is to support it without forcing it, unlike Chrome which plans to force it.
- donatzsky 3y agoFirefox is also moving to Manifest V3, but a more "relaxed" version that still allows a lot of what is being removed in Chrome. What seems to have happened here, is that uBO decided that, since they now have a declarative version for Chrome, they may as well release it for FF also (but with a few improvements, apparently).
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoI think it's a smart move on FF's part (a more relaxed V3). If Chrome goes too heavy-handed with anti-adblockers in V3, people might leave Chrome. Yes, they might leave Chrome for a different Chromium browser, but if they get too heavy-handed there, Firefox and its forks are the last large alternative left.
- Not_Real 3y agouBlock origin is probably the best project to be created in the last decade. The amount of websites that are unusable with ads is crazy.
- hiisukun 3y agoIs there any upside to mv3 in terms of ublock/adblocker usage detection? I understand the significant security implications (whether or not you agree with mv3), but found myself wondering if the permissionless model might make it harder to detect a user adjusting the page at a different point in the request/response/draw cycle.
- Jiahang 3y agoI'm looking forward to using it on safari
- vanous 3y agoTIL it can be installed into Thunderbird [1], awesome. Is this thanks to the MV3? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin-lite/reviews/1990860/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
- botanical 3y agoOne thing I've noticed is that for years uBlock used to say 7% of all data requests was blocked; in this past year it's climbed to 8%. So almost 10% of data transferred is useless to me as it consists of ads, trackers and annoyances. I wonder in my lifetime how much bandwidth and energy I've saved if a blocker has blocked around 10% of all data requests. I'll stick with the full version on Firefox.
- guerrilla 3y agoI'm surprised to hear it's so little.
- nottorp 3y agoIt sounds like 7-8% of requests. If that's video ads it can be 50% of the actual data transferred?
- abwizz 3y agonot entirely sure if that was a question because it is formed like a statement, but, yes.
- maratc 3y agoBut then, if you mostly watch videos (or take a video call in your browser), the ads — both video and non-video — can fall to 1% of the actual data transferred. As each person's internet usage is different, the percentage of requests blocked seems to me a better measurement than the percentage of the actual data transferred.
- nottorp 3y agoIt is, i was just nitpicking on mixing # of requests and data volume.
- abwizz 3y agotrue, the ammount of data, energy, attention and time safed by adblockers cannot be understated
- lfmunoz4 3y agowhy don't we block ads at the operating system level instead at the browser level? If we are talking about having more security and performance wouldn't it more sense? Not sure I understand how ublock origin works anyone have a summary on this?
- downWidOutaFite 3y agoMost of the network streams are encrypted at the os level.
- hjek 3y ago> why don't we block ads at the operating system level instead at the browser level? sure, we do that, too: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
- vitorgrs 3y agoWhy operating system level and not network level? See Pi-Hole (or NextDNS, Adguard DNS)
- orthecreedence 3y agoBut this would make Windows 10+ unable to boot =[
- pythux 3y agoThe operating system level does not have as much information as the browser so it would be much less effective. You could do domain-level blocking (mostly) but miss lots of granularity on URLs, types of requests, contexts of request (what's the URL of the parent frame?), etc. Also it would be impossible to perform cosmetics injections (scriptlets, alterations of the DOM, etc.) It might already provide a good base-line but definitely not enough for all cases (e.g. YouTube ads, etc.)
- abwizz 3y agobecause the operating system can't see what's going on inside the connection or even know about the semantics of individual elements, the user-agent does that. the value of dns/ip level blocking is diminishing as resource density per host increases due to ipv4 shortage and should be completely inpractical with ipv6 due to adress space size.
- jessekv 3y agoMy favorite use of uBlock Origin is opting-in to allow javascript per site. I miss this functionality on moble.
- foepys 3y agoFirefox for Android can install uBlock Origin and do this.
- RandomGerm4n 3y agoI tried it and after a short time I came across websites that locked me out and told me to disable my adblocker. Even at the highest block level it doesn't change anything. With the normal uBlock Origin version, most sites just work and don't even show the anti adblock notice. An ad blocker that is not able to bypass the annoying anti adblock measures is useless garbage.
- moontear 3y agoThis seems to do network-level filtering based on the provided filter lists. If I have a Pi-Hole / Adguard Home running in my network and use it as a DNS, that would mean this extension is useless for me (give I use the same and more filter lists)?
- awwaiid 3y agoI use out-of-the-box defaults for uBO -- would I notice any difference with uBO Lite?
- devilsAdv0cate 3y ago[dead]