6 ms·

Show HN: Adblock-rust Manager – Firefox extension to enable the Brave ad blocker

95 points by electricant 5mo ago

Firefox 149 ships adblock-rust (Brave's Rust engine, MPL-2.0) completely disabled with no UI. It's controlled by two about:config prefs with no WebExtension API, so you can't touch them programmatically from a standard extension. This extension gives it a UI: ETP toggle (via browser.privacy API, instant), filter list manager with clipboard helpers for the manual about:config steps, and 8 preset lists. You can also add your own if you so desire.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
kgwxd 5mo ago
Don't want it. Tracker/Ad blocking should forever be an extension, maintained by someone with zero obligation to, or association with, the ad/tracking industry. A USER agent.
- mp3geek 5mo ago
  The lists are maintained same as extensions.
- RandomGerm4n 5mo ago
  One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.
  - gblargg 5mo ago
    If browsers came with ad blocking that's enabled, it would just make those lists less effective since advertisers would have a serious incentive to work around them. I'd rather ad blocking only be used by people who care enough to install it.
- jasonlotito 5mo ago
  "https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt", "https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt", "https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt", "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/heads/master/filters/annoyances-others.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..." These are the lists you say you do not want being used. Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.
- celsoazevedo 5mo ago
  I'll keep using uBlock Origin, but I don't see having a built-in content blocker as a bad thing, especially if the lists are the same (easylist, etc). It's no different from the (very old) option to block popups.
- dartharva 5mo ago
  The entirety of the web browser runs in userspace afaik. Whatever goes there and within is de facto a user agent.
embedding-shape 5mo ago
> Disable Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection so adblock-rust handles blocking instead. What concrete and practical differences are there between the two? I'm guessing because this exists, adblock-rust somehow is better than the built-in ETP? In what way? I'm using ETP + uBlock Origin right now, and can't remember the last time I saw an ad, if I used this instead, what practical differences would I notice?
- ernesth 5mo ago
  I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182 https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182) Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).
- nathanmills 5mo ago
  It's memory safe
- WeatherClock 5mo ago
  [dead]
HelloUsername 5mo ago
Relevant recent discussion: "Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 25-apr-2026 248 comments
2ndorderthought 5mo ago
Cool project but I have to ask. Why not use brave?
- nemomarx 5mo ago
  You might want to not use chromium?
- monegator 5mo ago
  why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS
  - RandomGerm4n 5mo ago
    I’m a Firefox user myself but there are some very valid arguments against it on Android as well. Firefox on Android is significantly more vulnerable to exploits, lacks internal sandboxing and doesn’t properly isolate tabs from each other.
  - Barbing 5mo ago
    Best iOS strategy that comes to mind is Safari: -iCloud Private Relay (native VPN-like thing) -uBlock Origin Lite -AdGuard DNS (Using fresh private tabs for small privacy gain?) Better than third-party skinned browsers right? Always happy to be informed otherwise. (AdGuard does have an option to supplant uBlock in this stack btw, does “advanced” blocking https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ which is nice but trust $mm-refusing uBlock dev gorhill forever)
    - Anthony-G 5mo ago
      This sounds like good advice so upvoted. I’m a big fan of Raymond Hill¹’s products so I am curious about how much benefit Adguard provides if uBlock Origin is already blocking online trackers, ads and other annoyances. ¹ In this case, the developer – not the musician. I really liked the user interface of uMatrix.
RandomGerm4n 5mo ago
Can this extension effectively block ads on YouTube? When I manually enabled the Rust ad blocker in about:config and added filter lists there, ads still appeared on YouTube and some porn sites. While uBlock Origin blocks everything.
- kitsune1 5mo ago
  [dead]
- antonok 5mo ago
  It should be able to. Waterfox is using roughly the same integration and the maintainer has been seeing reports of YouTube issues, but cannot reproduce it. https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issuecomment-4342924895 https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issueco...
- thesuitonym 5mo ago
  If it can't, plain old ublock Origin can.
touseefbuilds 5mo ago
[flagged]
Sabree 5mo ago
[dead]

95 points by electricant 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

kgwxd 5mo ago

Don't want it. Tracker/Ad blocking should forever be an extension, maintained by someone with zero obligation to, or association with, the ad/tracking industry. A USER agent.

mp3geek 5mo ago
The lists are maintained same as extensions.
RandomGerm4n 5mo ago
One thing doesn't rule out the other. Just because a browser has a built-in adblocker doesn't mean you can't replace it with another one if it's not working well. Every browser should have at least a basic adblocker enabled by default. Anything else is a major security risk. In the context of web browsers ads are the main entry point for malware. Either through exploits delivered via ad banners or by tricking users into downloading something. Many search engines such as Google display fake search results that lead to infected versions of otherwise secure software. Additionally some sites offering downloads have ads disguised as download buttons that lead to something else. A browser manufacturer should try to protect its users from such things.
- gblargg 5mo ago
  If browsers came with ad blocking that's enabled, it would just make those lists less effective since advertisers would have a serious incentive to work around them. I'd rather ad blocking only be used by people who care enough to install it.
jasonlotito 5mo ago
"https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt", "https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt https://easylist.to/easylist/easyprivacy.txt", "https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt", "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/heads/master/filters/annoyances-others.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/refs/..." These are the lists you say you do not want being used. Please explain how these lists and the people who maintain them are compromised by someone with an obligation or association with the ad/tracking industry. This would be revelatory.
celsoazevedo 5mo ago
I'll keep using uBlock Origin, but I don't see having a built-in content blocker as a bad thing, especially if the lists are the same (easylist, etc). It's no different from the (very old) option to block popups.
dartharva 5mo ago
The entirety of the web browser runs in userspace afaik. Whatever goes there and within is de facto a user agent.

embedding-shape 5mo ago

> Disable Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection so adblock-rust handles blocking instead. What concrete and practical differences are there between the two? I'm guessing because this exists, adblock-rust somehow is better than the built-in ETP? In what way? I'm using ETP + uBlock Origin right now, and can't remember the last time I saw an ad, if I used this instead, what practical differences would I notice?

ernesth 5mo ago
I've been using ETP plus adblock-rs in Waterfox for 2 weeks. I don't see much a difference compared to ETP + ublock origin apart from some cosmetic filtering. The fact that it's not an extension supposedly allows to block at more layers so it's theoretically better than an extension (https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182 https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182) Note that there are (were?) also some small bugs in the waterfox integration (such as the configuration options sometimes disappearing).
nathanmills 5mo ago
It's memory safe
WeatherClock 5mo ago
[dead]

HelloUsername 5mo ago

Relevant recent discussion: "Firefox Has Integrated Brave's Adblock Engine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47897891 25-apr-2026 248 comments

2ndorderthought 5mo ago

Cool project but I have to ask. Why not use brave?

nemomarx 5mo ago
You might want to not use chromium?
monegator 5mo ago
why use brave, really, when you have firefox? I get it if you're on iOS
- RandomGerm4n 5mo ago
  I’m a Firefox user myself but there are some very valid arguments against it on Android as well. Firefox on Android is significantly more vulnerable to exploits, lacks internal sandboxing and doesn’t properly isolate tabs from each other.
- Barbing 5mo ago
  Best iOS strategy that comes to mind is Safari: -iCloud Private Relay (native VPN-like thing) -uBlock Origin Lite -AdGuard DNS (Using fresh private tabs for small privacy gain?) Better than third-party skinned browsers right? Always happy to be informed otherwise. (AdGuard does have an option to supplant uBlock in this stack btw, does “advanced” blocking https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ https://adguard.com/kb/adguard-for-ios/web-extension/ which is nice but trust $mm-refusing uBlock dev gorhill forever)
  - Anthony-G 5mo ago
    This sounds like good advice so upvoted. I’m a big fan of Raymond Hill¹’s products so I am curious about how much benefit Adguard provides if uBlock Origin is already blocking online trackers, ads and other annoyances. ¹ In this case, the developer – not the musician. I really liked the user interface of uMatrix.

RandomGerm4n 5mo ago

Can this extension effectively block ads on YouTube? When I manually enabled the Rust ad blocker in about:config and added filter lists there, ads still appeared on YouTube and some porn sites. While uBlock Origin blocks everything.

kitsune1 5mo ago
[dead]
antonok 5mo ago
It should be able to. Waterfox is using roughly the same integration and the maintainer has been seeing reports of YouTube issues, but cannot reproduce it. https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issuecomment-4342924895 https://github.com/BrowserWorks/waterfox/issues/4182#issueco...
thesuitonym 5mo ago
If it can't, plain old ublock Origin can.

touseefbuilds 5mo ago

[flagged]

Sabree 5mo ago

[dead]