gorhill

19 ms·

151.
by gorhill 7y ago
uMatrix is very low overhead so my first suspicion would be artificial delays introduced when some JavaScript resources are blocked; [1] is an example of this. The artificial delay does not occur in uBlock Origin because it uses a replaceme
152.
by gorhill 7y ago
This sort of issue is usually worked around in uBO when they are reported on uBO's own filter issue tracker: < https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues> .
153.
by gorhill 7y ago
Site works fine here using default settings/lists and up to date lists. Did you customized uBO by adding more filter lists or rules?
154.
by gorhill 7y ago
> probably uBlock Origin but I can't be sure (28 extensions). Why "probably"? I fail to see how uBO is related to "things get cached that don't need to be".
155.
by gorhill 7y ago
The bug report says: by iframing popupfilltab.html (i.e. via moz-extension, ms-browser-extension, chrome-extension, etc). It's a valid web_accessible_resource. [...] y.src="chrome-extension://hdoki
156.
by gorhill 7y ago
> 42% of chrome extensions have abused the web requests API No. The accurate quote is (my emphasis) "According to Google, 42% of MALICIOUS extensions have used the Web Request API since January 2018".[1] Note that the source fo
157.
by gorhill 7y ago
> the newer APIs do not share all my web traffic with the extensions The webRequest API can observe the URLs you visit without needing blocking permission. And so does the webNavigation API, the tabs API, history API, content scripts, po
158.
by gorhill 7y ago
> has a built in blocker that is even more verbose than ublock I don't understand this sentence. What does "more verbose" mean?
159.
by gorhill 7y ago
> not really a meaningful difference between the two extensions That is incorrect. uBlock Origin has filter syntax not found in ABP[1], so there will be a meaningful difference when it comes to what is blocked or not, and also there is a
160.
by gorhill 7y ago
> I've become frustrated with having to disable one or both of the above for too many sites--they just break functionality for a good chunk of the web For uBlock Origin[1], the best solution is to report the breakage to filter list
161.
by gorhill 7y ago
> large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting The safest assumption is that fingerprinting is and will be used regardless of whether local storages (of which cookies
162.
by gorhill 7y ago
> Signed Exchanges standard is actually a huge step up Signed exchanges is considered harmful by Mozilla.[1] * * * [1] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
163.
by gorhill 7y ago
> Ublock origin (in advanced mode) You can wholly block JavaScript in uBlock Origin without having to enable advanced mode, by using the per-site JavaScript master switch.[1] * * * [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlo
164.
by gorhill 7y ago
I deleted the tweets and Gist just out of respect for the Chromium people's decision to restrict the issue. I personally do not see the point of considering this specific issue particularly severe because the Chrome Web Store already a
165.
by gorhill 7y ago
The default `script-src` policy in extensions is 'self', no JavaScript code outside the package will be allowed to execute.
166.
by gorhill 7y ago
> The Hover Zoom extension can be seen downloading the 156KB payload I have tried to find out from the article or the original report[1] how the extensions could execute the payload from remote servers. I could find no details about this
167.
by gorhill 7y ago
> I'm glad to see Chrome taking steps to limit that access. Given your opinion, I think it is important to disclose that your Twitter profile says "Co-Founder @ getadmiral.com"[1] -- Admiral's primary purpose is to co
168.
by gorhill 7y ago
Firefox Public Data Report: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior "Has Add-on" has been between 33-38% for the last two years.
169.
by gorhill 7y ago
It's often the case that what is blocked prevented more scripts to be pulled, which scripts could pull even more scripts and so on. Those subsequent waves of scripts are not counted as blocked because they never had a chance to be pull
170.
by gorhill 7y ago
The webRequest API is not going away, they are just removing the blocking ability. Likewise, so far I have also seen "exactly zero evidence" that the blocking ability of the webRequest API is causing all the issues your are mentio
171.
by gorhill 7y ago
Why resort to innuendos when you can just ask directly whether I "put money in [my] pockets"?
172.
by gorhill 7y ago
This polyfill is useful if you want your Firefox-based extension to seamlessly run as a Chromium-based extension. However uBO's code base was primarily that of a Chromium-based extension (it predates Firefox WebExtensions), and Firefox
173.
by gorhill 7y ago
> You can achieve similar results with pihole, or hosts file managers. You can't. uBO has contextual information for each network request, something not available to external content blocking solutions. For example, many filters are
174.
by gorhill 7y ago
EasyList/EasyPrivacy and other lists are maintained by volunteers, not by Eyeo GmbH.
175.
by gorhill 7y ago
I said: > Ad blocker uBlock Origin “can no longer exist” if a proposed change to Chrome goes through. First, I never ever referred to uBlock Origin as an "ad blocker", so the article is wrong there. Second, I specifically point
176.
by gorhill 7y ago
> Hill admitted that adblockers aren't going away I didn't "admit" anything -- I never made the statement "ad blockers are going away" in the first place. If you want to argue I did, please provide a specifi
177.
by gorhill 7y ago
The Safari version supports "Acceptable Ads". I counted ~17,000 rules[1] which includes exception rules. Also, keep in mind cosmetic exception filters are not implemented through the declarativeNetRequest API. (Edited for accuracy
178.
by gorhill 7y ago
> getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for this move This makes no sense to me. ABP is already publishing a version using a declarativeNetRequest-like API, it's in the Mac App Store[1], so clearly it's not going to &quo
179.
by gorhill 7y ago
I do not experience this -- sounds like a false positive. I tried enabling various filter lists to see if I could reproduce and I can't. What reason uBO is giving you for blocking the page?
180.
by gorhill 7y ago
> evil motives Nowhere did I ever say "evil motives". I merely pointed out that Google has a duty to its shareholders.

More ›