uBlock Origin: official repository and downloads

uBlock Origin is a popular cross-browser content blocker that is seen by many as one of the most efficient extensions of its kind.

The browser extension is available for Firefox and Chromium based browsers, as well as Microsoft Edge. Basically, what that means is that you can install it in virtually any browser out there right now -- with the exception of Internet Explorer.

The extension was initially known as uBlock -- originally named with the Greek letter µ instead of u -- and released for Google Chrome. The uBlock project was handed over to Chris Aljoudi in 2015, and Raymond Hill, the creator of uBlock, started work on uBlock Origin.

One of the issues that came out of the split was that Chris Aljoudi, the new owner of uBlock, created the website ublock.org. This website asks for donations to cover "bandwidth costs" and to support "the project".

ublock origin-official repository downloads

Raymond Hill confirmed however that the site and the donations that it collects are not related to the official uBlock Origin project, and that the money does not benefit the development of the extension in any way.

BEWARE! uBlock Origin is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the web site ublock.org

The donations sought by the individual behind ublock.org ("to keeps uBlock development possible", a misrepresentation) are not benefiting any of those who contributed most to create uBlock Origin (developers, translators, and all those who put efforts in opening detailed issues).

The site ranks well in search engines, and it is likely that some users will land on it when they search for uBlock Origin or extensions to block advertisement or content on the Internet.

uBlock Origin: official repository and downloads

This article has been created to provide all users with a list of official resources of the uBlock Origin project.

  • uBlock Origin official repository -- This is the official project repository of the uBlock Origin project on GitHub. It lists the code, changes, issues, and informational pages that provide users with information on specific features of uBlock Origin, and more. If you don't know where to start, this is the place to hit first.
  • Google Chrome -- The official uBlock Origin Google Chrome Web Store page.
  • Google Chrome manual -- You may install the latest version from the GitHub repository as well.
  • Opera -- The official uBlock Origin Opera browser story page.
  • Firefox -- The official Mozilla AMO listing of the add-on for Firefox.
  • Firefox manual -- As is the case for Google Chrome, you may download the latest version of uBlock Origin for Firefox from the GitHub's project website as well.
  • Microsoft Edge -- Note: the project is maintained by another developer. Edge users can download the extension fro the Microsoft Store.
  • Microsoft Edge manual -- The latest development version of uBlock Origin for Edge can be installed from the project's GitHub page.
  • Safari -- Note: the project is maintained by another developer. Safari users can download the development version from the GitHub project page.
Read also:  The future of programs that share code with Firefox

Note: If you don't find your web browser listed here, it may still be possible to install the extension. If it is based on Chromium, you may be able to install the Chrome extension, and if it is based on Firefox, the Firefox add-on may work in the browser.

Summary
Article Name
uBlock Origin: official repository and downloads
Description
The guide provides you with links to the official uBlock Origin repository on GitHub, and downloads of the uBlock Origin extension for all supported browsers.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement
Please share this article

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail



Responses to uBlock Origin: official repository and downloads

  1. ilev July 15, 2017 at 8:10 am #

    And don't forget to add uBlock Origin Extra to compliment uBlock Origin.

    • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 9:04 am #

      'uBlock Origin Extra', that is, for Chromium-based browsers only.

      uBlock Origin (uBO), only. Chris Aljoudi, the business-sniffer guy, if he had a minimum of respect, self-respect and dignity, should have abandoned his cheat-site since long ago. UBLOCKdotORG is NOT the person entrusted with UBLOCK, the first, one and only, now named UBLOCK ORIGIN. This article details perfectly well the odyssey of the uBlock extension, the talent and honesty of its developer, Raymond Hill (Gorhill), and the parasite's intrusion.

      Quoting the article,
      "uBlock Origin is a popular cross-browser content blocker that is seen by many as one of the most efficient extensions of its kind."

      'uBlock Origin' and uMatrix (from the same developer) ARE, IMO, the two most efficient extensions in the area of blocking, filtering, with a minimum of RAM and CPU inpact, with a maximum of easiness to deploy and use. A haven of tranquility allowing effortless protection on the Wild Wild Web.

    • Mike July 15, 2017 at 9:55 pm #

      I thought the "Extra" extension was only needed on Chromium-based browser 57 or lower. I thought more recent versions of Chromium made this extension obsolete?

  2. Tony July 15, 2017 at 10:04 am #

    To be fair, many members of the community treated teenager Chris Aljoudi with such disrespect (including prejudicial name-calling) while he was actively working on uBlock. The lack of compassion and understanding within the bullying community (which could simply be described as an "angry mob") was disheartening.

    Even the normally respectable Tom Hawack has chosen to throw mud in Chris's face. Sorry Tom, but I've just lost a lot of respect for you.

    Chris created the uBlock.org website when Raymond Hill gave him control of the uBlock repo on GitHub. Yes, Chris made some questionable judgement calls during that process, but so did Raymond.

    In my opinion, whatever small amount of money (if any) Chris receives from his website is minor compensation for the harassment he endured.

    • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 10:32 am #

      Bullying is one thing, and one thing I never practice, and expressing anger towards a behavior, with chosen words, those of respect and dignity, those of parasite, is another. Compassion would come in my mind should anyone be harassed, spitted on, condemned in inappropriate terms, being inappropriate what is excessive and disrespectful.

      I do not express a loss of respect towards this "nice little teenager" named Chris Aljoudi, I do not call the wolves to eat him alive, I only express my feelings, calmly and with words I've thought before writing them, towards someone who has not only made the mistake of seeking a money opportunity with an extension but who moreover persists with a dedicated Web site, adding confusion to a treason, doubling the latter.

      I'll manage without your respect, Tony, when I face myself with no shame. Please do reconsider your commitment to the offender in its balance with your understanding ogf the offended.

      • Tony July 15, 2017 at 11:15 am #

        Calling someone a "parasite" without fully understanding the history is unkind, Tom.

        Did you even watch Chris's video where he explained his actions (and acknowledged his errors) before calling him a "parasite"?

        If you did not, then you rushed to judgement awfully fast without having all the data at hand.

        If you did, then your ability to act compassionately has room to grow.

      • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 11:57 am #

        @Tony, I've followed the uBlock development ever since uBlock first appeared on AMO. Yes, I've seen the parasite's video. I've also read Gorhill's related comments, including what I perceived as his tolerance, perhaps close to that compassion you worthy. Hence, I've seen the video you mention and recall more pity than anger, then. But now, this teenager, rather then repairing his mistake, that which broght him close to tears on the video, persists with a Web site that would allow a rational mind to consider the poor little fellow didn't take his mistake for what it was and therefor remains. I call such an attitude that of a parasite.

        I admit I should have specified "in the computing area" so as to differentiate a revolt from a judgement. I'm not judging a person, a life, I never do. I remain in the scope of our concerns, those of the Web, of a healthy Web, with all its difficulties, trending problematic and rising problems, far enough to not have to endure moreover an opportunistic attitude of he who sniffs the good possible money involved, when Raymond Hill (Gorhill), the developer, has always made it clear that not only was he not concerned with money revenue but moreover was opposed to whatever financial help, participation.

        May it be noted that your judgement is far more obvious then my expressed irritation. Beware if I may dare an advice to not feel legitimate an anger in redirecting it on the ground of defending a poor little guy oppressed by the masses. With you I condemn excessive, hysterical often mass-conducted bullying, but that should not be an argument to avoid expressing an anger when the words are weighed. I am writing here, on a blog, and not in terms of a popular orator, not even on a social media, otherwise, considering the sensibility of the masses to over-react, to misinterpret, to use one's comments, I certainly then and than only would have chosen a far more diplomatic rhetoric. But here I believe to lack the fame of having my straightforward comment being incentive of a mass bomb. Clear enough?

      • seeprime July 15, 2017 at 4:39 pm #

        I agree with Tom's assessment on this issue.

      • Appster July 15, 2017 at 6:49 pm #

        I have to agree with Tony here. Sorry, Tom. Calling a person a parasite is not okay, since it is a very unpolite insult. Tom, do you realize that Raymond Hill chose to give the uBlock project to Chris? Calling Chris a parasite in this context is not justifiable. That's as if I would call any successor of any project a parasite. Raymond then chose to reopen the project under a very similar name (nobody forced him to call his new project "uBlock" once more). Honestly, Raymond has zero reason to complain. First giving the project away, then founding a new project with very similar name... Chris should give up this URL, though. But other than that your accusations are ridiculous, Tom. I'm sure everyone knows which project is more active by now. No need to stir up conflict once more.

      • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 7:43 pm #

        @Appster maybe a polite insult would have been preferable?
        "Parasite" is definitely not an insult, it's not even "unpolite" as such. It's barely more than a point of view, unless your domain of activity is kindergarten. I said my word, free to agree or not on the facts. But if the argument is to wonder on the word "parasite" like a gondola in Venise then call me back once you get home. I'm not to elaborate on a word, remain serious, please!

      • Appster July 15, 2017 at 8:52 pm #

        @Tom Hawack: Oh Tom... All I wanted to point out is that your accusations against Chris, both content- and form-wise, are unjustifiable. Why did Raymond Hill give the project to Chris in the first place? Why did he need to call his new project uBlock Origin exactly, for god's sake? Think about it... Raymond does not play a good role in there either. He keeps whining about Chris using a name of a project he (Raymond) has relinquished to him and which he has started once again with nearly the same name? Oh please! Chris should give the URL back, everything else (like the conflict regarding the name) can be traced back to Raymond, really.

        PS: You started this discussion at kindergarten level, I just dared to point at your unjustifiable accusations against and biased view on Chris.

  3. obvious July 15, 2017 at 10:29 am #

    Hi chris!

  4. Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 10:32 am #

    I might give it a try again (provided I installed the right one the first time ; I was not aware of the dishonest fork). Any incompatibilities with No Script and Adblocker Plus ? Or problems using them together, when unblocking becomes necessary ?

    • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 10:34 am #

      No incompatibility with NoScript, but redundancy with Adblockers (whatever they be) because uBlockOrigin is by definition a blocker, ads included but more than ads.

      • Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 11:11 am #

        So would you advise No Script + uBlock Origin, instead of No Script + Adblocker Plus ?

        My concern is not only blocking performance, but especially ease of unblocking when something does not work on a site (which is often).

        Currently, unblocking is a pain : you never know what to unblock, and sometimes even unblocking "everything" does not work. In those cases, I fire up an out-of-the box instance of Opera, and it usually works.

        Except yesterday, when I thought a blogger I follow had got rid of his comments section (impossible to show under my secured Firefox). Even Opera blocked Disqus natively, because it considered it somewhat insecure. I had to find a specific unblock button in a place I had never noticed before.

      • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 11:29 am #

        @Clairvaux, for what my advice be worth, considering I'm not a techie and in coherence with what I've read and I hope understood (many conditions, right?!) I'd advise either uBlockO+NoScript either uMatrix only.

        Personally I use uBlockO only and not NoScript (in the area of blockers/filters) when uBlockO with appropriate filters already handles nasty javascripts, even if it does not allow fine scripts management as uMatrix or NoScript do. uMatrix is definitely, IMO, the ultimate tool, combining adblockers (and even more : uBlockO itself) efficiency with scripts managers such as the mighty NoScript. Maybe one day I'll jump to uMatrix but now, laziness+uBlockO comfort+perception of uMatrix as tough is an equation, flat, I make mine.

      • Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 11:30 am #

        @Clairvaux, for what my advice be worth, considering I'm not a techie and in coherence with what I've read and I hope understood (many conditions, right?!) I'd advise either uBlockO+NoScript either uMatrix only.

        Personally I use uBlockO only and not NoScript (in the area of blockers/filters) when uBlockO with appropriate filters already handles nasty javascripts, even if it does not allow fine scripts management as uMatrix or NoScript do. uMatrix is definitely, IMO, the ultimate tool, combining adblockers (and even more : uBlockO itself) efficiency with scripts managers such as the mighty NoScript. Maybe one day I'll jump to uMatrix but now, laziness+uBlockO comfort+perception of uMatrix as tough is an equation, flat, I make mine.

      • Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 3:10 pm #

        Thanks. I might experiment with that. My priorities are thus :

        1. Protect against malware.
        2. Protect against annoying adverstising and unwanted "things" on the screen, for ease of reading and speed.
        3. Make unblocking easy.
        4. Protect against tracking.

        In that order. I hope ditching No Script does not lower protection. Especially against malware.

      • Appster July 15, 2017 at 6:40 pm #

        @Clairvaux: How is uBlock Origin blocking Disqus for you? uBlock is letting it through here with ALL filters enabled. Ghostery blocks it, though. Both extensions and Firefox are on their respective newest version. I would not recommend unblocking things at all. Those lists usually block the unwanted stuff, no need to reward such business practices.

      • Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 6:47 pm #

        @ Appster

        It doesn't. I don't use uBlock x. I use No Script and Adblocker Plus on Firefox (and can't get Disqus through even when whitelisting the site on both), and Opera with nothing at all and it still blocked Disqus. Apparently, it's a native feature of Opera which blocked Disqus.

      • Appster July 15, 2017 at 7:05 pm #

        @Clairvaux: I see. Consider dumping AdBlock Plus! Its memory footprint is way too high for what it does. Keep NoScript, it's decent. Sometimes these blockers are way too aggressive, so one may wish to enable selected elements (like Disqus). Ghostery has a much better interface than uBlock Origin for such tasks. Sometimes uBlock Origin is not really intuitive...I just meant to say that generally disable blockers on certain sites is not what I would recommend. I'm not even doing that for gHacks... Martin's site tracks way too much for my liking (Sorry to say this, Martin.)! Ironically this is very easy in uBlock Origin (big blue shutdown button), whereas allowing selective elements is not. Raymond should really copy Ghostery's approach here.

      • Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 8:51 pm #

        Selectively unblocking some sites is unavoidable (at least with my present setup ; and, I'm afraid, with others). Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to pay my taxes, maintain a balance on my bank account, buy stuff, watch certain videos, find directions on Google Maps...

        This area of techology is really clunky for the time being : either suffer security and privacy risks, or suffer a severely crippled Internet. And in-between, try to strike a balance without really knowing what you're doing, and no guarantee either way.

      • Appster July 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm #

        @Clairvaux:

        > This area of techology is really clunky for the time being : either suffer security and privacy risks, or suffer a severely crippled Internet. And in-between, try to strike a balance without really knowing what you're doing, and no guarantee either way.

        Exactly. 100% the way I see it. Nevertheless, I'm sorty to hear that some sites you need are not working without whitelisting at all. That will increase for sure.

    • Tony July 15, 2017 at 11:24 am #

      Just a small correction: The "fork" was not dishonest. In fact, it was not a fork at all. The uBlock repo on GitHub that is in Chris's name is the original official uBlock repository.

      Raymond Hill, the primary author, later created a fork called "uBlock Origin". Raymond continues to work on uBlock Origin, and due to his extensive work, his repo has become the defacto repository.

      Millions of people currently use uBlock Origin, which is quite an accomplishment.

  5. Heimen Stoffels July 15, 2017 at 11:00 am #

    "and if it is based on Firefox, the Firefox add-on may work in the browser."

    You may want to expand the list in the first place, because Gorhill wrote in the readme on GitHub that it's officially compatible with SeaMonkey and Pale Moon (and I can confirm SeaMonkey, you can even install it from the SeaMonkey add-ons site, so no need to use the FF version of the add-on).

    • Gerard July 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm #

      I can confirm that uBlock Origin is compatible with the current version of Pale Moon (27.4.0), a great browser imho.

  6. Mike July 15, 2017 at 1:51 pm #

    Is uBlock Origin faster/more efficient than the built in content blocker in Opera?

    • seeprime July 15, 2017 at 4:44 pm #

      It is indeed superior to the native Opera ad blocker. I have both on.

  7. Anonymous July 15, 2017 at 3:07 pm #

    Thanks for the links Martin. uBlock Origin is actually the best ad-blocker IMO, but just because the dev of AdBlock Plus has sold his soul to the devil. AdBlock Plus works better, no need with it to regularly refresh the page to work properly, a design problem I guess.

  8. Anon July 15, 2017 at 3:09 pm #

    Article missing facts as usual.
    "Chris Aljoudi, the person who forked uBlock"
    Raymond Hill gave uBlock to Chris Aljoudi.
    Raymond Hill chose not to take it back.
    Raymond Hill chose to continue develop his hobby fork.
    Raymond Hill chose to promote others to use his fork.
    Raymond Hill chose to name his with a confusingly similar name.
    There was no community motivation to develop uBlock due to the fork.

  9. Tom Hawack July 15, 2017 at 3:43 pm #

    Maybe the best to comment on uBlock is its developer.

    Gorhill has edited several times a "Maintainership transfer of uBlock: post mortem" article, presumably also to calm things down. There is a history available of this article at :
    [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Maintainership-transfer-of-uBlock:-post-mortem/_history]
    The very first copy, dated 24 Apr 2015, is available and a quick access is [http://preview.tinyurl.com/neoxxc5]

  10. chromium July 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm #

    What is the point of this article, other than to stir the shit and give the same cast of characters a forum to debate this now-boring subject?
    No wonder gHacks can't get up there with the bigger boys. Objectivity leaves these pages more every month.

  11. jasray July 15, 2017 at 3:50 pm #

    The point remains: There are still four trackers on ghacks.net. The issue yesterday was privacy from Google and its alleged collusion with Mozilla add-ons [or some such nonsense], but the site [ghacks.net] issuing the warning is using Google trackers and others.

    Readers and comments seem to indicate complete oblivion to the fact that they are being tracked simply be visiting ghacks.net--regardless of any mythical Mozilla-Google data sharing arrangement.

    Hmmmm . . . .

    Critec under cas.criteo.com; static.criteo.net; google analytics, google syndication, google tag services, blah, blah, blah.

  12. Ali Sofyan Nasution July 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm #

    Popcorn, anyone?

    Oh how I enjoy the "discussion". As a regular visitor of ghacks it's just rare to find a serious thread on comment section. Proves ghacks is getting bigger and bigger.

    Cheers, Martin! :)

    • Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm #

      Feel free to raise the bar with knowledgeable and helpful comments, Mr Ali Whatever ! I haven't noticed you contributing much to this site... Trolling is much more suited to your limited abilities, obviously.

  13. Matrix July 15, 2017 at 8:21 pm #

    Currently the best blocker in the world. Since I have installed Block Origin I enjoy the silence of the advertising world !!!

  14. Clairvaux July 15, 2017 at 9:04 pm #

    Oh, and by the way, I was completely unaware of the existence of two wholly different, and conflicting, uBlocks. Despite knowing "uBlock". So here's at least one reader who was enlightened by this article (and thread).

  15. Brisson July 16, 2017 at 6:43 pm #

    It would be interesting to see an article written about the best uBlock Origin alternatives. Obviously AdBlock Plus is the most popular and uBlock Origin is right behind it, but what about the effectiveness/performance of alternatives like AdGuard, AdBlock(er) Ultimate, etc.

  16. emdżej July 17, 2017 at 9:10 am #

    Seems like Purify, an app in apple store is a rebranded, paid and naturally closed source ublock. I don't know much about legal aspects of using open source programs or ublock in particular in a commercial app, but I guess one should at least mention about it. I don't have an iphone to check if it's there or not though. Anyone?

  17. Bud C. July 18, 2017 at 7:55 am #

    Thanks Martin. I had no idea there were two different version of this plugin. Great info!

Leave a Reply