If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection - gHacks Tech News

ADVERTISEMENT

If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection

The latest version of the popular content blocker uBlock Origin comes with a new protective feature that is exclusive to the Firefox web browser.

The latest version of uBlock Origin for Firefox, version 1.25 or higher, will "CNAME-unlock network requests". Some sites may use a relatively new tracking technique that uses canonical names (CNAMEs) to bypass content filters and ad-blockers.

Basically, what the sites do is disguise an ad-tracking or serving domain by using a first-party domain, e.g. this.example.com. Content blockers have a hard time identifying these redirects, and most use a manual list of known domains. The problem with the manual approach is that it is very easy for sites to change the redirects or even use automated means to switch subdomains.

ublock origin firefox first-party blocking

The latest uBlock Origin version for Firefox looks up non-blocked resources to uncover first-party tracking and block these attempts. The resources are highlighted in blue in the uBlock Origin interface when all connections of the active site are displayed. The uncloaked sites are displayed in a smaller font size underneath the canonical names; these may be used to determine whether a resource should be blocked or allowed. Sites may use CNAME redirects for content delivery purposes.

The resources may be handled just like any other connection using the extension; you may allow some in case they are needed or keep blocking them.

Mozilla's Firefox web browser is the only browser with the required DNS API functionality to make these look-ups. Google Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers don't support this and uBlock Origin cannot look up the requests therefore in those browsers.

Firefox users who have uBlock Origin installed should receive the new version of the extension automatically if automatic extension updates is enabled in the browser. The extension may display a prompt to accept a new permission -- Access IP address and hostname information -- during the update process as it is required for the new functionality.

Additional information about the new feature is available on the project's official GitHub page.

Closing Words

The Firefox version of uBlock Origin is the only version that supports CNAME-uncloaking and thus an effective option to block first-party tracking attempts automatically and not based on manual lists. For now, the Firefox version of uBlock Origin is superior to all other versions of the extension. Whether that is enough for users to switch to Firefox remains to be seen.

Now You: What is your take on that?

Summary
If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection
Article Name
If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection
Description
The latest version of the popular content blocker uBlock Origin comes with a new protective feature that is exclusive to the Firefox web browser.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. Gavin B said on February 26, 2020 at 9:01 am
    Reply

    Viva Firefox!

      1. Gavin B. said on February 26, 2020 at 2:26 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart remember FF was once called Phoenix!

      2. Iron Heart said on February 26, 2020 at 8:59 pm
        Reply

        @Gavin B.

        You seem to overlook that Firefox used to compete with Internet Explorer, which was closed source. Chromium is open source, so provided Google introduces nefarious changes, someone will fork the code base and continue on. Firefox is not needed in the current scenario. And should Mozilla abandon it, I therefore don’t see anyone picking it up.

      3. Freedomfox said on February 27, 2020 at 5:57 am
        Reply

        “so provided Google introduces nefarious changes”

        Which is exactly what Google is doing with the official Google version of Chrome which the majority of people use. Someone should have forked Chromium already.

      4. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 7:10 am
        Reply

        @Freedomfox

        > Which is exactly what Google is doing with the official Google version of Chrome which the majority of people use. Someone should have forked Chromium already.

        ???

        What do you think Opera, MS Edge, Vivaldi, Brave, Ungoogled Chromium etc. are? And yes, they do contain modified versions of Chromium. Also, as always Chrome /= Chromium. Chromium is open source software, Chrome is a proprietary offshoot of it that does come with binary blobs which Chromium by itself does not contain.

        Also, user name checks out. Google funds Mozilla.

      5. Dude without a suit said on February 27, 2020 at 8:24 am
        Reply

        Iron Heart being a Chrome cultist like usual.

      6. Samanto Hermes said on February 27, 2020 at 2:25 pm
        Reply

        Calling others cultists doesn’t change this fact: if Firefox dies, we would lose a company that pretends to care while doing the opposite, therefore allowing actually ethical alternatives to grow.

        Google controls web standards and Mozilla, so there’s little difference if Chromium has a monopoly.

      7. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 4:55 pm
        Reply

        @Dude without a suite

        I use Chromium, not Chrome. There is a difference, and it is not just semantic. Google Chrome is something I wouldn’t install.

        But yeah, I remember you shilling Firefox here, still thinking that you are totally showing Google who is boss now by using it, while Mozilla relies on Google’s money to even exist. If that’s not paradox, then I don’t know what is.

      8. R7 said on February 27, 2020 at 6:49 am
        Reply

        Yes because in the past monopolies have worked out so well for everyone. We currently have rendering engine monopoly. I does not matter how many Chrome clones we have if they use the same engine. We only seemingly have a lot of choice.

        I for one am glad that there is an alternative. So i would say Firefox is as relevant as ever fighting against Blink based monopoly like it was fighting against IE back in the day.

      9. TelV said on February 27, 2020 at 2:22 pm
        Reply

        @Gavin B,

        I seem to recall FF being called Netscape Navigator, but I stand to correction on that score.

      10. Cooter Ramos Maharudra said on February 27, 2020 at 9:46 pm
        Reply

        It once was Mozilla Suite. Navigator 9.0.0.6 32-bit can be used still today.

  2. Niko said on February 26, 2020 at 9:24 am
    Reply

    Yuliya?

    1. Falen said on February 26, 2020 at 10:58 am
      Reply

      Gone, reduce to atom

    2. Yuliya said on February 26, 2020 at 11:14 am
      Reply

      My operating system blocks those connections natively, regardless of browser or installed extensions. You need this in Firefox, as that browser hijacks the native resolver.

      1. Iron Heart said on February 26, 2020 at 1:03 pm
        Reply

        @Yuliya

        Nice one! People who evidently know nothing were countered effectively.

      2. Mattlehorl said on February 26, 2020 at 1:24 pm
        Reply

        @Yuliya
        Guide please. Windows 10 or Linux. Thank you.

      3. Yuliya said on February 26, 2020 at 2:13 pm
        Reply

        This is a good start, for Windows.
        https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
        There are ways to auto update it, and to combine different lists as well, if you’re into that. I think you can find articles here on gHacks as well, I prefer to do it manually.

    3. Rockefellow said on February 26, 2020 at 1:30 pm
      Reply

      @Yuliya, @Iron Heart, alias Abbott & Costello: of course system-wide protection can block even before uBO on a browser if the blocklists are pertinent, updated. The point here is to consider all users besides you two fellows who build their arguments around their own belly, many of those users having a basic anti-virus solution and who rely on a browser-specific protection mainly for blocking ads and tracking. The point with uBO 1.25 iis that it enables a new browser protection and that this new feature is available only on Firefox, at this time anyway. You’ll have to agree with that whatever painful it is for you two and for any similarly casualness minds.

      1. Iron Heart said on February 26, 2020 at 2:01 pm
        Reply

        @Rockefellow

        > The point here is to consider all users besides you two fellows who build their arguments around their own belly, many of those users having a basic anti-virus solution and who rely on a browser-specific protection mainly for blocking ads and tracking.

        Firefox doesn’t protect you from anything by default. uBlock Origin does, but uBlock Origin isn’t part of Firefox. How many users does Firefox have, and how many users does uBlock Origin have again? Talking about “building arguments around one’s belly”, haha.

        > The point with uBO 1.25 iis that it enables a new browser protection and that this new feature is available only on Firefox, at this time anyway.

        It’s only available if you do install uBlock Origin, Firefox itself doesn’t protect you from anything. In how far this is an advantage for a Firefox installation without uBlock Origin (the vast majority of Firefox installations) is beyond me. Plus, there are better and more effective ways to achieve this, which are not reliant on browsers. And Brave will do something about it, as well.

        > You’ll have to agree with that whatever painful it is for you two and for any similarly casualness minds.

        Well, but I do agree that it is an advantage of uBlock Origin!? I am just wondering why this suddenly makes Firefox any good, most Firefox installations don’t have uBlock Origin installed. Firefox itself doesn’t protect you from anything, it allows better protection, but by itself it does nothing.

        PS: As @archer has pointed out, Brave will do something about that: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/26/if-you-run-ublock-origin-use-the-firefox-version-as-it-offers-better-protection/#comment-4454907 Note that in this case, the browser itself actually protects you, this is not at all the case with Firefox. Talk about “casualness minds”, haha.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on February 26, 2020 at 3:29 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: you said:

        Plus, there are better and more effective ways to achieve this, which are not reliant on browsers.

        Can you explain what is possible, apart from switching to Brave?

      3. Iron Heart said on February 26, 2020 at 4:06 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        > Can you explain what is possible, apart from switching to Brave?

        Sure, you need a HOSTS file. This is a good starting point for Windows, but there are many other guides as well:

        https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

        You then need the list provided here:

        https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/#whats-a-first-party-tracker

        This will block that stuff on the OS level, independent of browser choice. You can also use a Pi-Hole to achieve this, which is what I would recommend, since it protects your entire home network instead of just one machine. I am using a Pi-Hole at home, and Brave as a browser. Both are able (or will be able, in Brave’s case) to deal with that.

      4. Klaas Vaak said on February 27, 2020 at 1:50 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: OK, many thanks for that :-)

      5. 99 said on February 26, 2020 at 7:41 pm
        Reply

        >>> Note that in this case, the browser itself actually protects you

        Note that in this case, the “privacy-focused browser” blocks invasive ads and trackers to protects its own – as Browser disguised – ad-server against other competitors on the market.

        Just how Brendan’s new “Privacy-by-Default Future” operates, in his own words:

        We believe in contextual advertising but do not stop there. For behavior targeting, our approach uses an in-browser agent that studies all the valuable data feeds in every browser: navigation, search queries, ecommerce form filling and submitting, page views and visibility known in fraud-free terms by the browser’s rendering engine. All of these feeds inform the agent so it can pick the best user ad from a catalog that all users in a large region download and update without identifying themselves. Ad views are tallied using an anonymous PrivacyPass protocol, for high authenticity, and even multi-step attribution from start of research to high-end product buy, but with anonymity until the user chooses to sign in or identify while buying.

        — Brave CEO Brendan Eich on a Privacy-by-Default Future for Digital Advertising

        Ad lovers are welcome to have a ride on his Brave new Trojan Horse

      6. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 7:41 am
        Reply

        @99

        > the “privacy-focused browser” blocks invasive ads and trackers

        I seriously don’t see the contradiction in this sentence.

        > to protects its own – as Browser disguised – ad-server against other competitors on the market.

        Oh please, we have been through that already. Brave doesn’t have an “ad server” (in the sense that user data would be transmitted to a remote server). Ads are being served locally, and by default no ads show up, one has to consciously decide to us that:

        https://old.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/bj0j78/how_can_brave_respect_users_privacy_while_serving/em4sakq/

        No user browsing data ever reaches the company behind Brave or any middle men, but don’t let facts get in your way, buddy.

        > Just how Brendan’s new “Privacy-by-Default Future” operates, in his own words:

        Eich’s whole quote again makes it clear that ad matching happens locally, which is what I always say.

        > Ad lovers are welcome to have a ride on his Brave new Trojan Horse

        1) Brave blocks ads by default. Brave’s own ads are fully opt-in.
        2) If one decides to opt into Brave ads in the first place, then ad matching and the serving of the ads happens locally, in a privacy-respecting manner.

        You are desperately trying to make a privacy-respecting, local, opt-in(!) serving of ads look like something nefarious, failing miserably at it.

      7. Yuliya said on February 26, 2020 at 2:07 pm
        Reply

        Odd how now you want to consider all users, when mozillians argue all the time how all it matters is that they can configure it for their own privacy, meanwhile screw everybody else who can’t into about:config and user js memes (soon to be deprecated, by the looks of it).
        I call this double standard bullspit.

      8. stan said on February 26, 2020 at 2:28 pm
        Reply

        What’s a “mozillian”, a Nor Cal millionaire that plays the stock market?

      9. Yuliya said on February 27, 2020 at 11:33 am
        Reply

        That is how they call themselves. look: https://mozillians.org/en-US/

      10. Stan said on February 27, 2020 at 4:28 pm
        Reply

        Wouldn’t MozDrone, or Pod Person be more appropriate?

      11. Yuliya said on February 27, 2020 at 5:01 pm
        Reply

        I don’t know, I don’t want to insult (unlike them), so I prefer using their own terminology.

      12. Stan said on February 27, 2020 at 5:30 pm
        Reply

        Who’s that woman with the silly haircut? !!

      13. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 6:29 pm
        Reply

        @Stan

        That is Mitchell Baker, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Here is her salary growth in relation to Firefox’s market share development:

        https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217517703914643456?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

        Draw your own conclusions from this chart.

      14. Jack La Mozzarella said on February 27, 2020 at 9:50 pm
        Reply

        ACHTUALLY

        you can use pihole at router level, i.e. the router semnds all dns requests to a raspi running pihole.

        hosts, system firewall

        you can have a local proxy that filters, redirects, etc. Many examples, Adfender is a simple one that loads some of uBo blacklists but doesn’t hog your browser

        …then webextensions @ RING 3

  3. ok said on February 26, 2020 at 9:53 am
    Reply

    uBlock is becomming a single point of failure in the battle against intrusive ads and tracking as other defenses are being eroded.

    uBlock is a browsers best asset, but wouldnt it be amazing if it was ported outsided of the browser somehow? There would be no restrictions and any browser or web app could be filtered. It couldnt be weakened over time by features being taken out of the browser.

    1. beemeup5 said on February 26, 2020 at 10:57 am
      Reply

      @ok

      What you’re describing is exactly what AdGuard does (the program, not the browser extension). It works on Windows, MacOS, Linux, and Android / iOS while also being browser / app independent since it operates on the network protocol layer (like your firewall) which is below the application layer where browsers and other apps run on..

      Sure it’s not free but as of right now it is the best general-purpose adblocker in existence.

      Maintaining the browser extensions is already time-consuming as it is, I doubt gorhill would have the time to take uBlock down the same path as AdGuard (at least not by himself). In the end both uBlock and AdGuard are allies in the fight against the true enemy trying to taint the web as we know it.

      1. Watako Tatako said on February 26, 2020 at 11:53 am
        Reply

        I tried adguard app, it makes browsing slow, so I uninstalled it By the way, you can get 6-month trial.

      2. Ghacks-jack said on February 26, 2020 at 1:08 pm
        Reply

        Indeed, AdGuard is available for install as a separate app independent of the browser. I have it setup on one of my android phones and it works exceptionally well.

        Also, I use AdGuard DNS on my home router so most ads are blocked for any device accessing the Internet from my router (guests, etc.).

        More from its website:

        “AdGuard DNS is a free, privacy-oriented DNS resolution system that blocks tracking, ads and phishing. You can use it instead of your current DNS provider. AdGuard DNS is a foolproof way to block Internet ads that does not require installing any applications. It is easy to use, absolutely free, easily set up on any device, and provides you with minimal necessary functions to block ads, counters, malicious websites, and adult content.” [It allows encryption, too.]

        Default servers (it offers more restrictive servers for blocking adult content, too):
        176.103.130.130
        176.103.130.131

        I’m not a sponsor or affiliated with the company — just a user. I also us uBlock Origin in my browsers – and it’s high quality, of course.

      3. Karol said on February 26, 2020 at 4:14 pm
        Reply

        apart from being Russian company it does have its own flaws…

        I get all the promotion blocked by DNS resolver when set on router – being it tripadvisor or something else, so have to change DNS on machine manually to get say hotel discount offered despite it was my action executing it (yep, adblock warns about commercial link but it won’t get resolved)

    2. Anonymous said on February 26, 2020 at 11:24 am
      Reply

      Putting ublock outside of browser needs it to man in the middle https connections that if you search it, it is the most dangerous thing in software.

      Because gorhill needs to maintain all security checks firefox itself does for https connections and after that firefox can’t do it because system wide blocker will fool it because it encrypt connection again with its own certificate!

    3. clake said on February 26, 2020 at 3:46 pm
      Reply

      That sort of thing has been done in the past: Privoxy (junkbuster – based) and Proxomitron work as local proxies on the loopback address.

      1. Arne Bjoern Stroemberg said on February 27, 2020 at 9:55 pm
        Reply

        +1 at privoxy that can change the browser agent and even js tricks won’t unhide the real one.

        Many questions here ignore the fact that webextensions are way too high in the RING system.

        For some really light tools, look at:

        https://www.zenz-solutions.de/personalhttpproxy/

        https://github.com/IngoZenz/personaldnsfilter

    4. Anonymous said on February 27, 2020 at 12:50 am
      Reply

      Extensions like uBlock Origin rely on access to DOM elements in addition to the domains/IP addresses etc. Outside of the browser, only domans and IP addresses can be used. So ad blockers will always need to be a browser extension, or at least they’ll need to access specific browser APIs.

  4. ZeN said on February 26, 2020 at 10:24 am
    Reply

    Long live uBlock Origin!

  5. Jarmus said on February 26, 2020 at 11:00 am
    Reply

    As a workaround solutions for the Chromium-based browsers we have Geoffrey Frogeye’s block list which can block these CNAME first-party trackers.

    https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/#whats-a-first-party-tracker

    1. T J said on February 26, 2020 at 11:28 am
      Reply

      @ Jarmus

      You are right. Frogeye does a very good job blocking CNAME first-party trackers.

    2. Klaas Vaak said on February 26, 2020 at 3:48 pm
      Reply

      @Jarmus: thanks for that. 3 questions:
      * that list gets updated on Frogeye’s site, so that means it has to be downloaded by the user and reintegrated in uBO, right?
      * Should one use the Hosts file or the Raw list?
      * Where in the uBO extension should it be integrated: in “My filers” or “My rules”?

      My apologies for such basic, newbie-like questions.

      1. SDR said on February 27, 2020 at 3:53 am
        Reply

        I prefer the raw list with the domains. You can add it to uBlock in your filter list tab under the custom section, check “import” and paste the url of the list -> https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers.txt then apply the changes.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on February 27, 2020 at 2:00 pm
        Reply

        @SDR: many thanks for that.

        Any idea how to deal with updates? Just go to that web pages from time-to-time and copy/paste the list?

      3. COVID-19 said on February 27, 2020 at 12:38 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        1) Right

        2) Hosts file format

        3) “Filters lists” tab, Expand the “Custom” category ,check the “Import” and then you add the list you want.

      4. Klaas Vaak said on February 27, 2020 at 5:50 pm
        Reply

        @Covid-19: thanks for your help.

        After carefully reading your and SDR’s answer I think that your reply to my 1st question re the updating is not correct.

        In the Filters List, under the Custom category, I have added the URL of the web page with Frogeye’s list. In other words, I pasted https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers.txt into the uBO import box. If that is the correct way of doing it, then that means that uBO is referring to that page and will therefore always have the most up-to-date list and I won’t have to do any manual updating. The same way it is with any of the filter lists, such as EasyPrivacy, Dan Pollock’s hosts file, MVPS HOSTS, etc.

        Do you agree with this?

    3. Sebas said on February 26, 2020 at 5:30 pm
      Reply

      @Yarmus That’s the blocklist I use with Adguard web extension. I don’t know if I have correclty implemented it though.

  6. notanon said on February 26, 2020 at 11:19 am
    Reply

    @Martin, I was already censored once today, 1 post I made today disappeared thanks to the site censor.

    I hope this post is NOT discarded by the censor & never allowed to post in the comment section.

    Firefox is based.

    gorhill is based.

    uBlock Origin is based.

    uMatrix is based.

    I can’t wait until Manifest v. 3 is enforced by Google, so all the Chromium tards can watch all the ads that uBlock Origin will block for me in Firefox (spoiler, when Manifest v. 3 enforcement drops, gorhill will stop development of uBlock Origin, & the existing version of uBlock Origin will stop working in Chromium based browsers [Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.]).

    BTW, using DNS to block ads (Pi-hole) is vastly inferior to uBlock Origin & should be relegated to devices to ban ad blocking, because it sucks.

    I wonder if this entire comment will be deleted. Then Reddit will continue to mock the comment section on ghacks.

    I guess I’ll find out in about 12 hours (the “delay” between when I post my comment to when it “sometimes” is published in the comments section).

    1. Iron Heart said on February 26, 2020 at 1:11 pm
      Reply

      @notanonFUD

      > Firefox is based.

      Nope. Firefox is spyware just as much as Chrome is. Nice shilling attempt, though.

      > gorhill is based. uBlock Origin is based. uMatrix is based.

      That is true.

      > I can’t wait until Manifest v. 3 is enforced by Google, so all the Chromium tards can watch all the ads that uBlock Origin will block for me in Firefox (spoiler, when Manifest v. 3 enforcement drops, gorhill will stop development of uBlock Origin, & the existing version of uBlock Origin will stop working in Chromium based browsers [Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc.]).

      Ah, your usual propaganda. I just copy and paste my previous reply because writing the same text again is not warranted here:

      “Wow, you are still continuing to spread your FUD? Here we go again, time to debunk it once more: Some Chromium-based browsers, notably Brave and Opera, have built-in adblockers now. Those built-in adblockers do not make use of the webRequest API, which Google intends to cripple as part of Manifest V3. It is true that browser extensions like uBlock Origin rely on it and will thus either be crippled or fade away entirely, but this is NOT true for built-in adblockers since they do NOT rely on any extension APIs.”

      See here: https://twitter.com/flamsmark/status/1088170219695071232?s=09

      > Then Reddit will continue to mock the comment section on ghacks.

      And with “Reddit” you actually mean the fanboy temple otherwise known as r/firefox, where critical opinions are downvoted into oblivion even if they are totally matter of fact, and where the fanboys gather to scratch each other’s backs… I kind of guessed that you crawled out of this particular subreddit.

  7. Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2020 at 11:34 am
    Reply

    Firefox and uBlock Origin, the best pair for the best browser experience, I’ve always believed so and the fact Firefox is the only browser to support uBO’s new protective feature confirms this.

    The fact this new uBO protective feature, that to uncover first-party tracking and block these attempts, is made available by dear Gorhill, talented and honest developer, is relevant of the new Web scheme : up to now we had the bad guys spreading security related infections and the good guys offering protection at the cost of users’ privacy (mafia scenario). Now we have a third actor, sites themselves, some of them, which use the CNAME feature to include tracking (at least) scum. uBlock Origin 1.2.5, provided the browser is Firefox, handles tricky sites as well. Good.

    1. Dumbledalf said on February 27, 2020 at 10:00 am
      Reply

      Except that Firefox has been running itself into the ground since around 2010-2011 when they released version 4.0. Not to mention their publicity stunts backfiring on them, like firing Brendan Eich, because he isn’t an SJW feminist, which is exactly the sorry crowd that’s at the helm of Mozilla and Firefox. Just look at their browser logo, it’s like the colors of the LGBQTSLSJSxD flag.

      They have been spending more time updating the browser’s appearance to coincide with their ideals than making it work better.

      Not to mention how more and more web developers refuse to make their websites compatible with Firefox and for good reason – it’s market share is down to 4% worldwide. It’s only a matter of time when it falls below 0.5% percent and everyone stops caring about it.

      Sure Google are trying to govern what happens with their Chromium browser, but all the Chromium forks can fight back if they wanted to. And sadly, but truly, the future of the browsing is the Blink rendering engine. Gecko is just an antique that can’t die out any faster.

  8. krissy said on February 26, 2020 at 11:48 am
    Reply

    nothing about the last update where ublock wants to know url and hostname

    1. Stv said on February 26, 2020 at 1:32 pm
      Reply

      Changes:

      uBO requires a new permission, dns, which is required to solve issue 780. This may triggers a new permission warning from Firefox when uBO updates to the latest dev build, specifically “Access IP address and hostname information”, even though this was already possible for uBO to access that information.

      Hard to read?

  9. archer said on February 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm
    Reply

    The only chrome browser that I’ve read will be doing anything about this is Brave. They have talked about it and it will be added to their shields at some point as it’s not an extension so they can do whatever they need. In theory Opera could do the same but I’m not sure if their ad blocker is in base code or a hidden extension.

  10. Taomyn said on February 26, 2020 at 12:57 pm
    Reply

    You can also add Frogeye’s list to Pi-hole while we wait for v5 that I believe will have the CNAME checking built-in.

  11. Anonymous said on February 26, 2020 at 2:40 pm
    Reply

    The real and good info is always in the comments. For example the Geoffrey block list i didn’t knew that existent i am gonna check it now and see if i need it for my block list.

  12. anona said on February 26, 2020 at 2:58 pm
    Reply

    I wonder if Chromium-based browsers with built-in ad blockers (Brave & Opera) will add this feature?

    1. Dumbledalf said on February 27, 2020 at 9:53 am
      Reply

      I use Opera and I can tell you the built-in ad blocker is inefficient in blocking everything. Since I can’t remove it, I just keep it disabled and use Nano Adblocker + Nano Defender instead.

      I’ve also tried using Brave as my main browser and the built-in ad blocker is also insufficient, but the situation there is even worse as you can’t even disable the ad blocker completely – only individually on some websites, which becomes a pain since if you visit a website and something doesn’t work on it, you have to waste time trying to figure out what’s preventing it from working properly.

      So don’t count on them ever adding this

      1. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 10:05 am
        Reply

        @Dumbledalf

        On websites which are broken with Brave Shields for some reason, you can disable them and rely on uBlock Origin. If the website does work with Brave Shields, then there is no reason to disable them.

        If you experience lots of breakage on websites, I recommend that you disable script blocking (“Block scripts”) in Brave’s settings, the most common reason for breakage:

        https://i.imgur.com/daKPgf7.png

  13. Damien said on February 26, 2020 at 3:24 pm
    Reply

    That’s good. Unfortunately, if disabled on most websites it makes the website unreadable (e.g. no images, breaks website,…).

  14. Klaas Vaak said on February 26, 2020 at 3:31 pm
    Reply

    @Martin Brinkmann: I think the title of the article is misleading as it suggests that the Firefox version of uBO can be used on other browsers too, which is not possible of course.

  15. John Ballocks said on February 26, 2020 at 3:42 pm
    Reply

    First, the Cname thing is active only in the advanced-user mode. And secondly, if you activate it Ghacks.net turns immediately into a ruin (!) because of Marfeel.map.fastly.net, Ghacks.net’s first party tracker! That was a bloody good one, Martin. Bingo!

  16. Samanto Hermes said on February 26, 2020 at 4:10 pm
    Reply

    Well, Google controls web standards and Mozilla. Therefore, once browser extensions are turned into a web standard, Firefox will lose all of its exclusive WebExtensions APIs, including webRequest: https://browserext.github.io/browserext/

    After that happens, all Firefox fanboys will cease to use uBlockOrigin, because Firefox forks are “iNSeCuRe!”.

  17. sdf said on February 26, 2020 at 4:50 pm
    Reply

    Will uMatrix also be getting updated with this “CNAME”?

  18. adw said on February 26, 2020 at 7:03 pm
    Reply

    @ok ublock and ublock origin are 2 different things.. .don’t install the wrong one.

    back on topic.. re: the headline… it’s not like you can run the version from a different browser in a particular browser… if you see what i’m getting at..

    1. Klaas Vaak said on February 27, 2020 at 2:03 pm
      Reply

      @adw: good to point it out. I also mentioned it in a comment above to Martin.

  19. anonymous said on February 27, 2020 at 1:31 am
    Reply

    Can ublock origin be used with adblock plus at the same time?

    1. Dumbledalf said on February 27, 2020 at 9:45 am
      Reply

      Why would you want to use AdBlock Plus anyways? For many years it has been an inferior ad-blocker extension. It was sold to a company that deals with serving advertisements and by default it allows “Acceptable ads”, you have to manually add filters and even then, the extension is inferior to uBlock Origin and Nano Adblocker.

      But yes, you can use the, although if you have uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus becomes completely redundant. It will only cause your browser to use even more memory and it won’t block more efficiently.

      1. Iron Heart said on February 27, 2020 at 10:06 am
        Reply

        @Dumbledalf

        +1

        AdBlock Plus isn’t trustworthy and adds nothing to your protection if you already have uBlock Origin installed.

      2. keepITreal said on March 6, 2020 at 10:35 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart

        To not be trustworthy, AdBlock Plus must have lied. So what did they lie about?

        And if they didn’t lie, then please don’t bother trying to spin this with word salad blather, as that makes me want to puke.

      3. Iron Heart said on March 7, 2020 at 9:00 am
        Reply

        @keeplTreal

        Not sure what you are on about, buddy. They advertise themselves as an adblocker, but this adblocker comes with an extensive whitelist by default, and this whitelist is enabled by default. This is not what people would expect the adblocker to do. It doesn’t really block all ads to the best of its ability. There whitelist also isn’t transparent, and they did in fact outright lie to their community about certain entries on their whitelist, claiming that the community wanted these to be whitelisted, while in fact they took money for it.

        > And if they didn’t lie, then please don’t bother trying to spin this with word salad blather, as that makes me want to puke.

        Sheesh, no need for this kind of passive aggressive behavior here. Do you even use ABP, or do you use uBlock origin like everyone else in the know?

  20. Niko said on February 27, 2020 at 9:35 am
    Reply

    Another round of “my browser is bigger than yours” …

    1. dilldoe said on March 6, 2020 at 10:25 pm
      Reply

      @Niko

      Even worse, much of this fighting is rooted in rather hidden left vs right political biases, because some company allegedly dumped on their hero or whatever.

      1. Iron Heart said on March 7, 2020 at 9:06 am
        Reply

        @dilldoe

        Not sure what you are talking about. My argument (and that of most others here, as far as I can tell) against Mozilla is that they are claiming to protect privacy while doing the opposite. In how far this basic argument is political is beyond me.

        As for Mozilla firing Eich (no need to be so cryptic about it), this is not a good reason to use Brave at all. Who uses Brave because of Brendan Eich? What would be the benefit? Get real. That’s like saying you use Firefox because of Mitchell Baker, plain ridiculous. That being said, I think it’s not OK to fire somebody for an opinion they hold privately, and snooping said private opinion out like it happens so many times in totalitarian states, even though I do not agree with Brendan Eich’s stance on homosexuals at all. Just saying that he is entitled to his opinion the way you and I and anyone else is, and that I respect freedom of speech even if I disagree (seems to become increasingly rare these days).

  21. Dumbledalf said on February 27, 2020 at 9:42 am
    Reply

    https://i.imgur.com/mIHbeZH.png

    I prefer using Nano Adblocker – a forked version of uBlock Origin that has even greater blocking capabilities and a smaller memory footprint compared to uBlock Origin.

    I don’t know what the creator does, but he takes the latest version of uBlock Origin and improves it even more. It’s available on both the Chrome and Firefox store and in both places it has great review score so you know people are satisfied with it.

    Just running Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender, it blocks absolutely everything – even rogue pop-ups on some nasty websites.

  22. Anonymous said on February 27, 2020 at 12:44 pm
    Reply

    People are applauding Firefox for what something else, uBlock Origin, does ; the blocker that they refused to bundle or at least inspire themselves from in spite of even some Mozilla engineers suggesting it because Mozilla’s management wanted instead the useless colander that is the Firefox default content blocker, because they think that we are not nice enough with advertisers, and MozCorp is a for-profit with Google is their main revenue source. That’s the fuller story in case anyone was interested.

  23. donkey said on March 3, 2020 at 1:59 pm
    Reply

    Staying with ublock_origin-1.24.4 and not updating. i don’t like the changes in the latest version.

    1. Anonymous said on March 3, 2020 at 3:36 pm
      Reply

      Which changes exactly? You can configure/disable some of them.

  24. Zachary Trainor said on March 24, 2020 at 7:19 pm
    Reply

    Have always LOVED uBlockOrigin, but lately having a serious problem with it – I comment at the Gateway Pundit website and out of the blue at GP Disquis suddenly will not open in Chrome, Firefox or Waterfox unless uBlockOrigin is disabled. Finally today found a solution: uninstall uBlockOrigin and install uBlock instead. Will try uBlockOrigin again before long. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.