Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

µBlock for Firefox

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 273 posts

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#211

Post by Tobu »

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

This doesn't work with the push to HTTPS. Either you use proxy connect, and Privoxy is no better than /etc/hosts blocking. Or you'd rely on the proxy's poorer and slower implementation of TLS. Certificate verification will suffer (no certificate pinning, no certificate blacklist, no OCSP stapling, no way to verify incomplete chains), no SPDY, no sunsetting of bad ciphers or bad protocols.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#212

Post by Tobu »

lars_francke wrote: post #200

I've never had an (Ad) blocker as I'm relatively happy with most sites but there are some that are not behaving well. When I last looked (at least two years ago) there wasn't a single blocker that supports a blacklist-only mode. Meaning: Allow everything unless I block a certain domain. Does anyone have an idea if something like this exists now?

Just don't enable any filter lists. A while back you had to add them manually; now I think it's a matter of unchecking them in the first-run dialog.

ABP also makes it easy to create very specific rules: only block a particular resource when accessed from the current domain.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#213

Post by ultramancool »

01Michael10 wrote: post #206
mdellabitta wrote: post #156

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

I agree, you had to many things running... What is the advantage of Disconnect when have ABP and Ghostery installed?

Disconnect is an open alternative to Ghostery as Ghostery has some sketchy sponsors.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#214

Post by exadeci »

mdellabitta wrote: post #156

I decided to dump extension-based privacy stuff and installed Privoxy instead. I used to have Ghostery, Disconnect, ABP, and some other things running simultaneously. When you think about it, that's a lot of JS running and iterating the DOM multiple times every time you load a page. Now there's a single, purpose-built, standalone process written in C doing it. Not going back.

Did you manage to make it work with skype ? (it seems that skype doesn't use the proxy parameters for ads)

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#216

Post by marios »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #181
marios wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS blocking works quite well. It's also very effective if you can set it up on your gateway so that it blocks ads/malware for all devices (PCs, phones, tablets ... even your guests will get adblocking for free!). However, while the /etc/hosts trick works I don't think it's the best way. The reason is that while parsing a plaintext file is easy and generally fast, it doesn't scale well especially when you have to tra…

Am I reading right - serving data for responses on localhost is "cheaper" (for some value of cheap) than letting those requests fail? Or does it just return faster, is it faster than using firewall rules? Why serve a gif, why not a single byte or something? Does the browser require the data to be parseable? Sorry, lots of questions. http://proger.i-forge.net/The_smallest_transparent_pixel/eBQ gives info on smallest g…

No, certainly not cheaper (for any value of cheap). I haven't measured but I can't see how it would be possible, as in the first case the network stack takes care of it (in kernel land) and in the other case you have to go all the way back to userland.

The reason I tried the transparent GIF trick is because some sites have frames with ads and whatnot and having the firewall refuse the connection will result in having an error message displayed in the browser. Not really aesthetically pleasing. While I don't care, because I know the reason it is displayed; some less technical people might start thinking their Internet is broken.

In addition to that, the GIF results in a cheap form of "element hiding" since you end up replacing a 5050 banner with a 11 transparent square. Now that you mention it though, I wonder what would happen if I set the server to serve a null byte for instance.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#217

Post by sprokolopolis »

findjashua wrote: post #210

ublock doesn't work on quite a few sites, whereas I've never had an issue with adblock. Couple of examples off the top of my head: 1. giphy: it removes the share and twitter buttons 2. doesn't block ads on hulu There were others as well that I seem to be forgetting (I remember having to disable it on quite a few sites). Good intention (lowering memory consumption), but the execution still has some way to go.

Some of those share/tweet/like buttons can track you without no interaction, just by loading on the page. Removing them might be intentional for this reason.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#219

Post by Beltiras »

mrec wrote: post #81
Beltiras wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your fatalism disheartening. Aren't good things worth fighting for? Shouldn't people care?

I think conflating "viewing ads" with "fighting for good things" is going a little far. Grandparent isn't against people caring, and specifically mentioned the possibility of showing that via higher subscriptions.

I didn't intend that to be a statement about the virtue of ads.

Re: µBlock for Firefox

#220

Post by Mandatum »

avree wrote: post #182
sdfjkl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Privoxy & friends (Glitterblocker on OS X) since the days of junkbusters.com, but with SSL on the rise this no longer works very well for me.

Anyone looking to follow up on this comment should search for "GlimmerBlocker", not GlitterBlocker. Useful stuff, though, thanks!

GlimmerBlocker works the same as Privoxy, only offering support for HTTP.
Post reply on HN