81–90 of 133 posts
This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this...no live code hueristics are possible. It's a war of escalation with advertisers. Google is the arms dealer to both sides. They won't give you what you would need to win.
>This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this... Technically manifest v3 has nothing to do with APIs that the browser makes available to extensions. On firefox manifest v3 is supported with blocking web request[1], which is the filtering api prior to "manifest v3". Therefore the statement that it certain functionality "by definition" is false. [1] https://blog.mozilla.or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If third party ad servers get access to your main domain's cookies, they can impersonate your signed-in users and steal their data.
...Unless you're savvy. Thank goodness for the availability of https://publicsuffix.org/ (as long as you only use your main domain and don't need to share cookies with your own subdomains), and the includeSubDomains directive to HSTS! But - if you already set this up, you probably are savvy enough to avoid the problems created (or your provider is)
Edit: A combination of DNS CAA with an account identifier restriction in the record would prevent this. Then the advertiser would complain, and any ads served would have to be over plaintext, which would cause browser warnings about mixed content and allow MITM injection of (more) malicious content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Ads and analytics providers have started doing this to get around third-party cookie protections.
There is a part of me that, at a high level, appreciates the back and forth between the user and the ad industry. On a personal level, I am slowly getting to the point, where I am less.. uhh.. understanding. That said, the average person's conception of what acceptable needs to change. I did briefly think that they need suffer through more ad-infestation first, but I realized that the answer is more in line with what…
This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this...no live code hueristics are possible. It's a war of escalation with advertisers. Google is the arms dealer to both sides. They won't give you what you would need to win.
Abandon Chrome, embrace Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am switching family over to Brave. They don’t even notice the difference and I’m more confident the browser will continue to support user centric content filtering.
Is that going to help? Brave is still blink. They might have some filtering baked in but I’m not sure if it’s as powerful (or can be) as UBO.
This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this...no live code hueristics are possible. It's a war of escalation with advertisers. Google is the arms dealer to both sides. They won't give you what you would need to win.
>This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this... Technically manifest v3 has nothing to do with APIs that the browser makes available to extensions. On firefox manifest v3 is supported with blocking web request[1], which is the filtering api prior to "manifest v3". Therefore the statement that it certain functionality "by definition" is false. [1] https://blog.mozilla.or…
CNAME cloaking? Does this mean an ad site may use a randomly generated subdomain pointing to a wildcard record?
That's part of it. Normally when you visit contentsite.com which serves ads from adsite.com. Adblocker rules can just block adsite.com and the ads won't be shown. CNAME cloaking would have the main site have a subdomain like adsite.contentsite.com point to adsite.com, now the adblockers have the impossible task of blocking millions of subdomains that seemingly belong to legit sites, this also allows the legit sites t…
This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this...no live code hueristics are possible. It's a war of escalation with advertisers. Google is the arms dealer to both sides. They won't give you what you would need to win.
>This a good example of why manifest v3 sucks. By definition, it can't do anything like this... Technically manifest v3 has nothing to do with APIs that the browser makes available to extensions. On firefox manifest v3 is supported with blocking web request[1], which is the filtering api prior to "manifest v3". Therefore the statement that it certain functionality "by definition" is false. [1] https://blog.mozilla.or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care about the two proprietary browsers you've mentioned, but Brave is going to (partially) support manifest v2 and maintain uBO compatibility for as long as they're able to: https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ Not that you really need it as Brave has its own very capable built-in ad blocker with -- last time I checked -- higher performance than uBO (since it's compiled into native code) and ful…
Brave is open source instead of proprietary now? I knew they were Chromium based (like the others) but I hadn't realized they switched over on all of the customizations on top.