Gregory's ServerDo not run multiple blockers just use ublock origin
https://infosec.exchange/@AAKL/112989621877545179
 39 comments
@SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL Any thoughts on whether it still will be good enough after the Chrome ad blocking apocalypse? Many users won't want to switch to Firefox, for all kinds of reasons. @uncledave @SwiftOnSecurity One of the links I saw while looking into this said that as of last year, Ghostery stopped blocking ads on YouTube. But UBlock Origin should be good.  @uncledave @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL Most of which are stupid reasons, but what do I know... Top argument is "so I can be signed into all Google services" like that's not possible in Firefox or something... @sab38 @uncledave @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL I mean, you're logged into all Google services in Firefox too after doing just one Google login...  @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL Or maybe it's (past) time for people and devs to invest in blocking ads on the DNS level because browser-based is inevitably on the way out thanks to Google. https://mastodon.sdf.org/@joeo10/112968226631055809  @joeo10 @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL DNS based blocking will never be enough, when the owners of the internet (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) are the same companies tracking you and serving you ads. You need to control the browser to have a chance to differentiate between good and bad traffic. @uzayran @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL Sadly, DNS ad blocking is going to be the best we got unless governments start waking up and smell the coffee plus do something to reign in on these tech giants. @joeo10 @uzayran @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL For casual readers that don't manage DNS filtering daily, uzayran is saying you can probably get away with blocking ads.youtube.com now because probably that's just ads and not videos. But eventually, ads could be served from videos.youtube.com and feed.facebook.com, the same domains that serve content, which you will probably not block. Then we are back to our crippled in-browser filtering. @hackyspice @joeo10 @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL that is a good explanation, with the caveat that it already is not possible to block Youtube ads (or Twitch, or Prime Video etc) on the DNS level. It currently works well enough in a combined approach with in-browser blocking (or in-application more broadly). But as soon as we have to rely on DNS-filtering alone, it will be a losing battle.  @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL and stop using chrome now with manifest v3? Or what to do there? @jmovs @SwiftOnSecurity @AAKL uBlock Origin Lite has to ship block lists bundled in the extension (so updates are slower) and can't include dynamic javascript fixes (so youtube adblocking and other sites using anti-ad-blocker scripts will probably break more often), but if you have to use a v3-compatible extension on a chromium based browser, i'd say it's your best bet. If you are able to use Firefox tho, there's no better time to give it a try.  @SwiftOnSecurity I have uBlock Origin, but also have Privacy Badger, I assume that's still an acceptable combo?  @rombat @oblomov @SwiftOnSecurity According to this guide you shouldn't bother with Privacy Badger: @SpaceLifeForm Privacy Badger does conflict (though I can't remember any specific instances off the top of my head). @iampytest1@infosec.exchange @SpaceLifeForm@infosec.exchange I go with iampytest1 here, as the two of them do tent to generate conflict, and beside of that, they are using the same rule base, so you are only burning your money in Power bills by using more and other than gorhills ublock origin @ghostwords not sure why this happens, or if it even still happens: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/20709 I use Firefox exclusively (except for testing code), with the uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger extensions.  @SwiftOnSecurity every few months I push ublock origin, and every few months someone paid more than me explains that I don't understand security and rejects it.  |
@SwiftOnSecurity on Firefox.