Sampei.Nihira

Ubuntu.com has 2 Google trackers (Analytics - Tagmanager). Note the difference in a well-known website that also has another trackers (visualwebsiteoptimizer). In Firefox the 2 Google trackers are blocked by uBlock Origin when enabled: If you disable uBlock Origin,Google-Analytics is blocked by the browser. In Edge, Google-Analytics is blocked by the browser,even if uBlock Origin or AdGuard Adblocker is enabled, instead GoogletagManager is blocked by AdGuard-AdBlocker from the custom filter list I use: P.S. In this test I disabled Edge's anti-trackers protection and disabled uBlock Origin or AdGuard Adblocker. The trackers are blocked by DNS. I only have 2 lists of filters at the DNS level.

I would not do that,especially at the level of extensions: https://www.oligo.security/blog/0-0-0-0-day-exploiting-localhost-apis-from-the-browser I seem to remember that the full implementation of the fix in Chrome will happen at version 133 and you are using an earlier version. And some AVs and probably websites take that change as compromising the OS of client. I have been using it for years to stop CCleaner telemetry,but as you see HP detects it (but I know how to handle it). Just because it is faster. But of course you act as you see fit...................

Everything is clearer now. I note that that extension will be removed from the CWS as of June 2025.

Understand. Would you like me to give you an example of a (very well-known) website using Google-Analytics and G-A blocking done in my browsers with two simple images? Indirect control through uBlock Origin would also be possible, a control I have not used. Obviously, in Edge, G-A is not detected by the extension because it is blocked at the browser level. Whereas in Firefox it is present and therefore blocked by the extension.

@NotHereToPlayGames I think this thread is more relevant,for this topic: which I had missed in another thread. I would be interested,if possible,to see even indirectly how the blocking occurs. In Firefox the internal anti-trackers feature does not block Google-Analytics. Instead in my Edge the internal anti-trackers feature blocks Google-Analitycs. Even though both browsers have this functionality at the maximum value.

The new business is phishing: https://www.netskope.com/press-releases/netskope-threat-labs-phishing-clicks-nearly-tripled-in-2024-ubiquitous-use-of-personal-cloud-apps-and-genai-tools-require-modern-workplace-security-to-mitigate-risk ,just yesterday I saw a movie “The Beekeeper” that deals with the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beekeeper_(2024_film) I notice that the forum has stalled again. I in the meantime have treated myself to a vacation in Sharm for 2 weeks.

Yes,I see that you use local dynamic filtering (so as you rightly wrote manual x website). It is too bad that uBlock Origin Lite is no longer available for Firefox,it would have been interesting to check at the full filtering (on MSFN) which fills the gap I wrote in the opening of my post if it is lighter on your PC than uBlock Origin.

If you don't have any ads list (not even the basic uBO list) you need to include at least this custom list: https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/2_optimized.txt web pages load faster.

No errors. One list of filters probably needs to be selected rather than others.

@grey_rat Hi, I noticed from your video that you have a small cosmetic filtering flaw in uBlock Origin.

The Task Manager is often inaccurate. Process Explorer should be used to check the processes running at a given instant of time: P.S. The processes in the image with only uBlock Origin.

Not only that, fingerprinting is also used effectively during the onset of a malware infection. What you cite is carried out by those who use their browsers by default. Most people. But these browsers do NOT block fingerprinting + ads/trackers attempts properly. You study Firefox,the anti-tracking protection also blocks fingerprinting,it is an elementary thing to understand: So any anti-tracking protection (DNS,adblocker.....) used in any browser,also blocks fingerprinting. Then if a user also wants to block some fingerprinting attempts they do the right thing. But it is necessary to use the only extension that all browsers have an adblocker,or use internal features of the browser itself: This is functional camouflage. Look at these pc setup configurations,you will not find users who have specific extensions dedicated to fingerprinting: https://malwaretips.com/forums/pc-setup-configuration-help-showcase.12/

What is the ultimate purpose of fingeprinting? Personalized marketing and ads. Those who effectively block trackers + ads break this chain,because they will never see the ultimate purpose of fingerprinting. So it would be more logical than worrying about blocking all trackers + ads.

I chose my adblocker to use in edge after June 2025: Before June 2025 Edge = uBlock Origin + NextDNS Firefox = uBlock Origin + NextDNS After June 2025 Edge = AdGuard Adblocker v.5.x + NextDNS Firefox = uBlock Origin + NextDNS

Recent test: https://searchengineland.com/chatgpt-search-vs-google-analysis-449676

Supermium should handle website permissions -media files as for any Chromium-based browser. So just go to settings-website-permissions-media files and change the default setting (?).

Do you in Slovenia also suffer from the phenomenon of (wild) telemarketing through calls to smartphones? In Italy these call centers hide under fake foreign phone numbers. My wife and I we have registered to a Public Opposition Register: https://registrodelleopposizioni.it/ (a law that attempts to eliminate this Biblical plague). But we have also blocked in our smartphones calls received from these foreign (fake) blacklisted phone numbers. The calls have almost stopped. So the GPC could be compared to the POR. The blocking of foreign calls to the blocking of trackers.

GPC is more binding than DNT. Obviously for companies that have signed up to the protocol,or in countries where there are restrictive privacy laws.

In Firefox there is a switch in Settings - Privacy and Security. In Chromium-based browsers you can enable GPC through some extensions. With AdGuard Adblocker v.5.x there is equally an on/off switch. If you use Privacy Badger GPC + DNT is enabled by default. If you do not use the extensions above you can use this extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/optery-global-privacy-con/nkiidnpgmddigajgebjhcdiklebfoomm It is interesting to consider that in Firefox 135,DNT will be eliminated and only GPC will remain. But currently if you enable only GPC, DNT is also enabled accordingly. I am curious to see what will happen with Firefox 135.

More info and test: https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ other test: https://browserleaks.com/donottrack

I suspect that the low score on the MotionMark 1.3.1 (also Speedometer 3.0) test of uBlock Origin Lite is caused by a probable bug. I have opened an issue: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/261 When this probable bug is fixed I will run the tests again. Unable to repeat tests,the issue has been closed.

I did the MotionMark 1.3.1 test in Edge with 3 extensions: AdGuard AdBlocker = 802.02 uBlock Origin Lite + Ping Blocker = 709.25 uBlock Origin = 704.80 uBlock Origin is the extension that is last. Little difference,with the 3 extensions, to the Speedometer 3.0 test. So it seems that AG v.5.x increases the performance of the graphics system of my Chromium-based browser.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections?redirectslug=Firefox+makes+unrequested+connections&redirectlocale=en-US

@NotHereToPlayGames Although I am often unable to replicate the various problems, Webcompat, is full of problematic websites for Chrome,Edge,Firefox. Having at least 2 browsers installed limits these annoyances. https://webcompat.com/issues?page=1&per_page=50&state=open&stage=all&sort=created&direction=desc