Author Topic: uBlock ad blocker and unwanted behavior (Read 14922 times)

wraith808 · « **on:** May 08, 2015, 11:26 AM »

I've been using uBlock for my ad blocker in Chrome for a while. The memory footprint and cpu usage is a lot less than adblock plus, and it works well. But recently, they added something where they block urls in requested popups by killing the tab. It opens up the tab, then kills it. And it's very hard to disable if you actually *want* to go to the link without disabling it for that entire domain. So you end up not being able to click in e-mails to go to the location, even if you don't care- without potentially disabling it for those ones that directly use that domain.

Does anyone know how to disable the killing of tabs with uBlock? I haven't been able to find it...

wraith808 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2015, 11:30 AM »

I figured it out. It's the difference between uBlock Origin and uBlock. Someone forked the extension, and it shows up before, so I guess at some point I installed it instead? But it doesn't make sense as I haven't really uninstalled and re-installed extensions- especially on all of my machines. More if I find out more.

Jibz · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2015, 11:51 AM »

As far as I know, the original author of ublock transferred ownership to someone else recently, and there was a dispute afterwards about some actions taken (something about taking credit for the extension). ublock origin was an attempt by the original author to rectify the issues he saw, but perhaps they solved it.

https://news.ycombin....com/item?id=9437182
https://github.com/g...ll/uBlock/issues/130

wraith808 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2015, 01:09 PM »

I'm still confused, however. I never installed ublock origin from what I remember. Just one day, the icon changed. And then a little after, the behavior changed. And that's when I took notice.

How did I get something else completely installed? Unless they just completely changed the extension and name, then the functionality? It seems like that is what happened... and for whatever reason... it appears shady. There should be no way to completely change both the name and the extension without the extension being disabled until you re-confirm it so you know what happened.

mwb1100 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2015, 01:14 AM »

I'm still confused, however. I never installed ublock origin from what I remember.
-wraith808 (May 08, 2015, 01:09 PM)

The original developer of uBlock (gorhill) transferred control of the uBlock repo to the new project maintainer, but did not transfer the Chrome store version. See https://github.com/c...mmitcomment-10530255

As mentioned in that comment thread, gorhill intended from the start to fork uBlock, creating his own version which he would only work on for the few features he wanted. Since he kept the Chrome store version, I assume that if that's where you installed your Chrome extension from, any updates gorhill made to it based on the uBlock Origin 'fork' would be installed into your browser whenever Chrome decided to pull the update from the store.

In other words:

gorhill published uBlock on the Chrome store
you installed uBlock from there
gorhill changed the software at that Chrome store extension site to be uBlock origin
your chrome browser updated your extension to uBlock origin

ewemoa · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2015, 02:00 AM »

FWIW, I think there may be something relevant starting here:

https://www.donation....msg379703#msg379703

tomos · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2015, 04:27 PM »

I've been using uBlock for my ad blocker in Chrome for a while. The memory footprint and cpu usage is a lot less than adblock plus, and it works well. But recently, they added something where they block urls in requested popups by killing the tab. It opens up the tab, then kills it. And it's very hard to disable if you actually *want* to go to the link without disabling it for that entire domain. So you end up not being able to click in e-mails to go to the location, even if you don't care- without potentially disabling it for those ones that directly use that domain.

Does anyone know how to disable the killing of tabs with uBlock? I haven't been able to find it...
-wraith808 (May 08, 2015, 11:26 AM)

so, do you (or anyone else?) think that ublock is preferable to ublock origin?
(I mean preferable in terms of how it works.)

ewemoa · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2015, 05:11 PM »

FWIW, the following somewhat non-technical aspect had me leaning the other way (i.e. not favoring ublock, but rather ublock origin):

https://www.donation....msg379841#msg379841

tomos · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2015, 05:27 PM »

^ yeah, I didnt mean to ignore the, eh, 'non-technical' aspects ewemoa.
But after having followed a few of the other links above, it didnt seem to me that anyone is particularly at fault - my impression is that the original main guy was struggling with it's overwhelming popularity; then it was taken over by a young guy who seems to have done a reasonable job in spite of his mistakes (initially claiming authorship seems to have been his only major mistake).

Hence my focus on the technical aspects.

mwb1100 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2015, 05:45 PM »

it was taken over by a young guy
-tomos (May 12, 2015, 05:27 PM)

The thread I read indicates that it was more or less dumped on that guy with no notice - gorhill (the original developer) posted a comment to some commit thread saying essentially, "I'm done with this, can you take over the repo?". Also, it seems like the new maintainer has been very willing to rectify any mistakes or issues that have been pointed out.

wraith808 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2015, 07:44 PM »

I'm still confused, however. I never installed ublock origin from what I remember.
-wraith808 (May 08, 2015, 01:09 PM)

The original developer of uBlock (gorhill) transferred control of the uBlock repo to the new project maintainer, but did not transfer the Chrome store version. See https://github.com/c...mmitcomment-10530255

As mentioned in that comment thread, gorhill intended from the start to fork uBlock, creating his own version which he would only work on for the few features he wanted. Since he kept the Chrome store version, I assume that if that's where you installed your Chrome extension from, any updates gorhill made to it based on the uBlock Origin 'fork' would be installed into your browser whenever Chrome decided to pull the update from the store.

In other words:

gorhill published uBlock on the Chrome store
you installed uBlock from there
gorhill changed the software at that Chrome store extension site to be uBlock origin
your chrome browser updated your extension to uBlock origin
-mwb1100 (May 09, 2015, 01:14 AM)

I understand this. I just never knew until now that it updated silently and with no notice. That's the part that is the problem. Just because you OK an extension once, doesn't mean you should have to sign up in perpetuity.

I've been using uBlock for my ad blocker in Chrome for a while. The memory footprint and cpu usage is a lot less than adblock plus, and it works well. But recently, they added something where they block urls in requested popups by killing the tab. It opens up the tab, then kills it. And it's very hard to disable if you actually *want* to go to the link without disabling it for that entire domain. So you end up not being able to click in e-mails to go to the location, even if you don't care- without potentially disabling it for those ones that directly use that domain.

Does anyone know how to disable the killing of tabs with uBlock? I haven't been able to find it...
-wraith808 (May 08, 2015, 11:26 AM)

so, do you (or anyone else?) think that ublock is preferable to ublock origin?
(I mean preferable in terms of how it works.)
-tomos (May 12, 2015, 04:27 PM)

ublock origin was closing tabs and such after opening them with no indication half the time, and no way to turn off the functionality other than to opt out for the entire domain. That's what started this whole thread. ublock doesn't have that behavior. they also seem to work the same on the sites that I visit.

ublock for me.

tomos · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2015, 02:52 AM »

ublock origin was closing tabs and such after opening them with no indication half the time, and no way to turn off the functionality other than to opt out for the entire domain. That's what started this whole thread. ublock doesn't have that behavior. they also seem to work the same on the sites that I visit.

ublock for me.
-wraith808 (May 12, 2015, 07:44 PM)

that's my answer

thanks very much wraith

Innuendo · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2015, 07:32 AM »

I understand this. I just never knew until now that it updated silently and with no notice. That's the part that is the problem. Just because you OK an extension once, doesn't mean you should have to sign up in perpetuity.
-wraith808 (May 12, 2015, 07:44 PM)

If you don't want software on your system silently updating without your permission then you should not be using Chrome at all.

wraith808 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2015, 07:37 AM »

I understand this. I just never knew until now that it updated silently and with no notice. That's the part that is the problem. Just because you OK an extension once, doesn't mean you should have to sign up in perpetuity.
-wraith808 (May 12, 2015, 07:44 PM)

If you don't want software on your system silently updating without your permission then you should not be using Chrome at all.
-Innuendo (May 13, 2015, 07:32 AM)

It's not software. *sigh*

Chrome used to notify you when extensions were updated. And disabled their access until you re-enabled them. That's the responsible thing to do.

I know that chrome auto-updates when you restart, which I why I don't restart very often. I use it because I have to. But that works. It notifies me that it hasn't been updated because I haven't restarted in a while. And then after checking, I do.

But when there's no way to know if a third party has been co-opted (it has happened in the past), then that's irresponsible. And I'm not even notified, nor are any blocks put in the place on possible malicious updates? You can't see why I'm calling it out? That's *not* a concern to anyone else?

Chrome is becoming the modern day IE, and google is to a large part not being called on that. Chrome specific sites- many pushed by google themselves instead of adhering to standards- are becoming all too real. And they're being pushed to acceptance not just by corporate contracts, but by the standard user at this point.

A bit more to add to this... just today, I received a message that extension chrome-extension://mfgdmpfihlmdekaclngibpjhdebndhdj/ wanted to access my location. This points out two things:
1. They are able to do what I am asking still, and
2. A non-advanced user wouldn't even know to enable developer mode to get the id to know what was being asked. How is that right?

Deozaan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2015, 01:46 PM »

I believe that Chrome updates extensions similarly to how Android updates apps: If it doesn't require any new permissions, it silently updates. If the new version requires new permissions that you haven't previously granted it, it still updates it, but disables it until you explicitly give the OK.

wraith808 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:47 PM »

I believe that Chrome updates extensions similarly to how Android updates apps: If it doesn't require any new permissions, it silently updates. If the new version requires new permissions that you haven't previously granted it, it still updates it, but disables it until you explicitly give the OK.
-Deozaan (May 14, 2015, 01:46 PM)

In my (admittedly limited) experience with my Nook, it asks me, each and every time that an app wants to update. They're on my notification screen, and I have to respond in order to get it to actually download and install the updates.

Deozaan · « **Reply #16 on:** May 14, 2015, 10:14 PM »

I believe that Chrome updates extensions similarly to how Android updates apps: If it doesn't require any new permissions, it silently updates. If the new version requires new permissions that you haven't previously granted it, it still updates it, but disables it until you explicitly give the OK.
-Deozaan (May 14, 2015, 01:46 PM)

In my (admittedly limited) experience with my Nook, it asks me, each and every time that an app wants to update. They're on my notification screen, and I have to respond in order to get it to actually download and install the updates.
-wraith808 (May 14, 2015, 05:47 PM)

That may be a Nook-specific customization, or you may have at some point disabled auto-updates in the Play store, in which case it would just notify you that there are available updates.

wraith808 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2015, 10:56 PM »

I believe that Chrome updates extensions similarly to how Android updates apps: If it doesn't require any new permissions, it silently updates. If the new version requires new permissions that you haven't previously granted it, it still updates it, but disables it until you explicitly give the OK.
-Deozaan (May 14, 2015, 01:46 PM)

In my (admittedly limited) experience with my Nook, it asks me, each and every time that an app wants to update. They're on my notification screen, and I have to respond in order to get it to actually download and install the updates.
-wraith808 (May 14, 2015, 05:47 PM)

That may be a Nook-specific customization, or you may have at some point disabled auto-updates in the Play store, in which case it would just notify you that there are available updates.
-Deozaan (May 14, 2015, 10:14 PM)

That's it... I disabled auto-updates. Because... well, I like to know what I'm updated. I wonder if there is a setting for Chrome...

Nope.

https://productforum...c/chrome/l3zOZeO-5-M

A few workarounds for it. But no way, apparently.

Another workaround:

http://stackoverflow...extension-autoupdate

Curt · « **Reply #18 on:** May 17, 2015, 01:55 AM »

it was weird to study this page and then realize, there is no link to the version you all seem to prefer!

uBlock, the official project: https://chrismatic.io/ublock/
and https://chrome.googl...kamkmgojdagdnn?hl=en (< I don't use Chrome, so I have no understanding of the "epcnnfbjfcgphgdmggkamkmgojdagdnn" part; what stupid kind of forgettable link is that?! Or does it perhaps mean that I was visiting but not using Chrome?).
FAQ: https://chrismatic.io/ublock/faq/

ewemoa · « **Reply #19 on:** May 17, 2015, 02:45 AM »

I don't use Chrome, so I have no understanding of the "epcnnfbjfcgphgdmggkamkmgojdagdnn" part
-Curt (May 17, 2015, 01:55 AM)

AFAICT, that's pretty normal for items appearing in the Chrome Web Store:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/

Each of the app, extension, and theme links I examined had that kind of string at the end of its associated URL -- just figured it's for uniqueness sake, but have not verified.

wraith808 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2015, 12:24 PM »

it was weird to study this page and then realize, there is no link to the version you all seem to prefer!

uBlock, the official project: https://chrismatic.io/ublock/
and https://chrome.googl...kamkmgojdagdnn?hl=en (< I don't use Chrome, so I have no understanding of the "epcnnfbjfcgphgdmggkamkmgojdagdnn" part; what stupid kind of forgettable link is that?! Or does it perhaps mean that I was visiting but not using Chrome?).
FAQ: https://chrismatic.io/ublock/faq/

-Curt (May 17, 2015, 01:55 AM)

Not really a link, because you have to go to the store and search for ublock to install it. The links in the store are based on arcane identification strings- which was one of the things I pointed out in the chrome verification of permissions- so its easier to just direct someone to the store and a search. I don't even pay attention to the official sites for every extension- which I guess is one of the things that google wanted to foster and I fell for.

* wraith808 shrugs

Curt · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2015, 12:48 PM »

from another thread where it (also?) was misplaced:

Definitely used to be µblock.
-f0dder (April 17, 2015, 07:40 AM)

The name on the Mozilla homepage is still µBlock (microBlock), not uBlock (youBlock), so you're obviously right, f0dder - even though the name really is uBlock (youBlock)! What a ridiculous story. https://addons.mozil...irefox/addon/ublock/

I have just installed it with my old Firefox 23, (Firefox is officially at version 38), and as usual Mozilla lied to me and said the add-on wouldn't work on such an old browser. Of course it does. I am tired of all these patriotic lies. If accused, the answer is "oh, it's for your own safety!". Eh, yeah, but you lied, so how can I trust you?! Every crook is dreaming of entering all computers via a forced oh, it's for your own safety-update!

Okay, I have finally counted to a hundred and am calm again... so now I can see that uBlock already has blocked 2 requests, even though I am also running AdBlock Plus, (ABP). Maybe uBlock (youBlock) is okay.

-------------

Thank you for the explanation, wraith808. It all makes a lot more sense now. Ehh..., sense and sense... I mean, I might understand it better now

Not really a link, because you have to go to the store and search
-wraith808 (May 17, 2015, 12:24 PM)