Ublock origins, help please

[anonymous]

Hello guys, I am not sure if it should be in this forum or in browser. It is about Ublock Origins on the firefox and waterfox on Linux

Firstly, Ublock Origins wants to update and in order to complete the update, it asks for permission to access IP address and hostnames. For now I declined. I want to know if this is both legit and if I should ever permit that kind of access.

Secondly, I am worried that my Ublock Origins is corrupted. I tried to go to Ublock website and my Ublock Origin blocked it as “badware risk” due to “Ublock.org^document”. Did I went to the wrong website and I accessed the old ublock instead of ublock origin website? I suspect my addon is fine but I want to make certain.

Thank you 🙂

Reply | Quote

[satrow]

Correct URL for UbO: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#ublock-origin (the site you accessed is incorrect).

If you don’t allow ‘access IP address and hostnames’, it’s not going to work efficiently.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Thank you for your reply 😀

I am a bit confused. Why then Ublock origin asks for permission to IP address and hostnames now if it needs that to be efficient? I could not find any information on this subject (that is the reason I ended up on that site, looking for information), then again I didn’t look very hard. If it helps, I am using the firefox and waterfox on linux so I got asked for permission.

Still, thank you for putting my fear that my addon may be corrupted to rest 😀

Reply | Quote

[Alex5723]

deleted

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Alex5723.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to access attached files.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

It has to be able to lookup hostnames and IPs to be able to check its blacklists to block items for you.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Oh? But the Ublock Origin seem to do the work fine and I don’t recall it asks me for permission to access this information before.  Did I missed something or simply didn’t notice it before? I must admit to being a bit paranoid.

Reply | Quote

[EP]

you need the uBlock origin for Legacy Firefox version from here if using Waterfox Classic:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/releases

the newer uBlock Origin addon is for webExtension based Firefox versions (FF57 & greater) & more recent Waterfox versions with webExtension support (aka. Waterfox Current)

the anonymous user did not mention what versions of Firefox & Waterfox being used

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by EP.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by EP.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Firefox is up to date and the waterfox is the classic version.

Reply | Quote

[Carl]

uBlock makes use of filter lists (user configurable) from a number of providers to block ads and other annoyances. Some lists do malicious host and IP blocking so uBlock asks for these permissions.

As mentioned above, make sure you’re using the correct version and only from download reputable sources. Raymond Hill (gorhill) is the author.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

I looked into my addons and it seem to be correct. 🙂

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Ah, I got it 🙂

I looked more careful and clicked on about in the Ublock origin and followed the release. Now I see the reason I got asked for new permission. Thank you guys! 😀

I do have one question, how did I got 1.24 Ublock origins on my waterfox if I was supposed to have firefox legacy? I got it over a year ago. Anyway, Should I delete it and replace with correct addon or I would be fine if I continue with what I have?

Thank you again! 😀

Reply | Quote

[owburp]

You might find this item on ghacks to be helpful. It describes a new feature of the Firefox version of uBlock Origin that requires the permission in order to work.

If you run uBlock Origin, use the Firefox version as it offers better protection
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/26/if-you-run-ublock-origin-use-the-firefox-version-as-it-offers-better-protection/

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ascaris

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Yeah that was helpful 🙂 I just wish that was up a day or so before when I looked into ghack for information. Thank you 😀

Reply | Quote

[Mele20]

anonymous wrote:

I do have one question, how did I got 1.24 Ublock origins on my waterfox if I was supposed to have firefox legacy? I got it over a year ago. Anyway, Should I delete it and replace with correct addon or I would be fine if I continue with what I have?

I have 1.24.2 Ublock Origin on my Waterfox Classic 2020.01. (Yes, I know there is a newer version). Perhaps we have it rather than the legacy Ublock Origin that I have on Basilisk because Waterfox at one time was sort of “hybrid” and allowed both classic XUL extensions and WE extensions. I have both types of extensions on Waterfox. I don’t think you need to revert to the legacy version. I wish Basilisk would let me use this version but it needs the legacy one because it is forked off of Fx 52 ESR and the newer Ublock Origin needs Fx 55 and above. I think I recall Waterfox Classic is forked off Fx 56.

Have you checked to make sure the filter lists are updated? I have the setting “Update Automatically” checked on Fx 60.8 Esr, Baslisk 2020.02.18 and Waterfox 2020.01. ALL FILTER LISTS ON ALL BROWSERS WERE OUTDATED when I checked a bit ago! I had to update all lists manually on all browsers. I’m not sure what “Update Automatically” is about since it doesn’t work on any of my browsers running uBlock Origin. There doesn’t appear to be a setting in uBlock that affect this. Perhaps, I have a setting in all three browsers that stops automatic updating? I’ll have to look into this further.

Reply | Quote

[anonymous]

Interesting, I didn’t know that you could use both legacy and current Ublock on the same browser. I will have to look it up. As for the filter list update, my firefox updates automatically but my waterfox does not even as they has the same setting, I think. I know that my uMatrix does not update automatically on the waterfox and it does on the firefox.

Reply | Quote

[Ascaris]

I have uBlock 1.25 (webextension) on the PC I am using now, my Acer Swift, but my desktop is using the legacy version.  Both use Waterfox Classic (latest version, currently 2020.02.1).  I haven’t noticed any difference between them– I ran both types specifically to see if there was one, and if there is, I have not seen it.  The legacy version (I prefer the term ‘classic,’ but he calls it legacy, so I am using that name for clarity!) continues to be updated by the author, so either way, it works.

It’s not surprising that people don’t know that a browser could use webextensions and classic addons.  Mozilla seems to have deliberately blurred that line when they released Quantum, suggesting that the legacy addons had to go to make way for webextensions, and also that the speed improvement in Firefox hinged upon jettisoning the classic addons.  Neither was true.  Waterfox Classic can do both (a small number of webextensions may use features that were not part of Firefox 56, and therefore will not work in Waterfox Classic, but I haven’t seen one yet), and in tests I did at the release of Quantum and again two years later, Waterfox was very close to Firefox (current version of both) on the benchmark that Mozilla had used to proclaim Quantum twice as fast as an older Firefox, which was SpeeDOMeter 2.0.  In the more recent test, the two browsers scored within a percent or so of each other.

Come to think of it, I think I’ll run it again and see how it’s doing.

Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.21.4 User Edition)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

[Ascaris]

Interesting results!  Firefox has opened up a significant lead over Waterfox Classic in the current round of SpeeDOMeter testing.  No way of knowing if the changes that led to this could have been done with the classic addon API intact or not, but it’s nice to see Firefox closer to Chrome in performance than to where it was at v56 (which is where Waterfox Classic is now).

 

Group "L" (KDE Neon Linux 5.21.4 User Edition)

Reply | Quote

[bbearren]

I’m using Firefox 74.0.1, updated automatically.  I installed uBlock Origin 1.18.6 quite some time ago.  A couple of months ago uBlock Origin asked for those permissions in order to update itself.  I declined.  I use it primarily as an ad blocker, and it works very well indeed in that capacity.  It has since ceased asking for permission to update; just continues to block ads for me.

I use Windows Defender for AV/AM as well as Malwarebytes 4.1.0 with Real-Time Protection fully enabled, so I don’t feel the need to add the same sort of protections via a uBlock Origin update.  I just want it to block ads, and it doesn’t need any special permissions in order to perform that function.

And yes, I know there is a newer version of Malwarebytes, and quite some time back I was offered that update to their subscription model (yearly fee) and I declined, as mine is a lifetime license that never expires (purchased years ago), and I wasn’t ready to give that up.  As it turns out, Malwarebytes continues to honor that license, and continues to update my Malwarebytes Pro.  I was on v3.5.1 when I turned down the subscription model update.

Create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates, in case you need to start over!

"When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns

"Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

[Author]

Posts