contentabc.com (Strict blocking)
Closed this issue · 11 comments
There is a blocking rule in the EasyList filter list for the website specified in the title.
It is possible to see that with uBlock Origin the following is applied:
Instead it seems to me that with uBlock Origin Lite this blocking rule is not applied.
Is it possible to know the reason?
Thank you.
It is applied?
If your question is really why there is no nice informative blocking page, it's because of MV3 limitations.
uBO uses a heuristic to choose whether to block or not blocked a top document, and when it blocked it redirect to a dynamically crafted extension URL, something which can't be directly ported to MV3.
Whether it is possible to craft a set of DNR rules to enforce block-and-redirect top documents is something still left to explore.
I didn't understand what the block page looks like to the user.
I am obliged to give another example.
The website below has a blocking rule in both EasyList (uBlock Origin Lite) but also in AG Base (AG Ablocker v.5.0.113).
It seems to me that there is a significant difference.
So how does a web page that complies with a blocking rule in UBO Lite filters usually appear to the user?
Thank you.
It is applied?
I don't think it's applied. The message when a site is blocked should be ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT.
I checked another site 1nimo.com which should be blocked too, but I don't see it being blocked in uBOL either. My version is 2024.9.22.986
I don't think it's applied. The message when a site is blocked should be
ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT.
Ah ok, so it's a case of the site not existing. Looking at the documentation, it says:
If [no resource types] is specified, all resource types except "main_frame" are blocked
So from memory I left out strict-blocking in uBOL since it's based on a heuristic in uBO. So I come back to my previous answer, something still left to explore.
Yeah, I remember strict-blocking in uBOL needs to be specified with doc somewhere, but can't remember which discussion.
Ah ok, so it's a case of the site not existing.
This domain exists mainly as subdomains:
ads2.contentabc.com - 404 HTML
ads2.contentabc.com/ads?spot_id=4563949 - 30x -> 50x HTML
I don't know if it has active advertising/tracking campaigns without HTML 404 and 50x errors.
Similar to: #23, in AdGuard MV3 still works click2load with same bug (lost URL, button aren't clickable, maybe not as DNR rule).
stephenhawk8054
Yes, $doc / $document works in uBOL, for example 123-stream.org is strict-blocked by ||123-stream.org^$document from EasyList, while ||randomadsrv.com^ or ||1nimo.com^ from EasyList is not.
$all works too (because is equivalent to specifying $doc + several other options), for example: 35.224.227.218 is strict-blocked by ||35.224.227.218^$all from uBlock filters.
I did a test with the 3 websites.
All three are blocked at the DNS level (I used NextDNS) by OISD + HaGeZi Multi Pro++.
Strict extension blocking would take priority over DNS level intervention.
These 2 filter lists make up for uBOL's lack of strict blocking.
Need to evaluate whether the lock-down heuristics still work for hosts lists and simplified EL syntax.
It doesn't work with hosts filters (like 127.0.0.1 shafou.com from "Dan Pollock’s hosts file" or shafou.com) because like already mentioned in uBlock documentation LINK:
All hostname entries from a HOSTS file resource from uBO's point of view will be syntactically equivalent to a filter using the form
||hostname^.
I think it should be indicated that strict blocking only works with Optimal or Complete mode.
Maybe grey it out like "AdGuard URL Tracking Protection"?
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9e32d815-af5b-41dd-8b25-4f49e8ac96c2