Both uBlock Origin and AdGuard Extension are open-source softwares.
Set your filter lists and both do their jobs well :-TU AdGuard is very good at handling missed ads, social buttons and cookie notices etc.
You can report any website with the mentioned issues via AdGuard extension menu. Report an issue | AdGuard
This is why usefull for me. I have uBO installed on both Firefox and LibreWolf. I have AdGuard ext. on Brave. (with same filter setup)
Privacy Badger misses a lot. The website of it says “it will learn with AI while your are surfing” Once you used to use a complete adblocker, you cannot use Privacy Badger. Why should I let some ads & trackers when I can block them all? uBO or AdGuard extensions what you need for content blocking.
Do not use too much filter lists. Easylist, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s Social, EasyList Annoyance and a regional list (if you need) These will block pretty much.
I will update my list,
even HTTPS Everywhere is useless while we have “Enable HTTPS-Only Mode in all windows” in Firefox’s settings…
See EFF’s blog post: HTTPS Is Actually Everywhere
Decentraleyes may be useless while we have Total Cookie Protection (TCP) in Firefox, which is enabled if you’ve set Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) to Strict.
Does anyone know if AdGuard works well together with for example uBO, NoScript and Ghostery installed?
Is there any overlap or redundancy between these and AdGuard?
If you meant AdGuard for Windows, it is a complete system wide ad-blocker. Why do you need Ghostery or uBO alongside? Ghostery is useless while you have AdGuard or uBO.
NoScript, Ghostery and uBO might have more or less same features but they do work well together and extra script protection layers doesn’t do harm to security level (one has to allow certain scripts in all of them before the scripts is allowed to load and run).
The uBO “Disable Javascript” checkbox is a master switch which had highest priority over any other uBO filter so enabling this checkbox will disable scripts on all sites and chances are that sites don’t load properly anymore or it might even totally brick sites. I hardly (never) use this switch.
I already knew about uBO wiki, it is great source of help.
Indeed the uBO “Disable Javascript” parameter in the “Setting pane” very often causes a bad functioning of the web sites.
I did not activate it.
I activate it website by website to check that it does not disturb the functioning of the site. It is still a minority that works correctly with this setting.
That is because most trusted (and unfortunately also untrusted) web sites these days rely on being able to load and run their own scripts. Without those scripts the site will be bricked in most cases.
I just use uBlock Origin. My default rules are below. Note: the (noeval) has caused some websites to break so I’ve had to whitelist some using *#@#+js(noeval) rule.
! Block beacons, plugins and websockets everywhere
||*$ping,object,websocket
! Block potentially unsafe third-party content to unencrypted websites
|HTTP://*$third-party,~document,~stylesheet,~image,~media
! Block opening webpages on top level domains and countries I never visit
||*$document,~stylesheet,~image,~media,~script,~subdocument,~xmlhttprequest,domain=~com|~info|~io|~eu|~net|~org|~uk
! Inject javascript to blur Google FLOC interest tagging
*##+js(no-floc)
! Block switch to Chrome popop on google domains (search, maps, etc)
||ogs.google.*/widget/callout$all
Impressive uBO filters you have, thinking about to give those a try.
About the “! Block Google search URL paramater tracking” filters, do these filters actively prevent feedback to Google whenever you click on a Google search result?
I always noticed whenever you hover the mouse over a Google search result that the real URL of the search result appears in the status bar but as soon as you click on the search result the URL is first redirected to Google (so that Google can follow you) and then Google redirects to the real URL.
Do these filters prevent Google from following your search moves?
I’m not 100% sure, got some of these rules from a mate who is a bit more knowledgeable with UBO and Google tracking. I tend to use DDG most of the time for my searches anyway.
The uBO reference information on removeparam is below. I was a fan of ClearURLs for awhile but haven’t used it lately. Great at removing url tracking elements
removeparam
New in 1.32.0.
To remove query parameters from the URL of network requests – see also AdGuard’s removeparam’s documentation. For historical reasons, queryprune is an alias of removeparam (avoid using queryprune, it is deprecated and support will be removed eventually).
removeparam is a modifier option (like csp) in that it does not cause a network request to be blocked but rather modified before being emitted.
removeparam must be assigned a value, which value will determine which exact parameter from a query string will be removed:
*$removeparam=utm_source
The above filter tells uBO to remove the query parameter utm_source when present in a URL.
The value assigned to removeparam can be a literal regular expression, in which case uBO will remove query parameters matching the regular expression:
*$removeparam=/^utm_/
The above filter will remove all query parameters which name starts with utm_, regardless of their value. When using a literal regular expression, it is tested against each query parameter name-value pair assembled into a single string as name=value.
Poorly crafted removeparam filters can have deleterious effects on performance, experienced filter authors are expected to understand well how to craft optimal filters.