Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The El Capitan/Safari 9 Content Blocker Thread
- Thread starter PowerBook-G5
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Yeah, it only works if you have the setting "use optimised filters" active. Third one from below.
I'm back with WIPR myself. I like AdGuard but it seems WIPR has less impact on performance with many open tabs and I haven't had a broken layout on any site yet.
I'm back with WIPR myself. I like AdGuard but it seems WIPR has less impact on performance with many open tabs and I haven't had a broken layout on any site yet.
Ah, you're a legend, thanks!
I like Wipr I just wish it was a bit more customisable. But you're right, it's the only one that consistently leaves no whitespace.
I like Wipr I just wish it was a bit more customisable. But you're right, it's the only one that consistently leaves no whitespace.
I just happened to browse the installed extensions in the Safari preferences menu when I saw that Adguard AdBlocker for Safari can access everything I write like passwords, phone numbers, personal stuff etc so I deleted it and searched for alternatives and found Wipr.
"Wipr has no permission to read or transfer content from web pages."
Is this a good alternative?
"Wipr has no permission to read or transfer content from web pages."
Is this a good alternative?
I had the same question. They answered it here: #322
Right now I'm using Wipr (macOS/iOS) and although it can't beat the very flexible and powerful Adguard, I'm pretty happy with it. Fire and forget.
None too harsh blocking, but clean and no whitespace where the ads have been. A little lighter on cpu consumption as well. Doesn't block anti-adblock blockers on some german or uk/us sites, but I don't wanna cheat that much anyway.
And I can still disable it for those sites, but not with a comfortable whitelist as the developer doesn't want to integrate one.
Right now I'm using Wipr (macOS/iOS) and although it can't beat the very flexible and powerful Adguard, I'm pretty happy with it. Fire and forget.
None too harsh blocking, but clean and no whitespace where the ads have been. A little lighter on cpu consumption as well. Doesn't block anti-adblock blockers on some german or uk/us sites, but I don't wanna cheat that much anyway.
And I can still disable it for those sites, but not with a comfortable whitelist as the developer doesn't want to integrate one.
I had the same question. They answered it here: #322
Right now I'm using Wipr (macOS/iOS) and although it can't beat the very flexible and powerful Adguard, I'm pretty happy with it. Fire and forget.
None too harsh blocking, but clean and no whitespace where the ads have been. A little lighter on cpu consumption as well. Doesn't block anti-adblock blockers on some german or uk/us sites, but I don't wanna cheat that much anyway.
And I can still disable it for those sites, but not with a comfortable whitelist as the developer doesn't want to integrate one.
Thanks!
I have tried Wipr (macOS) for a couple of hours now and it seems just fine, and I like the fact that "Wipr has no permission to read or transfer content from web pages."
I guess the iOS version of Adguard is much more restricted than the macOS one. And for the record, a lot of Safari extensions like 1Password or Pocket are still able to read all this data too or at least have to be able to. It's - like always - a matter of trust.
Last edited:
iOS just does not provide enough capabilities, otherwise we'd use it as well.
For instance, content scripts are necessary for:
1. Manual ad blocking feature
2. Some rule types which aren't supported by the standard content blocking API.
3. It is also very helpful in case of handling anti-adblock scripts.
@flowsy is absolutely right, this is a matter of trust. Almost every extension out there is capable of a lot of things, so choose wisely.
One more thing. The fact that some extension cannot get to the webpage content right now does not mean it won't do it in the next update (which is silent and automatic).
Instead of doing the right thing, stop the access to our private information, you try to drag other content blockers down to your level. I'm so glad I deleted AdGuard AdBlocker.
Some developers have ethics and morals, like Giorgio Calderolla (Wipr): "Wipr prevents countless trackers from invading your privacy. Wipr itself cannot, nor wants to, know what you do on the web."
About the silent and automatic update. Just uncheck the "automatic update" box in the Safari extensions preferences and read on the developers site about their next update and decide if you want to update or not.
I'm not a developer but I think Apples' "The application can do this and that" just means it could possibly(!) do this and that because it has to* operate on another level to do what it needs to do and is therefor theoretically(!) able to also do these "bad" things. *(in defense of AdGuard: Whitelisting, manual element-blocking and automatic filter list, etc.)
Yes, there are shady players out there and yes there's always a risk. But other smart people could find out (AdGuard extension is open source/one can sniff the network traffic, maybe?) and that would be not a nice time for AdGuard if someone then did.
But before I go again and attack a developer/team for their choices (...and I kind of did) I will get a tiny little bit deeper (google search) to maybe find out why this and that might have to be this way.
And for the record: I'm not a developer - and if it would/will be possible to strip the extension of these rights without sacrificing those nifty features, I'm all for it!
Same here AdGuard removed, absolutely defeats the purpose of the extension. After all what, we are seeking is anonymity & privacy...
Q-6
Last edited:
Fun times, under attack because of being too feature-rich
As I've mentioned earlier, if you want to use ANY extension or application, you should trust the developer and do the background check first. We, as developers, should help you make the decision. For instance, we made the browser extension open source so you can easily check what it does. We provided a privacy policy, so that you don't need to be a developer to learn what's going on in background.
But the problem is that providing source and privacy policy is not enough. It could change in a moment and you'll never know it. So, IMO, the main thing is developer's reputation.
I see that some guys ditch Adguard just in case, it was enough to hear that it has a potential possibility to do something. For me it just means that we aren't reputable enough and this is totally ok. I am sure that with time the situation will change and all we have to do is continue improving AG.
No, of course not.
No for both.
If it was possible we would of course get rid of content scripts.
As I've mentioned earlier, if you want to use ANY extension or application, you should trust the developer and do the background check first. We, as developers, should help you make the decision. For instance, we made the browser extension open source so you can easily check what it does. We provided a privacy policy, so that you don't need to be a developer to learn what's going on in background.
But the problem is that providing source and privacy policy is not enough. It could change in a moment and you'll never know it. So, IMO, the main thing is developer's reputation.
I see that some guys ditch Adguard just in case, it was enough to hear that it has a potential possibility to do something. For me it just means that we aren't reputable enough and this is totally ok. I am sure that with time the situation will change and all we have to do is continue improving AG.
No, of course not.
No for both.
And for the record: I'm not a developer - and if it would/will be possible to strip the extension of these rights without sacrificing those nifty features, I'm all for it!
If it was possible we would of course get rid of content scripts.
In fact I was wrong, sorry. It seems that content scripts can access password type inputs as well, so for macOS the answer is yes. For iOS the answer is no.
I think this is why most people are a bit nervous. You tell us that you guys do not read those values, and I personally believe you, but the only way to actually check is to scour the source code.
Thank you!
There is one more important point about it. Every extension in the Safari extensions gallery must pass a review by Apple stuff and they check the source code before allowing extension in. So if you install extensions from the gallery you may be sure that it does not do anything harmful.
Actually not just source code. Funny thing, Adguard v2.4.14 has been rejected today (after 2 weeks long review) due to this (description does not fit extensions pane):
Now we need to wait for 2 weeks more
Are you serious? You think that this is a funny subject, that: "Adguard AdBlocker can read, modify, and transmit content from all webpages. This could include sensitive information like passwords, phone numbers and credit cards."?
Under attack for being too feature-rich? No, you are "under attack" because you developed the extension to be able to "read, modify, and transmit content from all webpages. This could include sensitive information like passwords, phone numbers and credit cards".
This is not a feature we want or a feature a content blocker needs to work. Period.
So why did you develop this feature. The only answer would be that you collect this information.
"So yeah, I'm building this new apartment complex. It's rent free so you guys could just move in right away. I have installed cameras in every single room (oops, I "forgot" to mention that part) but I will never use them, I promise. You can read all about it in the contract. Trust me. Cameras are not needed but I installed them anyway. So once again, trust me."
Yeah, right!