The El Capitan/Safari 9 Content Blocker Thread

[janezblond]

...

I think you are being needlessly harsh. @avatar-adg has stated why they require those extra permissions - in order to block additional elements that cannot be taken care of by content blocking alone. You of course have every right not to believe them, but I find this fake outrage a bit too much.

 

[BOT365]

I think you are being needlessly harsh. @avatar-adg has stated why they require those extra permissions - in order to block additional elements that cannot be taken care of by content blocking alone. You of course have every right not to believe them, but I find this fake outrage a bit too much.

Other content blockers can block these elements without having access to your personal information so you are wrong. But please continue to believe the content blocker that have access to your private information... information that they will never access or use.... or so they say.

Fake outrage? Speak for yourself. I take my privacy seriously. But som people, like yourself, give it away... even for free.

Ask yourself this question. Why do this content blocker implement "features" that can access your personal information when it's not needed to block ads? The answer is simple. They collect your information and sell it.

 

[janezblond]

Ask yourself this question. Why do this content blocker implement "features" that can access your personal information when it's not needed to block ads? The answer is simple. They collect your information and sell it.

This is where I believe you are making a false connection - from what I understand about how safari extensions work, certain permissions are an all or nothing type of choice. So if you want your blocker to inject JavaScript and/or modify CSS, the extension needs full access.

The question remains, whether Adguard do this for some nefarious purpose (your claim), or if they are simply trying to work around the limitations of safari content blocking (which is quite well established can't block as much as JavaScript based adblockers) as they claim.

Given the evidence provided by both sides, I choose to believe the truth is closer to what Adguard claim.

 

[Tomovich]

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 understand this as:

Adguard on macOS can access passwords and other inputs.
Adguard on iOS cannot access passwords and other inputs.

Correct?

 

[BOT365]

This is where I believe you are making a false connection - from what I understand about how safari extensions work, certain permissions are an all or nothing type of choice. So if you want your blocker to inject JavaScript and/or modify CSS, the extension needs full access.

The question remains, whether Adguard do this for some nefarious purpose (your claim), or if they are simply trying to work around the limitations of safari content blocking (which is quite well established can't block as much as JavaScript based adblockers) as they claim.

Given the evidence provided by both sides, I choose to believe the truth is closer to what Adguard claim.

Like I said. Other content blockers can block all these elements without the need to implement the "feature" (like Adguard calls it), a feature that can read, modify, and transmit content from all webpages including sensitive information like passwords, phone numbers and credit cards.

Adguard are liars (comment #354).

Tomovich asked:
"If I fill out passwords on login/registration forms, can AdGuard read these on OSX? And on iOS?"

Adguard replied:
"No for both."

That's a lie because Adguard can read, modify, and transmit content from all webpages including sensitive information like passwords, phone numbers and credit cards. At least on OS X.

 

[Weaselboy]

That's a lie because Adguard can read, modify, and transmit content from all webpages including sensitive information like passwords, phone numbers and credit cards. At least on OS X.

You linked to post 345. If you look two posts later at post 347, you would see that the AdGuard rep corrected his mistake and clarified what is going on. Nobody here has lied about anything.

There is zero evidence Adguard is collecting your passwords.

 

[flowsy]

That's a lie bla bla

Dude, enough is enough. You sound like a broken record. Show me a content blocker where you can right click an element to block that as well. All the content blockers you're talking about can't do that. Do you get it now!?

 

[avatar-adg]

Adguard on macOS can access passwords and other inputs.
Adguard on iOS cannot access passwords and other inputs.

I'd rephrase it a bit.

Adguard on macOS can technically access code of any webpage including inputs, passwords, whatever.
Adguard on iOS cannot technically access webpage code.
[doublepost=1476055134][/doublepost]@BOT365
I find your claims both insulting and entertaining. Why don't you spend your energy on analyzing Adguard's code?

 

[flowsy]

Funny thing, Adguard v2.4.14 has been rejected today (after 2 weeks long review) due to this (description does not fit extensions pane):
View attachment 663063
Now we need to wait for 2 weeks more

Still in review?

 

[avatar-adg]

Still in review?

Yep, since 5 of October. Their review process is really frustrating, even more than review for addons.mozilla.org, which was #1 in my personal top previously.

I suppose they want extensions developers to stop using the old API and convert extensions to "Safari App Extensions":
https://developer.apple.com/library...InternetWeb/Conceptual/SafariAppExtension_PG/

As I know, Mac AppStore (app extensions are uploaded there) review takes just a few days max.

The problem is that it can't be easily converted. We cannot re-use existing javascript code we use in Chrome and FF extensions anymore. Instead they want us to write all the "background" code from scratch.

 

[jdillings]

Other content blockers can block these elements without having access to your personal information so you are wrong.

What other content blocker(s)? I tried Adblock Plus and I get the same warning.

 

[avatar-adg]

What other content blocker(s)? I tried Adblock Plus and I get the same warning.

Adblock Plus does not use content blocking API.

 

[vs40]

Yep, since 5 of October.

Any news about Adguard extension update?
Did you fixed problem with not blocking ads at first page loading? Need to reload the page, to get clean look.
It starts in macOS 10.12

 

[avatar-adg]

Any news about Adguard extension update?

Nope, still waiting for the review.

Did you fixed problem with not blocking ads at first page loading? Need to reload the page, to get clean look.

There is nothing we can fix.

However, I hope it'll help if more people comment on this bug in WebKit's bug tracker:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162057

I guess they don't hurry to fix it because there're not many complaints on the issue.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

@avatar-adg

...Did you fixed problem with not blocking ads at first page loading? Need to reload the page, to get clean look...

I have a similar problem in Firefox 50.0, when I start the browser the ads/cookie warnings are not blocked. If I reload the page, the problem goes away. This phenomenon exists in case of Youtube as well.
Adguard extension version 2.4.14. OS X 10.9.5.
(А так всё работает отлично в обоих версиях, Safari и Firefox. Молодцы!).

 

[avatar-adg]

I have a similar problem in Firefox 50.0, when I start the browser the ads/cookie warnings are not blocked. If I reload the page, the problem goes away. This phenomenon exists in case of Youtube as well.
Adguard extension version 2.4.14. OS X 10.9.5.

In case of Safari you're getting into this for every new tab.

In case of FF the situation is quite different:

Spoiler: Offtopic

In case of FF the thing is that when you've just started a browser, add-on needs some time to initialize. We do it asynchronously so that it was not slowing down browser's own init. Unless add-on is fully initialized some ads may slip through. You can change init behaviour by changing extensions.adguardadblocker@adguard.com.speedup_startup value in about:config.
[/CODE]

(А так всё работает отлично в обоих версиях, Safari и Firefox. Молодцы!).

Спасибо

 

[avatar-adg]

I've just reinstall AG from the extensions gallery and it appears that it has silently passed review.

It seems that they do not inform developer about review status anymore.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

...In case of FF the thing is that when you've just started a browser, add-on needs some time to initialize. We do it asynchronously so that it was not slowing down browser's own init. Unless add-on is fully initialized some ads may slip through. You can change init behaviour by changing extensions.adguardadblocker@adguard.com.speedup_startup value in about:config...

Changed the value. No effect, same phenomenon: ads and cookie warning appear.

 

[avatar-adg]

Changed the value. No effect, same phenomenon: ads and cookie warning appear.

I'd better doublecheck it then:
https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension/issues/446

Btw, thanks to @GigabitEthernet we have finally found how to fix the issue with applying hiding rules when website is opened for the first time in a new browser tab. I must admit that it was all my fault. Webkit bug I was blaming all the time was not that serious and there was a way to circumvent it.