-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Provide a list of sites where Defender is known to solve something #191
Comments
I want to emphasize the list should not include test/demo pages. I know such a demo page Defender works but it's simply out-of-scope for uBlock filters. Nevertheless, too many people are making fuss that uBO doesn't 'bypass' anti-adb in the demo page, which pushed me to add specific filters to my list. |
I commit the list. Currently there are 1046 (sub)domains/partial domains. But I know some of them are not working or already be fixed in uBO, just it will take long time for me to test them and removed. I know there are quite a lot of problem of current Nano Defender as it is quite a long time since former upstream update it. I will fix them when rebranded product release. @Yuki2718 This is because former upstream have different filter policy than uAssets. As now is independent, this can be changed in future.
Do you mean like: extension is grey-out unless the affected site is visiting (or something similar effect), such that users can tell which extension handle anti-adblock issues? |
a very fast check (7 min) no issues
dead domains / pages
|
nanodefender believed to work & @LiCybora will tell other sites on which it work
if you fix such issues ,users will not require any special addon or anything.... |
@ghajini In that case it would be fair to state that the extension helps defusing anti-blocker mechanisms on AdFly-related sites without having to enumerate all of them. |
https://github.com/LiCybora/NanoDefenderFirefox/blob/master/domainList.txt PS. for my checking 50-66 cosmetic filters need 2 hours to test " |
JS spagetti 🍝 can generate false change color icon form grayish to clororized: NanoDefenderFirefox/src/content/core.js Lines 1424 to 1458 in b7a6ffc
origin sourcea.generic.app_vars = () => {
a.inject(() => {
try {
let _app_vars;
window.Object.defineProperty(window, "app_vars", {
configurable: true,
set(val) {
_app_vars = val;
try {
window.Object.defineProperty(_app_vars, "disable_adblock", {
configurable: true,
set() { },
get() {
return "0";
},
});
window.Object.defineProperty(_app_vars, "force_disable_adblock", {
configurable: true,
set() { },
get() {
return "0";
},
});
} catch (err) { }
},
get() {
return _app_vars;
},
});
} catch (err) {
window.console.error("[Nano] Failed :: app_vars Defuser");
}
});
}; Nano Defender used JS spagetti 🍝 to fight with:
or
and uBO wait for report these anti-adblock one by one. To the detriment of the uBO it is that these domains appear quickly, maybe also disappear quickly. |
A lot of myths circulate about what Defender does, and a majority of users wouldn't be able to exactly point out on which exact sites Defender is actually confirmed to be solving something. I am not able and I am not sure filter list maintainers are also able.
Despite this, the placebo effect causes countless users to believe Defender is absolutely necessary and for those who have it installed, they will swear that all the anti-blocker mechanisms are dealt with by Defender, while only technical investigation could confirm it's the case, and in majority of cases it's just the main content blocker doing the work because the filter lists maintainer constantly fixes such issues in uBO filters.
With uBO-Extra, I took care to maintain a list of sites for which the extension was confirmed to solve an issue not solvable by the use of uBO. This way, people who were not visitors of these sites did not have to install the extension.
In addition, if feasible, even better would be an improvement over the original Defender to provide a feedback on the extension icon that it actually acted to solve an anti-blocker issue on a visited site, so this should reduce the never ending erroneous attributions that Defender solved anti-blocker mechanisms when it was merely the main content blocker doing so.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: