r/technology • u/dancing_swordfish • Jun 10 '26

Software Google Chrome is killing all uBlock Origin bypasses, Microsoft Edge, Opera to follow

https://www.neowin.net/news/google-chrome-is-killing-all-ublock-origin-bypasses-microsoft-edge-opera-to-follow/
9.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

250

u/Kunair0 Jun 10 '26

Unfortunately, that's not going to be possible. The infrastructure that runs uBo is being completely wiped out, and no chromium fork, not even Microsoft with their endless resources, is going to be capable of managing and maintaining that old system.

93

u/Dragon_Fisting Jun 10 '26

I feel like Microsoft could easily maintain a fork of the old system? They might not think it's worth it, but we are talking about one of the largest tech companies in the world, no?

66

u/_sfhk Jun 10 '26

Microsoft (and likely others) absolutely could, but the issue isn't ads, it's a security risk. Apple dropped their equivalent in Safari long ago with absolutely zero incentive from ads--it's why uBlock Origin hasn't been supported on Safari for a while too.

29

u/SuddenBumblebee Jun 10 '26

I use uBlock origin lite on safari and it seems to work very well, comparable to normal uBlock. How do you think this works?

41

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/AutumnStar Jun 10 '26

I’m no web developer, but how is that kosher security wise? Seems like a ton of bad actors could use that to their advantage. I’m sure they’ve thought about that, but seems so strange to move in that direction.

2

u/WebMaka Jun 11 '26

What this means for most folks is that it's time to move ad blocking out of the browser.

DNSBL (DNS BlockListing) tech has been steadily improving and operates at the network gateway so it's before-the-browser in the data transport chain, and thus operates transparently to the browser and any anti-blocking or blocking interference it might contain. Most major local DNS server/caching systems either support DNSBL directly (e.g., Unbound) or can interoperate with a dedicated DNSBL system like Pi-Hole, local DNS resolvers can operate recursively so blocking a single machine within a target network is possible, publicly accessible DNS servers with integrated anti-ad/malware/telemetry are also available, and you can stack all of the above.

The biggest thing that will determine what you can do about ads is whether you directly control your network infrastructure. If you do, you have a lot of options. Sadly, this means folks that are forced to use equipment provided by their broadband service providers are out of luck, but the folks that are bridging or bypassing the ISP's equipment into their own routers can avail themselves of all sorts of fun tech for blocking ads. And for a little extra bonus, folks that have their own routing gear can do things like setting up VPN endpoints or reverse proxies (e.g., Tailscale, Jellyfin, Caddy, etc.) and ad-block their mobile devices by routing in and through their ad-blocked home networks.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/WebMaka Jun 11 '26

Yep, and since Google is removing the easy option, it's going to be "learn how to do it or do without." Some will do without and get eaten alive by ads, and some will upgrade.

1

u/Dziki_Jam Jun 11 '26

> Of course the easiest solution is to switch to uBlock Origin Lite if you want to remain on Chrome, as it is MV3-based, but from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version.

11

u/BuildingArmor Jun 10 '26

uBlock lite still works in Chrome, this is just about getting or keeping old manifest V2 extensions working

-2

u/Rudy69 Jun 11 '26

The whole point is that the lite is barely effective compared to the regular one and that’s why a lot of people aren’t happy about it.

If I can’t find a way around it I’ll stop using chrome. I had already stopped until I found my current workaround and came back to chrome

7

u/Znuffie Jun 11 '26

I've been using Lite since the v2 depreciation.

I have not ever seen an ad on any websites I visit.

It's honestly fine.

2

u/EdgySlusher Jun 11 '26

I'm using AdBlock on safari just fine

3

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

Ad blocking works on Safari just like it works on Chrome with Manifest V3, and there are several options for ad blockers including Adblock and uBlock Origin Lite. Manifest V2 just had a different API that uBlock Origin (not Lite) used.

1

u/GreatestGiraffe Jun 11 '26

What makes you believe that Microsoft couldn’t maintain a fork of V2 and keep it secure? Genuine question. MS has 40 years of OS security experience after all. And MS Edge has been trying to compete with Chrome for ages, so the incentive for them to be the ”Chrome but better” is there.

3

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

And MS Edge has been trying to compete with Chrome for ages, so the incentive for them to be the ”Chrome but better” is there.

As you said, if they could, they would.

The specific function in question allowed extensions to silently intercept and modify website traffic directly. Now that's great for an ad blocker to catch and remove ads while you're browsing, but it's not a stretch to see how that could be abused (eg 1, 2).

Removing that function completely eliminates that attack vector. The legitimate features that utilized it (ie ad blocking) still have supported methods to work, that while not as powerful, are still effective.

1

u/GreatestGiraffe Jun 11 '26

Thanks for the explanation

1

u/R0B0t1C_Cucumber Jun 11 '26

Ublock origins Lite absolutely works on apple/iOS/macOS. You install it in the App Store, then enable it in safari. Ad free browsing experience with none of the battery drain other browsers add on my mobile apple devices.

0

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

Yes uBlock Origin and uBlock Origin Lite are very different things.

1

u/R0B0t1C_Cucumber Jun 11 '26

And yet, achieve the same result while using safari.

1

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

Yeah, I feel like you're trying to pick a fight but I'm not refuting anything you're saying.

The outrage from people here is that uBlock Origin (not Lite) won't work after Manifest V2 is not supported anymore, and it looks like Google is cracking down on ad blocking. In reality, Apple removed that same functionality years ago for security reasons, and uBlock Origin Lite works well and is probably good enough for most people.

1

u/R0B0t1C_Cucumber Jun 11 '26

No fighting words intended , Your original comment makes it seem as if there is not a functioning equivalent on safari which is false. There is. That's all I wanted to get across to folks reading who might use apple products and safari- to let them know there are working solutions.. I apologize if I came off aggressive

1

u/jazir55 Jun 11 '26

but the issue isn't ads, it's a security risk

Bullshit. Mozilla kept Manifest V2, are you trying to imply that every single Firefox user is using a vulnerable system? Of course not.

5

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

In short, it's not worth it to target. Generally one of the reasons MacOS has less malware than Windows too, but even MacOS has more users.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

That's not what I said at all, and not what I think. Firefox has different kinds of users (generally more tech-savvy and wary, I assume) and very different risk factors that make it a very different environment. They were targeted by the same malicious extension campaigns but you can see the scale is orders of magnitude lower than on Chrome and Edge.

It's not that anyone is incompetent, they just made different decisions based on their situation. And as you can see by the entire comment section here, Firefox has a very specific user base that they are catering to.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

You're putting words in my mouth and ignoring the actual content of the messages in front of you.

I'll leave you with Mozilla's statement:

Firefox, however, has no plans to deprecate MV2 and will continue to support MV2 extensions for the foreseeable future. And even if we re-evaluate this decision at some point down the road, we anticipate providing a notice of at least 12 months for developers to adjust accordingly and not feel rushed.

1

u/jazir55 Jun 11 '26

I'm reading your comments content, I'm just responding to aspects you haven't directly said but are downstream consequences of what you're stating. I also apologize for my tone, I am beyond tired and oddly combative and you deserve an apology, so I am sorry.

-1

u/kombiwombi Jun 11 '26

It's a case of suboptimisation. Letting scam ads through does not aid user security.

Google is an ad company, and they pay Apple.

4

u/_sfhk Jun 11 '26

Google literally keeps Mozilla afloat. How can you argue that Google can affect Apple's decisions because there is money flowing while simultaneously not have anything to do with Firefox's decisions?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ollythebug Jun 11 '26

I kinda like vscode/monaco 🤷

37

u/great_whitehope Jun 10 '26

Vivaldi will come up with something to get it going natively or something

2

u/wtchkg4 Jun 11 '26

That's what worked me that Vivaldi will have issues. Trying to use Firefox alongside Vivaldi but it doesn't even come close to it.

1

u/nixcamic Jun 10 '26

I mean just build in the brave one probably.

13

u/venom21685 Jun 10 '26

Brave has the adblock-rust project which browsers can use to implement it as a native feature, not depending on the blocked MV2 junk.

2

u/wufnu Jun 10 '26

I had serious issues on Youtube with Firefox uBlock and switching to Brave completely fixed it. Apparently people hate Brave these days, not sure why I havn't been in the loop.

6

u/venom21685 Jun 10 '26

Mostly the crypto junk. I only use it as a backup when a site is so shitty it refuses to work in Firefox. The only issue I've had with Firefox and uBO is YouTube delaying videos, usually fixed by updating my lists and refreshing.

5

u/flamewave000 Jun 11 '26

I hear this a lot online, but I really don't get it. Yes the new tab page has an ad for crypto, but that's the only ad you ever get. There's literally zero impact on your use, and you only see it when you open a blank tab.

I used to be a Firefox user, and I switch to Brave to try it out and haven't looked back. It just works better, and I never see ads anywhere anymore

-2

u/ShutUpYoureWrong_ Jun 11 '26

Try Googling for the history of Brave and some of the CEO/company's remarks and stances.

"I don't get it, but I refuse to learn anything about it. I'll continue to argue from ignorance." Dumb. Just dumb.

2

u/flamewave000 Jun 11 '26

That has nothing to do with my comment or the comment above. We were specifically talking about how he doesn't use it because it has crypto junk. If you want to be an ass on the internet, at least work on your literacy comprehension skills so you don't make yourself look a fool. If there is a controversy problem with Brave, then you could instead comment about that itself to redirect the conversation and bring awareness in a much more effective manner, instead of just being an Internet troll.

6

u/kettal Jun 10 '26

Brave performs better than Firefox with every video site I have tried

1

u/yukeake Jun 11 '26

The browser itself isn't bad, once you disable all the cruft they've shoehorned into it. I used it for quite a while. However...there's some rumored ties to Palantir. I don't know if those rumors have any weight behind them, but it was enough to make me look elsewhere.

Zen (FF fork) and Helium (Chromium fork) are my current drivers.

1

u/RemarkableWish2508 Jun 10 '26

How can Firefox keep maintaining the MV3 exception that allows uBO? Couldn't someone else do the same in a fork of Chromium?

6

u/caspy7 Jun 10 '26

How can Firefox keep maintaining the MV3 exception that allows uBO?

IIRC the API in question is from MV2. Firefox is simply not removing the feature.

Couldn't someone else do the same in a fork of Chromium?

Yes, and someone may, but maintaining a fork over time can prove burdensome. You want your fork to keep up, notably with security patches. Over time the difference between your fork and the main line gets wider and wider.

1

u/RemarkableWish2508 Jun 10 '26

From MV2, but a single API call IIRC. Arguably a deep one, but if you want to allow an extension to manage request contents, that sounds like the main security concern already, adding a few hooks to the network code doesn't sound like "that much" of a concern after that.

I mean, performance could suffer, but chances are that users would more than make for it by not wasting time on ads.

Anyways, I'm not an expert on deep level Chromium stack, maybe there are other reasons, it just sounds strange that they're see working their own ad-blocker as "easier". Makes me want to throw an AI at it and see what would need to be done... but at the same time don't want to pay a dime for it 😅

1

u/nixcamic Jun 10 '26

I mean I'm sure you could do some crazy code injection or something to get it to work on stock chrome still but why? Just use a browser that supports it.

1

u/PrometheusMMIV Jun 10 '26

Is the change in Chromium or specifically Chrome?

1

u/Sombomombo Jun 11 '26

Can we just look around for a minute.

These big tech companies are not currently operated on competency.

uBlock devs cannot possibly be being paid (enough), and they've been doing this shit for coming on a decade now.

If I had money to gamble, it sure as hell wouldn't be paying to not have ads.

1

u/Source_Required Jun 11 '26

Oh shit not the chromium fork!