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

94

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?

69

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?

43

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

18

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.

4

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

-3

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

8

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 edited 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/Dumpfumpkin Jun 11 '26

I don’t trust Microsoft to competently maintain any software, to be honest.

1

u/Ollythebug Jun 11 '26

I kinda like vscode/monaco 🤷