From 8f20fb263162d89b6cc0c24938ad889eff0e883f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:13:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20=C2=B5Block=20and=20others:=20Blockin?= =?UTF-8?q?g=20ads,=20trackers,=20malwares=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- ...thers:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md | 21 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md b/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md index de93d01..8467d23 100644 --- a/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md +++ b/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md @@ -70,6 +70,27 @@ This shows the differences in what was **not** blocked. If something appears on These diffs may help you in deciding whether you should complement uBlock with another blocker, though keep in mind you can always ask µBlock to block more (dynamic filtering may come handy for this). +### Observations + +Using the data diffs, one can observe that there are large privacy exposure related to: + +- `facebook.com` (44) +- `facebook.net` (45) +- `googletagservices.com` (39) +- `twitter.com` (34) + +So if this concerns you (it should), I would say the best way to foil these is to use dynamic filtering. Here are the rules, which will block all these 3rd-parties, except when used as 1st-party: + + * facebook.com * block + * facebook.net * block + * googletagservices.com * block + * twitter.com * block + facebook.com facebook.com * noop + facebook.com facebook.net * noop + twitter.com twitter.com * noop + +With these few dynamic filtering rules, you would lower the _"distinct 1st-party/3rd-party pairs"_ figure for to 329, from 491. As a bonus, pages will loads markedly faster. + ### Methodology All blockers were configured in such a way as to compare apples-vs-apples: