Warning: Chromium 135 has blocked uBlock Origin - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2025, 02:09:34 pm
content: Colleagues, bad news.According to multiple user reports, starting from Chromium 135, the browser no longer supports uBlock Origin. In fact, it appears to be a complete block of the extension - ads are everywhere again. This is especially frustrating, as uBlock Origin was one of the last truly effective ad blockers.If you are still using Chromium 130, I strongly recommend holding off on updates to keep uBlock Origin working.For those using apt to update Chromium, run the following command to prevent automatic updates:Code:sudo apt-mark hold chromium chromium-common chromium-sandbox chromium-l10nThis will stop Chromium from upgrading during your next apt upgrade.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2025, 03:42:32 pm
content: This is the expected result of the Manifest V2 depreciation policyhttps://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/mv2-deprecation-timelineFor now you can reenable manifest V2 support, but its being ripped out at the roots from Chromium 139 onwards. If you rely on any manifest V2 extensions that haven't or cant be ported to manifest V3, you should probably grab the CRX file for offline installation as they *will* be vanishing from the Chrome web store.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2025, 10:58:59 pm
content: Yes, that had been planned for a good while.One more reason to stick to Firefox or one of its forks.There may be forks of Chromium appearing soon just to reenable it on upcoming Chromium versions, although I don't doubt Google will make it very difficult to merge new features without this stripped support. Open-source doesn't mean that you'll escape the matrix.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2025, 11:25:06 pm
content: You can use ublock lite:https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=enor move to another browser.I don't think I would disable updates and risk all of the patched vulnerabilities.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 04:41:27 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on April 10, 2025, 11:25:06 pmMost attacks are primarily targeting the largest user base, which includes those with the latest versions of software. By disabling updates, you essentially remove yourself from the main group of targets, which are those running the most recent versions of Chromium with known vulnerabilities.While there is always a possibility that a vulnerability could be discovered in the version of the browser you are using and could be exploited, the likelihood of this happening is lower compared to the risk of encountering vulnerabilities in a newer version. This is because most attackers focus on exploiting vulnerabilities that affect the latest versions of software, aiming to maximize their reach by targeting the widest possible audience.Using an older version of the browser doesn’t necessarily mean there are significant security issues with it. If vulnerabilities are discovered, they will likely affect newer versions as well. It’s highly unlikely that someone would specifically target a vulnerability in an older version of the browser, especially one that’s used by fewer people. Attackers typically focus on the latest versions, as they provide a larger pool of potential targets.Exceptions may occur if critical vulnerabilities are discovered that gain significant media attention, but in such cases, you will likely hear about it through news outlets. Therefore, using an older version of the browser can, in some respects, be even more secure than the latest one. The key difference is that while new versions may introduce features that are necessary for modern websites to function properly, but this is unlikely to be an issue unless you're using an extremely outdated browser from two decades ago.Moreover, using the latest version of software is often riskier than using an older version, as new updates may inadvertently introduce critical vulnerabilities that the developer might not immediately notice. By regularly updating, you increase the risk of becoming a target for attacks that exploit such vulnerabilities introduced in newer versions - a situation that occurs more frequently than one might expect.

author: Gerhard_dk4xp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 07:15:58 am
content: Chrome & Co also block the downloadhelper. With Firefox, the DownloadHelperdoes currently see no videos on YT. Happened multiple times before; it wasrepaired in less than a week usually.I have the impression that Ghostery is a good blocker but had no time tomonitor its efectiveness in detail.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 08:51:21 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on April 10, 2025, 02:09:34 pmI really don't understand why you think this is bad news. Nobody forces you to use chrome.If there's a website that requires chrome, I would avoid that website.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 09:41:32 am
content: Quote from: Karel on April 11, 2025, 08:51:21 amThe issue is that the range of browsers offering fast JS performance and good GPU acceleration is actually quite limited. On platforms like Raspberry Pi OS, the main options are Chromium and Firefox. While Firefox does support GPU acceleration, in practice it tends to lag significantly when acceleration is enabled, and its JS performance is noticeably slower compared to Chromium. So, while technically there is a choice, in practical terms the alternatives are not as viable for a smooth browsing experience.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 09:52:49 am
content: I just use Firefox and its forks, notably Brave. We need to maintain diversity, otherwise we'll go back 25 years, when the Internet was controlled by one company.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 10:43:17 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on April 11, 2025, 09:41:32 amIt was like that in the past. Today not so much, except for some infamous chrome optimized sites like google maps (which I avoid, I use openstreetmaps).Anyway, it's your choice: Firefox or ads.I believe it's a good thing, this way more people will start to use Firefox.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 11:27:15 am
content: Quote from: Gerhard_dk4xp on April 11, 2025, 07:15:58 amI guess, you could give it try. I stopped using Ghostery when it went too commercial (Burda publishing was involved, seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery). Looks like, they've reverted back to the open source way.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 11:29:43 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 11, 2025, 09:52:49 amBrave is Chromium based.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 11:30:16 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 11, 2025, 09:52:49 amBrave not being in any way related to Firefox, and simply moving the ad supply and revenue collection into the browser itself, along with many shady tactics over the years..

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 12:18:32 pm
content: Quote from: madires on April 11, 2025, 11:29:43 amOh, I didn't know that. Anyway, it blocks YoutTube adverts, whilst the YouTube adblock on Firefox gets detected, so I'll keep using it for now, alongside Firefox.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 12:35:25 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on April 11, 2025, 10:43:17 amActually, that’s not quite the case. Chromium still shows a very impressive performance lead over Firefox - we're talking about 2x to 7x faster depending on the workload. For example, when running certain WebGL games in Firefox, I experience significant lag and stuttering, while in Chromium everything runs smoothly and fluidly. The same applies to video playback and other demanding tasks.Just to illustrate, here’s a comparison I ran using theOctane benchmarkbetween the latest Firefox and almost latest Chromium version. As you can see, Chromium consistently outperforms Firefox across most tests:Code:Firefox Chromium diffv137.0 v130.0Richards (Core language features): 4208 9359 2.224Deltablue (Core language features): 3613 24325 6.733Crypto (Bit & Math operations): 7040 16753 2.380Raytrace (Core language features): 7708 17707 2.297EarleyBoyer (Memory & GC): 8648 13228 1.530Regexp (Strings & arrays): 1988 1951 0.981Splay (Memory & GC): 3724 7945 2.134SplayLatency (GC latency): 9753 13977 1.433NavierStokes (Strings & arrays): 10240 15847 1.548pdf.js (Strings & arrays): 9410 7656 0.814Mandreel (Virtual machine): 6197 11189 1.806MandreelLatency (Compiler latency): 25178 9478 0.376GB Emulator (Virtual machine): 21927 14922 0.681CodeLoad (Loading & Parsing): 7874 9515 1.208Box2DWeb (Bit & Math operations): 6342 10190 1.607zlib (asm.js): 26577 28898 1.087Typescript (Virtual machine & GC): 14278 19446 1.362

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 12:45:43 pm
content: Here's what Brave says about Manifest v3:https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/TL;DR:- Brave Shields is built in- keeps supporting AdGuard AdBlocker, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 12:59:24 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on April 11, 2025, 12:35:25 pmFromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation:QuoteThey have no incentive to improve things.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 01:14:40 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 11, 2025, 12:18:32 pmuBlock Origin on Firefox has no problem at all with handling YouTube.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 01:17:51 pm
content: The monopoolistic nature of what Chromium has become is a serious issue. The fact it's open-source doesn't change anything: see, it's still Google making the calls on what Chromium will or will not support and everyone is "forced" to follow because the market focuses on being compatible with Chrome. So, that's indeed a true monopoly. Insane situation.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 02:57:25 pm
content: Let's hope that google will be broken up. At least force google to let go chrome.https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-search-chrome-doj.html(And microsoft should be broken up into an application part and and operating system part...)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 04:21:33 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on April 11, 2025, 01:14:40 pmAll I know is when I use the YouTube adblocker on Firefox, I get ablock is against the YT Terms of Service error message, yet I can use Brave, as is, without it being detected. I don't care about technicalities. I just use what works.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2025, 09:41:19 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on April 11, 2025, 04:41:27 amNo thats not how these things work, you couldn't be more incorrect.That is like saying you should use Windows XP online because no one will target an older OS. When the reality is you are the first thing to be targeted, since the vulnerabilities are well known and widely exploited already.There are already serious known vulnerabilities for chrome 130. Browsing with an older version only increases your chances of being targeted.Targeting the latest chrome version is clearly much more difficult, as those bugs have been patched, and any vulnerabilities that are known are kept secret and not used to target average users.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2025, 09:48:57 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on April 11, 2025, 09:41:19 pmI understand your point, but I think there’s a key distinction here. While it’s true that older versions of software may have well-known vulnerabilities, the situation with updates is not always as straightforward as it seems.For example, just recently, there was a vulnerability in OpenSSH that allowed attackers to inject a backdoor into systems through the most recent updates. This issue affected users who installed the latest updates, while those who stuck with older versions of the software remained protected. In this case, the very updates meant to patch vulnerabilities ended up introducing a severe security issue, demonstrating that keeping up with updates doesn’t always guarantee increased security.Similarly, with Chromium, while newer versions do patch known vulnerabilities, they also introduce new code, which can sometimes unintentionally open new attack vectors. In some cases, vulnerabilities discovered in the latest version of a browser or any software can be used against its users faster, simply because they have the widest user base.It’s important to understand that the main efforts of attackers are typically focused on the most recent updated versions, as these are the ones with the largest user base and the newest vulnerabilities. Therefore, updating to the very latest version can actually be more risky than sticking with a stable older version that has no known critical vulnerabilities. In many cases, older versions are less likely to be targeted, as they are not the focus of the majority of attacks.While there are certainly security benefits to using the latest software version, it’s important to consider the overall context. In many cases, staying on an older, stable version - particularly one that is not known to have critical vulnerabilities - can reduce the immediate risks of encountering new, untested vulnerabilities introduced by the latest updates.Quote from: thm_w on April 11, 2025, 09:41:19 pmWhile it's true that the latest version of Chrome is regularly patched, it's important to note that most attacks are still targeted at the most recent versions. This is because the vast majority of users run the latest versions, so attackers focus on exploiting vulnerabilities in these to achieve the highest return on investment. Attacking older versions of Chromium is generally not cost-effective for professional attackers, as these versions have a smaller user base, making it less likely that the effort spent finding vulnerabilities will yield significant results.You should also recognize that by consistentlyinstalling the very latest updates, you expose yourself to the risk of becoming a live test subject for attackers, who actively trial their newest exploits on freshly updated systems to validate and refine their methods. Meanwhile, users of older but stable versions without known critical vulnerabilities remain safer, as they avoid this additional exposure and can observe which vulnerabilities emerge in newer versions before deciding whether it’s worth updating or waiting.You can think of this similarly to medication trials: you might choose to take the newest drugs, expecting them to be the most effective, but in doing so, you also accept the additional risks inherent to newly released treatments - including potential severe side effects like cancer, which might only become known later. The same principle applies to software:by installing the very latest version, you voluntarily expose yourself to unknown risks, effectively becoming a test subject for potential new vulnerabilities.It’s important to separate the hype and marketing push for the newest software versions from actual security safety, which is best ensured through a conservative and cautious approach. A good historical example is the case of the "Radium Girls" - factory workers in the early 20th century who were told that radium was completely safe, even beneficial. Enthusiasm for this "cutting-edge" material led to severe health consequences that were only recognized much later. Similarly, blindly trusting in the latest software versions, without giving time for real-world vulnerabilities to surface, exposes you to risks that may not yet be publicly known or understood.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2025, 10:30:59 am
content: The bad guys have attack frameworks to automatically attack software. If there are known vulnerabilities for a specific software they are all in the framework. Being attacked by such frameworka is common place. The probability of being attacked via a vulnerability of a newly added feature in a program is lower. In case of a long term support version, like Firefox ESR, you might have a compromise between known vulnerabilities fixed and no new features (or only new ones already vetted). Anyway, you are again overemphasizing one specific risk while ignoring the big picture (we had this happen in multiple threads already).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2025, 11:08:20 am
content: Quote from: madires on April 12, 2025, 10:30:59 amI believe there is a misunderstanding - I'm not overemphasizing one specific risk while ignoring the big picture. On the contrary, I try to look at the situation realistically, acknowledging both types of risks. In fact, the statement "Browsing with an older version only increases your chances of being targeted." is a clear example of overemphasizing one specific risk while overlooking the others. My intention was to explain that while risks from known vulnerabilities in older versions are understood, many underestimate the risks introduced by using the newest versions of software. Perhaps my focus on this aspect gave the impression of bias, but it was to balance the discussion, assuming the risks of outdated versions were already well understood.If we continue the analogy with medications, warning about the risks of new, insufficiently tested drugs might seem to some like overemphasizing one specific risk while ignoring the potential benefits of new treatments. But this is not the case. It is clear that new medications can bring new possibilities, but it would be a mistake to assume that old established, time-tested drugs are always worse. On the contrary, well-proven treatments are often significantly more effective and safer than newly introduced ones, because they have already been thoroughly tested over time, and even if issues arise, there are established ways to handle them. With new drugs, you face not only new risks but also unknown problems for which no solutions yet exist - these will only be discovered through trials on guinea pigs. And it is no secret that people who constantly update their software just because an update is available effectively volunteer to become those very guinea pigs.PS: I’m not saying that being an early tester - effectively, a guinea pig - is inherently a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s beneficial when you consciously choose to invest your time to help test and improve software. However, this approach makes sense only if you fully understand and accept the associated risks. Otherwise, it becomes a reckless decision that can expose you to unexpected issues that you may not yet foresee.If you still believe that I’m mistaken and that new updates are always safer than older software, I suggest you recall the widely publicized incident involving the Petya/NotPetya ransomware, which spread through software updates of accounting software not long ago. As you remember, those who did not use regular updates were not affected by this ransomware, while the majority of users who kept their systems up-to-date faced widespread infections and suffered significant problems and losses due to the destruction of accounting data and disruption of business processes.You’ve likely noticed the catastrophic scale of the damage caused by this ransomware, which was primarily due to the malicious code being spread through the update mechanism in the latest versions. With older, well-established software, such a disaster would have been impossible - at worst, the issues would have affected only a limited number of users.This is the very risk you take when you rely on constant software updates.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2025, 02:19:33 pm
content: Do your due diligence and perform a risk assessment. Does the update fix security issues? Does it come with new features? Do the new features add new risk? Is the update process done securely? Or is it easy to plant a malicious update? ...Do you have any idea how many systems connected to the internet run outdated software with known vulnerbilities? They are attacked around the clock from all around the globe. An event like Petya/NotPetya is just a drop in the bucket.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2025, 06:15:29 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on April 11, 2025, 12:18:32 pmGood rule of thumb:everybrowser except actual Firefox is just fork or rebranding of Chrome/Chromium. We basically have browser duopoly now, and forks of Firefox seem much rarer than forks of Chromium, maybe because people who want Firefox just use Firefox.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2025, 10:32:18 am
content: Even Microsoft gave in, i.e. Edge is also based on Chromium.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2025, 12:49:26 pm
content: Apple Safari is not. Just switch to Apple.