Chrome may soon break Ad-Blockers

[DeScruff]

Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/

 

Quote

Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including various ad blockers.

Adblock Plus will most likely not be affected, though similar third-party plugins will, for reasons we will explain. The drafted changes will also limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge.

Its probably unrelated... But anyone remember in 2013 when there were reports that Google payed Adblock Plus to not black ads?
If I recall this led many people to uBlock Origin. Speaking of which:

Quote

In a note posted Tuesday to the Chromium bug tracker, Raymond Hill, the developer behind uBlock Origin and uMatrix, said the changes contemplated by the Manifest v3 proposal will ruin his ad and content blocking extensions, and take control of content away from users.

Quote

Manifest v3 refers to the specification for browser extension manifest files, which enumerate the resources and capabilities available to browser extensions. Google's stated rationale for making the proposed changes is to improve security, privacy and performance, and supposedly to enhance user control.

Quote

But one way Google would like to achieve these goals involves replacing the webRequest API with a new one, declarativeNetRequest.

• The webRequest API allows extensions to intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be able to read network requests, not modify them.
• The declarativeNetRequest allows Chrome (rather than the extension itself) to decide how to handle network requests, thereby removing a possible source of bottlenecks and a potentially useful mechanism for changing browser behavior.
• "The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on the user's behalf," Google's API documentation explains.

The proposed changes will diminish the effectiveness of content blocking and ad blocking extensions, though they won't entirely eliminate all ad blocking. The basic filtering mechanism supported by Adblock Plus should still be available. But uBlock Origin and uMatrix offer far more extensive controls, without trying to placate publishers through ad whitelisting.

This is a key point to note: Google and other internet advertising networks apparently pay Adblock Plus to whitelist their online adverts, hence the special love for this particular plugin – and the middle finger to everyone else. Meanwhile, Google has bunged its own basic ad blocking into its browser.
 

Several other developers commenting on the proposed change expressed dismay, with some speculating that Google is using privacy as a pretext for putting the interests of its ad business over those of browser users.

Hill, who said he's waiting for a response from the Google software engineer overseeing this issue, said in an email to The Register: "I understand the point of a declarativeNetRequest API, and I am not against such API. However I don't understand why the blocking ability of the webRequest API – which has existed for over seven years – would be removed (as the design document proposes). I don't see what is to be gained from doing this."

TLDR:
This new API would let Google Chrome (And Chromium) bypass extensions that the user installed in relation to web traffic. All in the name of 'Privacy'.
This has the potential to affect many kinds of extensions. Adblockers, are certainly the most commonly sited one, but other privacy oriented extensions, or those that block everything like No-Script could be affected.
Ad-Block Plus doesn't seem to be affected due to the way it works, but Ad-Block Plus is known to let Ads through if they get payed.

EDIT: If you want to read more Here is uBlockOrigin's GitHub page about this: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338
Or you can read the bug report here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=896897&desc=2#c23
There are people there who certainly understand more then I do. This is not exactly my field.

Update! Jan 23 2019

Quote

Following a huge outcry from plugin developers and netizens, Google has reiterated that the proposed changes are not set in stone, and are subject to revision. While the internet goliath wants to rein in the level of access granted to Chrome browser extensions, it is prepared to work through the messy matter with third-party coders – who will have to rewrite parts of their software if this all goes ahead.

 

Also, we're happy to clarify that while Adblock Plus is affected by the draft changes, it will not be whacked as hard as other extensions, such as uBlock Origin, due to ABP's relatively simplistic filtering.

 

Indeed, the proposed API appears to promote ABP's simple filtering mechanism, rather than support the advanced content blocking other extensions offer. The sticking point is whether or not the proposed limit of 30,000 filter rules will be enough for the likes of Adblock Plus. ADP developers say it won't: their filter list has more than 70,000 entries.

ABP is affected, just not as hard.

My personal thoughts:
Recall that recently Microsoft announced Edge is being rebuilt with Chromium, and that makes Chrome based browsers a very large majority.
I am not quite sure I trust Google when they say they are doing something for 'Privacy'. The two don't exactly go hand in hand...
And since Google is often the provider of these ads, there certainly is a profit motive to have chrome bypass ad blockers, specially since 26% of Desktop users turn on ad blockers. There is a lot of money to be had.  And that is suuuuure tempting beautiful shiny, jolly candy like button to press. - Something tells me they would press it.

The story is fairly new, and not a lot of developers have commented on it yet, but I am sure this kind of change would affect more then just Ad-Blockers.
I do have to question how the browser determines when it should handle something, and when the extension should. I can imagine just like with Anti-Viruses there can be false positives which may cause issues with more obscure extensions, and webpages.

Maybe it's time for you guys to give Firefox another try eh.

[captain_to_fire]

Firefox on Windows and Android, Safari on Mac and iOS 

[jagdtigger]

Firefox FTW....

 

 

/ON

Its a really scummy move but i guess its to be expected that a company living from ads will break amythong that stands between them and their profit....

[circeseye]

if i cant use ublock origin in the browser then i dont use that browser........and yes firefox or waterfox ftw

[Enderman]

So if adblock will still work what would prevent ublock from changing the code a little to make it work too?

Or any other extension for that matter?

[mxk]

I used firefox up until I was 11ish, I think? Looks like its time to go back to the golden era.

[DeScruff]

Just now, Enderman said:

So if adblock will still work what would prevent ublock from changing the code a little to make it work too?

Or any other extension for that matter?

Well there is performance reasons. Ublock Origin got it's reputation for being faster then Adblock and using a lot less resources.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Sypran said:

Well there is performance reasons. Ublock Origin got it's reputation for being faster then Adblock and using a lot less resources.

Ok so what you're saying is that it will just take more resources to make it work.

Not "all adblockers are broken forever".

[DeScruff]

Just now, Enderman said:

Ok so what you're saying is that it will just take more resources to make it work.

Not "all adblockers are broken forever".

I'm not sure. I'm not exactly qualified to make that kind judgement. But from what I gather, if you want the more extensive controls that Ublock offers, in an ABP like package, your talking significantly more bloat.
 

[MoonSpot]

One fox.  Alone.  Betrayed by the country he loves.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Sypran said:

I'm not sure. I'm not exactly qualified to make that kind judgement. But from what I gather, if you want the more extensive controls that Ublock offers, in an ABP like package, your talking significantly more bloat.
 

I mean worst case scenario the ads are embedded in the page and computer vision is needed to detect it and cover it with a box.

Very resource intensive but still not impossible

[poochyena]

good. ads support websites and with ad blocker, you are just hurting them.
if you worry about dangerous ads, just use no-script and virus protections. works for me.

[DeScruff]

True but it isn't always about just the user not seeing the ad. You also have to consider blocking the code that runs with them.
If I recall the European version of USAToday (or some news site) when they removed all the tracking because of GDPR was significantly faster then it's USA counterpart, and as the article explains:

Quote

several other capabilities will no longer be available under the new API, including blocking media elements larger than a specified size, disable JavaScript execution by injecting Content-Security-Policy directives, and removing the outgoing Cookie headers.

(It also suck for people using some kinda plugin to block large images if your on a metered data connection.)

 

Just now, poochyena said:

good. ads support websites and with ad blocker, you are just hurting them.
if you worry about dangerous ads, just use no-script and virus protections. works for me.

No Script may be one of the things affected read above.

 

[Razor Blade]

7 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

One fox.  Alone.  Betrayed by the country he loves.

I've already embraced the Fox... just need to fully embrace the penguin now...

[williamcll]

35 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Ublock Origin with nano defender for  Firefox on Windows and Android, Safari on Mac and iOS 

FTFY

[Chett_Manly]

 

Google ad division unhappy about sales numbers.

Google Chrome division puts in a built in adblocker that whitelisted their ads. 

Then they broke Google websites in Edge to the point Microsoft adopted Chromium.

Then they break 3rd party adblockers.

Then they break Google websites in Firefox until its no longer a good experience for the average user.

Then average user is on Chrome with no adblocker but built in that whitelists their ads (not their competitors!).

Then Google Ad Division gets a 15% profit spike.

[Neftex]

so google makes their own builtin adblocker, then breaks all other adblockers -> if you want to serve ads to chrome users you have to use google ad services

 

i saw this coming when they released their adblock

[Salv8 (sam)]

i'm running an older version, lets hope enough devs see this and stop it cause i like chrome, i don't like Firefox

[Subway]

Well, I guess it is time for me to hop on Firefox

 

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

 

Google ad division unhappy about sales numbers.

Google Chrome division puts in a built in adblocker that whitelisted their ads. 

Then they broke Google websites in Edge to the point Microsoft adopted Chromium.

Then they break 3rd party adblockers.

Then they break Google websites in Firefox until its no longer a good experience for the average user.

Then average user is on Chrome with no adblocker but built in that whitelists their ads (not their competitors!).

Then Google Ad Division gets a 15% profit spike.

This is about it, I'm so glad people were pleased that MS were forced to adopt the chromium path.  Because another independent option is always a bad thing right?

[Fnige]

I wished there were laws that basically blocked tampering with another product in competition

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

good. ads support websites and with ad blocker, you are just hurting them.
if you worry about dangerous ads, just use no-script and virus protections. works for me.

They hurt themselves with 5+ moving and flashing ads on a single page. Guess why adblockers are so popular. As for malvertasing i would rather stop it in its tracks than apply symptomatic treatment via an AV....

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

I wished there were laws that basically blocked tampering with another product in competition

There are, but it's hard to prove and apply with the internet being a weird new place that presents brand new challenges to old legal systems.

 

 

[ZacoAttaco]

I'd be down for an AdBlocker that by default whitelists popular and reputable websites, I don't run ads on YouTube or Twitch but for shadier websites that I don't go too often, defintely want an AdBlocker running.

[Kamina]

Then I'll just migrate.

Already gave up the google search engine for duckduckgo.