Plan to defeat the limitations of Manifest V3 declarativeNetRequest API

So the main adblocking under Manifest V3 declarativeNetRequest is supposed to use static rulesets which can only be updated when the entire extension is updated - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest#rules
But there are also dynamic rules that can be added by JavaScript at runtime, that are cleared on updates - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest#dynamic-and-session-rules
Now, the limit on static rules is 330,000 and the limit on dynamic rules is 5,000. 5,000 isn't a huge number but it's not a small number either. If you just spam the Chrome Web Store with updates every 3 days like Adguard MV3 Experimental does, couldn't you just use the dynamic rules as the equivalent of the uBO Quick Fixes list, having JavaScript fetch said list from a server and add it on top of the static rules? The priority system would let this be used for both new filters and unbreak filters. When the extension updated, everything would be merged into static rules and the 5,000 would be cleared up for more Quick Fixes. uBO Quick Fixes which is only supposed to fill stop-gaps of 12 hours not 72 only has 240 filters in it as I speak, times 6 is still way under 5,000. gorhill won't add it to uBOL because he's a gay but hopefully AdGuard implements something like this.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Or you could just use firefox.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Very intelligent and high-effort contribution to the conversation thank you Hacker News.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can't program, I don't work in IT, I don't even build my own computer. I just come to IQfy to impress women.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based. I'm not going to frick around with sub Par blockers when I literally don't have to. If firefox bites it then I'm just going to run a pi-hole or block router side and the yt-dlp everything else. Ads are over, I'm not compromising

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm just going to run a pi-hole or block router side
        That makes Manifest V3 blockers look omnipotent. There are already several public free adblocking DNS servers for people who don't want to pihole and they don't do much.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I've never used a pi-hole so I can't say that they're functionally worthless like you're implying but I have used firefox and so long as it exists supporting mv2 there's really no concern on my end about mv3 blockers. Why bother at all, genuinely?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            pi-hole works, but it's not an 100% fix. It will clear most of those shitty ads that you get from free aps, for example.
            However, youtube serves ads from the same server it serves content, so you can't dns-block it. Some other big platforms have started doing that as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because chromium has several advantages over Firefox. I won't derail the thread to enumerate them because that's not what this thread is about so shut up about Firefox.

            Are you the anon who is working on this write-up? I'm looking forward to hearing more about this.
            https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/98505061/#98506988

            Yes that's me. Need more time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Awesome. It's rare to find any in-depth analysis on this board, so I salute your efforts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If Firefox ever goes down, Alphabet gets trust-busted on account of then having a monopoly on web browsers.

        That's why Alphabet pays Mozilla millions of dollars every year despite Mozilla enthusiastically supporting ad-blocking. Alphabet needs Mozilla to exist and be able to continue development of Firefox.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >When the extension updated, everything would be merged into static rules and the 5,000 would be cleared up for more Quick Fixes
    The purpose of adblock is to not to process JS bloat, yet you propose tasking all CPU cores with JS all the time for the purpose of disabling ads.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The main purpose of adblock is to block ads. Doing it efficiently is a secondary purpose.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        if all you cared about was hosts blocking just use a pihole. mv3 adblocking would be just as inferior.
        you're not making a grand discovery. this is literally how dynamic rules are intended to be used. its other intent is to fool morons like you with a surface level understanding of the challenges of adblocking into thinking it is saved.

        it's not. the only reason you wouldn't mind adblockers right now is because they aren't molasses slow. and it's really not hard to make javascript (or any jit compiled language) slow, see any bloated website.

        >When the extension updated, everything would be merged into static rules and the 5,000 would be cleared up for more Quick Fixes
        The purpose of adblock is to not to process JS bloat, yet you propose tasking all CPU cores with JS all the time for the purpose of disabling ads.

        the js function called is just to update the declarative list, it's only ran once per update.

        Because chromium has several advantages over Firefox. I won't derail the thread to enumerate them because that's not what this thread is about so shut up about Firefox.
        [...]
        Yes that's me. Need more time.

        source your claims, with github issues blogposts or docs. your arguments are nigh useless without them. t. guy who made a tamper vs violentmonkey comparison
        also the biggest issue with adguard is the fact that it's (optionally) paid. you can be damn sure that they're squeezing you out of every penny for every stupid feature in the future (a la ublock and abp) if ublock stops being number one.
        ubo maintainers are cancerous (imo the biggest cancer ever since xeffyr termux and wm4 mpv fricked off) but adguard is a trainwreck on the software level.

        pi-hole works, but it's not an 100% fix. It will clear most of those shitty ads that you get from free aps, for example.
        However, youtube serves ads from the same server it serves content, so you can't dns-block it. Some other big platforms have started doing that as well.

        yup, adblocking is a solved problem, anti anti adblocking is not. the only reason most sites don't have it is because many do not want to bother with the arms race. expect websites to all use the same un-adblockable software bundle come mv3.

        vivaldi and brave also not adopting full mv3 spec.

        they can't, their people are too moronic for it. one could feasibly write a component for it but that's not what they've been claiming to eventually do. what they're doing is maintaining the native blocker.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >they can't, their people are too moronic for it.
          source: dude, trust me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            source: they didn't fricking do it, they aren't planning to do it, and you lied

            >pihole. mv3 adblocking would be just as inferior
            you have no idea what you're talking about. dNR can block more than just hostnames. also, there's no new restrictions on cosmetic filters.

            >dNR can block more than just hostnames
            no shit captain obvious.
            cosmetic filters aren't the issue genius. arbitrary eval is banned by way of CWS policy and the time lang between "code review" for new updates makes the arms race a foregone conclusion. but you gorilla ape Black person morons get all your news from reddit or adguard's blog and spare no effort in critical thinking or any analytical thought whatsoever, instead in your infinite autism you tunnel vision into dnr and forget security is a game where the blue team (adblockers) must defend against any and all possible vectors of attack to not lose miserably.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            security? dude we're just here to block ads.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you are literally 70 iq
            inb4 no arguments concession accepted, IQfy is just that predictable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >pihole. mv3 adblocking would be just as inferior
          you have no idea what you're talking about. dNR can block more than just hostnames. also, there's no new restrictions on cosmetic filters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All Manifest V2 adblockers use JS for everything, and Firefox even has a JS backend for the dNR API since it's just a thin wrapper around the old netRequest API for them. v8 is really fast. And anyway you only need javascript when injecting the rules into the browser adblocking engine, so even in the bad case it's more performant than the status quo now where uBlock needs to run 24/7.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if you use JS to block malicious JS, then you are being inefficient

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are you the anon who is working on this write-up? I'm looking forward to hearing more about this.
    https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/98505061/#98506988

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Firefox doesn't have these arbitrary restrictions.
    But you should definitely keep using chr*me and trying to find workarounds that will totally not get blocked in future versions.

    >doesn't want to see ads
    >uses a browser made by a literal ad company

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      vivaldi and brave also not adopting full mv3 spec.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      vivaldi and brave also not adopting full mv3 spec.

      Would be hilarious if chrome lost a sizable amount of market share because of this. God I hope it happens. I'll do everything I can to preach to normies about blocking ads and using other browsers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Would be hilarious if chrome lost a sizable amount of market share because of this.
        Normies aren't leaving Chrome anytime soon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Would be hilarious if chrome lost a sizable amount of market share because of this.
        Normies aren't leaving Chrome anytime soon.

        They actually like ads and watch ads on purpose.
        It's really odd.

Comments are closed.