Provide a list of sites where Defender is known to solve something

[gorhill]

A lot of myths circulate about what Defender does, and a majority of users wouldn't be able to exactly point out on which exact sites Defender is actually confirmed to be solving something. I am not able and I am not sure filter list maintainers are also able.

Despite this, the placebo effect causes countless users to believe Defender is absolutely necessary and for those who have it installed, they will swear that all the anti-blocker mechanisms are dealt with by Defender, while only technical investigation could confirm it's the case, and in majority of cases it's just the main content blocker doing the work because the filter lists maintainer constantly fixes such issues in uBO filters.

With uBO-Extra, I took care to maintain a list of sites for which the extension was confirmed to solve an issue not solvable by the use of uBO. This way, people who were not visitors of these sites did not have to install the extension.

In addition, if feasible, even better would be an improvement over the original Defender to provide a feedback on the extension icon that it actually acted to solve an anti-blocker issue on a visited site, so this should reduce the never ending erroneous attributions that Defender solved anti-blocker mechanisms when it was merely the main content blocker doing so.

[Yuki2718]

I want to emphasize the list should not include test/demo pages. I know such a demo page Defender works but it's simply out-of-scope for uBlock filters. Nevertheless, too many people are making fuss that uBO doesn't 'bypass' anti-adb in the demo page, which pushed me to add specific filters to my list.

[LiCybora]

I commit the list. Currently there are 1046 (sub)domains/partial domains. But I know some of them are not working or already be fixed in uBO, just it will take long time for me to test them and removed.

I know there are quite a lot of problem of current Nano Defender as it is quite a long time since former upstream update it. I will fix them when rebranded product release.

@Yuki2718 This is because former upstream have different filter policy than uAssets. As now is independent, this can be changed in future.

In addition, if feasible, even better would be an improvement over the original Defender to provide a feedback on the extension icon that it actually acted to solve an anti-blocker issue on a visited site

Do you mean like: extension is grey-out unless the affected site is visiting (or something similar effect), such that users can tell which extension handle anti-adblock issues?

[mapx-]

a very fast check (7 min)

no issues

oxfordmail.co.uk
nosteam.ro
dplay.com
prestwichandwhitefieldguide.co.uk

dead domains / pages

dashcatch.xyz
myp2p.ws
nulledvar.com
globeslot.com
catchcoin.pw

[ghajini]

@gorhill

1. nanodefender believed to work https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoFilters/issues/370 /
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/5890

& @LiCybora will tell other sites on which it work

2. @jspenguin2017 was about to work https://github.com/NanoMeow/QuickReports/issues/3271

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7897

if you fix such issues ,users will not require any special addon or anything.... all these issues are not fixable with current ubo filters

[gorhill]

@ghajini In that case it would be fair to state that the extension helps defusing anti-blocker mechanisms on AdFly-related sites without having to enumerate all of them.

[krystian3w]

https://github.com/LiCybora/NanoDefenderFirefox/blob/master/domainList.txt

PS. for my checking 50-66 cosmetic filters need 2 hours to test "is still needed/hide something?". So 1046 domains is for my is out of scope to any human test.

[krystian3w]

In addition, if feasible, even better would be an improvement over the original Defender to provide a feedback on the extension icon that it actually acted to solve an anti-blocker issue on a visited site

Do you mean like: extension is grey-out unless the affected site is visiting (or something similar effect), such that users can tell which extension handle anti-adblock issues?

JS spagetti 🍝 can generate false change color icon form grayish to clororized:

https://github.com/LiCybora/NanoDefenderFirefox/blob/b7a6ffc61e1d6f6437f62450d2388843b33384a0/src/content/core.js#L1424-L1458

origin source

https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/blob/d91aff945233dfe35c2257495296e2c549941161/src/content/core.js#L1423-L1456 ```js a.generic.app_vars = () => { a.inject(() => { try { let _app_vars; window.Object.defineProperty(window, "app_vars", { configurable: true, set(val) { _app_vars = val; try { window.Object.defineProperty(_app_vars, "disable_adblock", { configurable: true, set() { }, get() { return "0"; }, }); window.Object.defineProperty(_app_vars, "force_disable_adblock", { configurable: true, set() { }, get() { return "0"; }, }); } catch (err) { } }, get() { return _app_vars; }, }); } catch (err) { window.console.error("[Nano] Failed :: app_vars Defuser"); } }); }; ```

Nano Defender used JS spagetti 🍝 to fight with:

##+js(set, app_vars.force_disable_adblock, undefined)

or

##+js(aopr, app_vars.force_disable_adblock)

and uBO wait for report these anti-adblock one by one. To the detriment of the uBO it is that these domains appear quickly, maybe also disappear quickly.