New open-source ad-blocking web browser emerges from brain of ex-Mozilla boss Eich

[Batu69]

Former Firefox head honcho takes a Brave stance

A new open-source browser that blocks ads and tracking code and so promises to "fix the Web" by offering a faster, privacy-respecting experience has been released.

 

The Brave browser is the brainchild of former Mozilla (Firefox) CEO and JavaScript inventor Brendan Eich, and version 0.7 is now available to developers on GitHub.

 

Brave is built on top of open-source browser Chromium – which Google uses as the foundation for its Chrome browser – and claims to be between 1.5 and 4 times faster than competitors by stripping out not just ads, but also all the tracking code that lives in abundance on most ad-supported websites.

 

"Up to a whopping 60 per cent of page load time is caused by the underlying ad technology that loads into various places each time you hit a page on your favorite news site," says the company, next to a graphic showing load times. "And 20 per cent of this is time spent on loading things that are trying to learn more about you."

 

The reason people are interested in Brave, however, and why it received $2.5m in funding late last year, is because it is attempting a different approach to ads.

"We are a browser-based ad-tech platform, with high precision and privacy," Eich wrote in a blog post outlining his company's vision. "Brave is the only approach to the Web that puts users first in ownership and control of their browsing data by blocking trackers by default, with no exceptions."

 

Rather than simply acting as an ad blocker, the company hopes to provide a more nuanced approach. It recognizes that many websites are reliant on advertising in order to provide their content for free, so it is planning to utilize a user's browsing history to fit them into standard advertising segments – and then provide that segment information to websites and advertisers.

 

The idea is that advertisers will still be able to reach users but they won't have the same depth of information on an individual user. Nor will Brave. The result, in theory, is greater control over privacy and none of those ads for products you recently looked at that make you feel as though you are being watched.

 

Of course, to make that approach work, Brave would act as a gatekeeper and take a cut of the ad money, which is what would fund the company. The company hasn't said how much of a cut it would ask for and of course, the entire approach requires that there be a significant number of Brave users.

 

To be viable, the company would need to become more popular than Opera (with 1.5 per cent of the browser market) and on a par with Safari (3.7 per cent). And that means between five to ten million users.

 

As for putting users in control, the browser contains a "bravery" menu that allows you to turn off its blocking features for individual websites. Its mindset is revealed in the options "Stay ad supported on this site" and "Give back to this site," although whether those options will make sense to users is another question.

 

Since it is a 0.7 version release, the browser is still being developed. It doesn't, for example, have bookmarks or a history section. Nor preferences. But those will no doubt be added in time for the full public 1.0 release. Otherwise it feels pretty much like Google's Chrome running an ad blocker plugin.

 

Brave Software

 

Article source

[steven36]

Already been done slimjet has a built in adblocker ( I keep it turned off and use uBlock Origin)  built in fast download manger etc I need another  Chromium browser  like i need  asore thumb 

 

I would except at  lest a geko based browser from Firefox's  former CEO .

[OrbingStorm]

5 hours ago, steven36 said:

Already been done slimjet has a built in adblocker ( I keep it turned off and use uBlock Origin)  built in fast download manger etc I need another  Chromium browser  like i need  asore thumb 

 

I would except at  lest a geko based browser from Firefox's  former CEO .

Why is that.Is the inbuilt adblocker not as good ?I find using host block does a good job.Even stops win 10 apps advertising.

[stylemessiah]

So, its like any browser + adblock plus with the allow unobtrusive ads turned on

 

I think ill pass and continue using my squid proxy with blacklists and as a backup uBlock Origin in the browser thanks...no ads at all

[steven36]

5 hours ago, OrbingStorm said:

Why is that.Is the inbuilt adblocker not as good ?I find using host block does a good job.Even stops win 10 apps advertising.

It uses easy list  and you can add other list ..but Ive never tired it . As far as host block uBlock Origin it has host block list too but i dont like those list they block too much .

 

Slimjet  has a  an Adblocker  were has many list already or you can add you're own and there not  trying make money by whitelisting like this cat is he should be removed from open source most likely will be because he intends  to get paid from ads

 

 

This is the reason i dont block ads in my host

 

1.While simple to implement, these methods are also very easy to circumvent. One method to circumvent this form of ad filtering is to load ads from servers with hard coded IP addresses, thus skipping name resolution altogether. Another method to evade this form of filtering is to load the advertisements from a server which also serves the main content; blocking name resolution of this server would also block the useful content of the site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking

 

2. If it breaks a website then you have to try dig trough all those rules  to try to find the one breaking it.

 

3.  they cant block popups or elements . 

 

 

 

[straycat19]

Quote

they block too much .

 

No such thing as blocking too much, most don't block enough, and adware still gets through.  Because of Malvertising, all ads should be considered dangerous.  And why use all the offshoots when the original browsers can be set to do the same thing and provide the same security.  Just ads more layers of junk on your system and more vulnerabilities because none of them is 100% safe and the lesser used ones received less of a thorough testing so no one really know what holes they are opening up on your system.  On the other hand, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they are all different.

[CODYQX4]

3 hours ago, steven36 said:

It uses easy list  and you can add other list ..but Ive never tired it . As far as host block uBlock Origin it has host block list too but i dont like those list they block too much .

 

Slimjet  has a  an Adblocker  were has many list already or you can add you're own and there not  trying make money by whitelisting like this cat is he should be removed from open source most likely will be because he intends  to get paid from ads

 

 

This is the reason i dont block ads in my host

 

1.While simple to implement, these methods are also very easy to circumvent. One method to circumvent this form of ad filtering is to load ads from servers with hard coded IP addresses, thus skipping name resolution altogether. Another method to evade this form of filtering is to load the advertisements from a server which also serves the main content; blocking name resolution of this server would also block the useful content of the site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking

 

2. If it breaks a website then you have to try dig trough all those rules  to try to find the one breaking it.

 

3.  they cant block popups or elements . 

 

 

 

You can beat the direct IP thing, but it'll make loading that site a world of pain. There's a site that loads content from IPs for video. I block just about all 3rd party connections by default.

 

It's a different IP every time. Every video has a different IP.

 

I could see a site with infinite subdomains and JS names are 100% random long strings, both good and bad, is a random generated file. Then minify+combine it into one JS file so the bad code is intermingled with the good. I've seen sites sorta do that but their site works good enough for me without any JS. The former means having to approve every file each time, on each page load. The latter means having to take their script, reverse it, purge the bad, and load it locally (you can use a Chrome extension to redirect, though the random names make this either hard or impossible to tell which one), or hope you have other countermeasures against what the bad code does.

[steven36]

7 minutes ago, CODYQX4 said:

You can beat the direct IP thing, but it'll make loading that site a world of pain. There's a site that loads content from IPs for video. I block just about all 3rd party connections by default.

 

It's a different IP every time. Every video has a different IP.

 

I could see a site with infinite subdomains and JS names are 100% random long strings, both good and bad, is a random generated file. Then minify+combine it into one JS file so the bad code is intermingled with the good. I've seen sites sorta do that but their site works good enough for me without any JS. The former means having to approve every file each time, on each page load. The latter means having to take their script, reverse it, purge the bad, and load it locally (you can use a Chrome extension to redirect, though the random names make this either hard or impossible to tell which one), or hope you have other countermeasures against what the bad code does.

 Things in Chromium browser  i dont like .

 

1. there's never no support  for downloading YouTube  videos .

2. They have crappy download manger integration Witch SlimJet has a nice  fast download manger you can  turn on .

3. There's  no way to turn pepper flash off  so you need to install there flash-block add-on .

4. CanvasFingerprintBlock  no longer works in Chromium based  browsers . In SlimJet  you can disable Canvas  altogether . 

 

I have Google Chrome  on Linux but  I never use it ..I have it because its the easy way get  to update pepper flash for Firefox on Linux .

[steven36]

54 minutes ago, straycat19 said:

No such thing as blocking too much,

Yes there is when a rule messes  up my daily routine of doing things . Ad Blocking rules have many false positives .And ad companies  if they really want too can get around host blocks.

 

Even uBlock Origin  has 73  unbreak rules were those list break certain sites .

 

At lest in uBlock Origin if a rule blocks a whole site you have the ability  to proceed  to that site at you're  own risk but with host blocks you would have to dig trough all those lines  and find the line and remove it.

 

I seen to many developers get around peoples host blocks  you're not  talking to a noob . I been a software tester for 15 years .. I even worked with Reverse Engineers from SND and  Team Truth  testing for some of those guys. I dont put no kind of rules in my Host since 2014 . If I add rules its IPs trough a firewall.

 

 

 

 

 

[CODYQX4]

2 hours ago, steven36 said:

 Things in Chromium browser  i dont like .

 

1. there's never no support  for downloading YouTube  videos .

2. They have crappy download manger integration Witch SlimJet has a nice  fast download manger you can  turn on .

3. There's  no way to turn pepper flash off  so you need to install there flash-block add-on .

4. CanvasFingerprintBlock  no longer works in Chromium based  browsers . In SlimJet  you can disable Canvas  altogether . 

 

I have Google Chrome  on Linux but  I never use it ..I have it because its the easy way get  to update pepper flash for Firefox on Linux .

 

#1 could be done with a User Script or custom made/sldeloaded extension. The real problem is they boot them off the web store. It's not for lack of support though.

#2 true, it's rather awful, which is why I just right click+Send to JDownloader. Best I can get on Mac OS X. Basically every IDM update is a damn fix for Chrome though, or support for BETA Firefox.

#3 Yes you can. chrome://plugins/. Disable and enjoy. I hate their Click 2 Play and I don't care for the addons. My workflow though is to leave it enabled but rely on uMatrix to block all plugins, allowing me to control per domain, because Chrome whitelisting whitelists a whole site (AKA whitelist a useful Speed Test, but also the bad Flash Ads).

#4 I'm not sure if they made it unfixable, but that addon is years old and obsfucated to the point it makes no sane sense to me, though sometimes I see it catch something, but yes it is broken.

[steven36]

55 minutes ago, CODYQX4 said:

Yes you can. chrome://plugins/.

iIN Firefox there's addons that i can easy toggle it on and off

55 minutes ago, CODYQX4 said:

I'm not sure if they made it unfixable,

Addon still works fine in Firefox

 

55 minutes ago, CODYQX4 said:

true, it's rather awful, which is why I just right click+Send to JDownloader

In Firefox there is FlashGot add-on that lets you send it to any download manger . Even  If IDM xpi is broke FlashGot will work for idm. Also in Linux i have SMtube  witch works to send it to uget  and i have YouTube -DL  Gui . 

 

There's one download manger for Linux ..Flareget that has chrome store support but the full version is not free. J Downloader 2 when it ever comes out of beta there is going to be a paid version too.

I just mostly use Uget with FlashGot   in Firefox  are the built in one in Slimjet  on Linux. On Windows I use IDM like I have since 2006

 

I have  5 browsers in LinuxMint..   Palemoon , Firefox ESR , Slimjet , Google Chrome  and the Tor Browser

[smallhagrid]

More chrome-based rubbish...meh.

[pc71520]

18 hours ago, smallhagrid said:

More chrome-based rubbish...meh.

My thoughts exactly.