AdGuard 5.8 beta version release

avatar

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Dear beta-testers!

We have just released new beta-version -- Adguard 5.8.

Change log is not big. Bug fixes mostly.

We need this release for two things:
1. Adguard 5.8 is prepared to be pushed to Windows Marketplace (as a desktop app of course).
2. Testing improved injection algorithm. We are on the way of adding userscripts feature.

Release notes:
Adguard 5.7 provides the following new features:

+ A more perfect way for filtration with a new network driver

Adguard now uses a network driver instead of an old filtering module.
This helped us greatly with fixing all existing compatibility issues with other software products.
In addition, it accelerates filtration and allows Adguard to filter secure connections.

+ The following compatibility issues have been fixed in Adguard 5.7:
Internet Download Manager (video downloading issues)
DrWeb (proper filtration was dependent on the installation order)
Panda Antivirus (filtration was not possible)

+ Added support for secure connections filtration (https connections)
Now Adguard can filter secured connections if you enable it in the network settings.

+ Added first run wizard

What has been improved or fixed in version 5.7:

* Fixed "Connection error" that occurred if the Adguard windows service started too slow
* Fixed Google Chrome filtration issues
* Fixed some Adguard Assistant issues
* GUI performance and responsiveness to user actions have been improved
* Fixed icon for Pale Moon in the browsers settings
--
Regards,
Adguard team
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
2. Testing improved injection algorithm. We are on the way of adding userscripts feature.
Yesssssssssssss! :D

What's the current setup/idea for handling userscripts? Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey-like or something else?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
Believe it or not, I can't get the Google Chrome issue I mentioned in the other thread to happen with the latest beta. I've opened tons of tabs and no issues. Odd, maybe it fixed itself? :p
 

avatar

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
What's the current setup/idea for handling userscripts? Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey-like or something else?
Road map is following:

Adguard 5.8:
Testing some new ways of injecting javascript to the web pages

Adguard 5.9:
Our javascript (adguard assistant and popup blocker script) should be transformed to userscript.
We will add a hidden interface for managing userscripts (not full support yet, just for testing).

Adguard 5.10 (or 6.0 maybe?):
We will add "Plugins" module supporting userscripts installation.
 

rickyoh

Beta Tester
sweet, sweet, sweet! you guys are awesome, global userscript support via Adguard will hopefully set a benchmark. Thank you again for taking the initiative with Adguard(talking about https support)
 

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
I'm curious, what's the technical details on why there's an incompatibility with ESET v7 so I can better understand why it happens? Apologies for being curious. :p

Road map is following:

Adguard 5.8:
Testing some new ways of injecting javascript to the web pages

Adguard 5.9:
Our javascript (adguard assistant and popup blocker script) should be transformed to userscript.
We will add a hidden interface for managing userscripts (not full support yet, just for testing).

Adguard 5.10 (or 6.0 maybe?):
We will add "Plugins" module supporting userscripts installation.
Excellent! What other plugins will be possible?

Also, how are userscripts going to be supported? Straight javascript injection or some type of hybrid with Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey tags/GM_ functions support? If you're worried about IE incompatibility just say userscripts are supported in IE11 and higher (they *should* work, depending on the script(s)). Are any of the ideas in the userscripts topic being considered?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Venky

Beta Tester
Will be updating to 8.1 in the coming week.can't wait to check out the latest beta on 8.1.

Can Tor Browser be added in the default list in the next beta release?
 

avatar

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
I'm curious, what's the technical details on why there's an incompatibility with ESET v7 so I can better understand why it happens? Apologies for being curious. :p
Sometimes ESET closes connection before we send filtered data to browser. I hope we can fix it changing our dirver priority level.

Excellent! What other plugins will be possible?

Also, how are userscripts going to be supported? Straight javascript injection or some type of hybrid with Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey tags/GM_ functions support? If you're worried about IE incompatibility just say userscripts are supported in IE11 and higher (they *should* work, depending on the script(s)). Are any of the ideas in the userscripts topic being considered?
Plugin is just any userscript. I think casual user understands words "plugin" or "extension" better than "usersccript":)

We will support GM_ functions and @tags, so this won't be straight javascript injection:).
 

avatar

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Will be updating to 8.1 in the coming week.can't wait to check out the latest beta on 8.1.

Can Tor Browser be added in the default list in the next beta release?
No problem, we will add it.
 

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
Sometimes ESET closes connection before we send filtered data to browser. I hope we can fix it changing our dirver priority level.
Really? Hmmmm. That right there nearly tempts me to switch to Bitdefender completely. :p

We will support GM_ functions and @tags, so this won't be straight javascript injection:).
Yesssssssss! :D For WebKit/Blink-based browsers, some of the Tampermonkey additions might be needed for scripts to function correctly in Chrome/Maxthon/Opera/etc. (e.g. UnsafeWindow stuff). Also might be good idea to make the Plugins module updatable separate from the main program, as Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey additions/fixes could be supported pretty easily that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Venky

Beta Tester
thanks for the new Beta release, I can see that Tor is added as a default browser,but for some strange reason https is not filtered in Tor. WFP driver is disabled.
 

Accel

Beta Tester
i am a bit confused of adguard approach about the allowed ads.

yes, ABP uses it, because google paid them to allowed a certain ads, and then ABP agrees and use a certain brief principles
(ABP is free, i can correlate that they need money for future development but even then there was an uproar in ABP forum with loyal user of ABP, and that was what given birth to what we call ABP Edge now )

but adguard is a paid adblocker, why would adguard use the same approach? i think most user if not all, that uses adguard doesn't want to see ads and prioritizes speed

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/adblock-plus-whitelist-acceptable-ads-numbers/
 
Last edited:

avatar

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
thanks for the new Beta release, I can see that Tor is added as a default browser,but for some strange reason https is not filtered in Tor. WFP driver is disabled.
Need some time on research.

i am a bit confused of adguard approach about the allowed ads.

yes, ABP uses it, because google paid them to allowed a certain ads, and then ABP agrees and use a certain brief principles
(ABP is free, i can correlate that they need money for future development but even then there was an uproar in ABP forum with loyal user of ABP, and that was what given birth to what we call ABP Edge now )

but adguard is a paid adblocker, why would adguard use the same approach? i think most user if not all, that uses adguard doesn't want to see ads and prioritizes speed

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/adblock-plus-whitelist-acceptable-ads-numbers/
Unlike ABP, we do not get paid for this. So our white list is much smaller and our criteria for "useful" ads are very strict.

We do not talk about annoying or not annoying ads and making the world a better place and blah-blah-blah.
We just believe that there is a very-very small part of internet ads that could really be helpful to users.

Anyway it is your call to use or not to use this feature.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
It seems to me that the block element function of the assistant seems to be more precise in Firefox than Chrome. There's some elements I can't get the assistant to highlight (e.g. some images/banners) in Chrome, but it works fine in Firefox. I can get it to happen by going to amazon.com then try blocking the credit card signup banner on the right side, mid-way down the page (###rightcolbtf2 > TABLE:nth-child(14)) - Chrome can't highlight it to block it, Firefox can. Any reason why this is?
 

Accel

Beta Tester
It seems to me that the block element function of the assistant seems to be more precise in Firefox than Chrome. There's some elements I can't get the assistant to highlight (e.g. some images/banners) in Chrome, but it works fine in Firefox. I can get it to happen by going to amazon.com then try blocking the credit card signup banner on the right side, mid-way down the page (###rightcolbtf2 > TABLE:nth-child(14)) - Chrome can't highlight it to block it, Firefox can. Any reason why this is?
might be api used in chrome didn't have much support as in firefox.

@avatar

hoo, if that's the reason. it's okay.. it seems your whitelist is very small. I kind of browse 400-600 sites a day and still can't find any whitelisted ads on adguard.

thx for the explanation..
 
Last edited:

Boo Berry

Moderator + Beta Tester
Moderator
That's what I was thinking. If that is indeed the case, I really hope Google enhances that soon.
 
Top