uBlock Protector Extension - Error

[THEtomaso]

When browsing itavisen.no, I get the following error message:

The uBlock Protector Extension caused that the page stopped working.
Please try to disable it and reload the page.

This despite the fact that I'm not using the 'uBlock Protector' extension.

Link:
http://itavisen.no/

Screenshot:
https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/1ef2/67dicb7v6644ccd6g.jpg

Active filters:
All of them, except for these:

• uBlock filters – Experimental
• EasyList without element hiding rules​​​​​​​​​
• Regional filters

(I'm also using some filters of my own, but disabling them didn't help)

OS:
Windows 8.1 Pro, x64

Browser:
Pale Moon v27.4.0, x64

uBlock Origin:
v1.13.8

[okiehsch]

The reason this site thinks you use the uBlock Protector Extension
are the filters

##CLOUDFLARE-APP[app-id="no-adblock"]
##.adbmodal-cloudflare-app-container

in Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List, you can disable them or add
itavisen.no##script:inject(abort-on-property-read.js, CloudflareApps.installs)
to your own filter list.

[jspenguin2017]

Their detection is broken, if you actually use my extension, you won't get that as I replaced their bootstrapper with a noop function which effectively disables NoAdBlock.
They are checking for innerHTML but I think they forgot that uBO will edit that... I guess AdBlock and ABP does similar things...
And they uses an infinite idle loop to lock up the page...

[THEtomaso]

Thanks a lot for your explainations guys.
Adding that line to my own filter list did the trick, but I might end up deleting it and install 'uBlock Protector' instead! :)

OFF TOPIC:
@ gorhill and jspenguin2017:
In light of the upcoming, rather drastic Firefox changes..
Have you considered hosting your extensions at Pale Moon's site?:
http://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/
I think this would make a lot of people very happy, since Pale Moon currently seems to be the only Mozilla-based browser with realistic prospects for the future.
Even Giorgio Maone started hosting his 'NoScript' extension at palemoon.org a few days ago!

[jspenguin2017]

Unfortunately, uBlock Protector is Chrome/Chromium only, it is in the store here.

Blowing up CloudflareApps.installs will work... I'd say most of the time. But it can cause some sites to break. I go with a generic route that interfere with a more gentle solution, which only disables NoAdBlock and not other Cloudflare apps.

[jspenguin2017]

ads.js v2 found on palemoon.org.
I don't see the future of that browser, they have anti-adblocker script on their own website.

[THEtomaso]

they have anti-adblocker script on their own website.

Yeah, I've blocked those elements myself.
..but you really shouldn't judge Pale Moon simply based on that minor annoyance.
The author has explained himself in that regard in the official forum many times, and the browser itself is probably the cleanest one that you'll ever try!
Even all of Mozilla's telemetry codes has been completely removed at this point, which Moonchild back in 2015 described as a "real mountain" of data:
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9033&p=61077#p61077

In comparison, since you're building an extension that is compatible with Google Chrome yourself, I assume that you're familiar with how incredibly invasive a browser can be!

The main reason why Pale Moon has a future, as opposed to other Mozilla-based browsers, is this:
http://www.moonchildproductions.info/goanna.shtml

[jspenguin2017]

Chrome obeys instructions from my extension as expected, I never had any problem, Firefox, on the other hand, gets in my way with its broken CSP handling (which apparently shut down the Firefox fork of uBlock Protector), I don't know how Pale Moon acts about this, but since it is a Firefox fork, it might act similarly. Firefox is way more invasive when it comes to extension development.

I want to have good search result, to save my time, so I don't mind a browser that tracks me as it works better that way. You can use Chromium if you dislike tracking.

Blink, the rendering engine of Chrome is also open source (although it's kind of hard to checkout the source...), I don't see why Pale Moon's rendering engine would be better as Blink is maintained by top engineers of the world.

[jspenguin2017]

Yeah, I've blocked those elements myself.

They may randomize it from day to day, that's how ads.js v2 works. I use a scripted solution to patch getElementById to shut it down for good.
After a quick search in their forum, they seems to be using BlockAdBlock before that, which connects to third party ads servers to test network. Which is absolutely unacceptable.

[THEtomaso]

Firefox, on the other hand, gets in my way with its broken CSP handling

Judging from PM's changelogs, a lot of work has been done in that department, distancing it from Firefox.
I don't know much myself when it comes to those kind of technicalities, but I highly recommend that you try the browser yourself.
You don't even have to install it, as there are official portable builds available as both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

--

They may randomize it from day to day

I simply blocked these elements, and I haven't seen a ad there since:
palemoon.org##.right
palemoon.org##.sidebar > div
palemoon.org###OKjbdp99tsfsf

Anyway, we seem to have gotten way off topic here! :)

[jspenguin2017]

I see that NoAdBlock updated their code and removed the detection, the cosmetic filter should be once again safe to use in a few days.

[THEtomaso]

I see that NoAdBlock updated their code and removed the detection, the cosmetic filter should be once again safe to use in a few days.

Confirmed fixed now! :)