Add Malware and Site Blocker to Vivaldi
-
Anti-malware blocklists donโt work in Vivaldi because Vivaldi always allows first-party domains. Upvote here if you want to change that!
While Vivaldi implements malware blocking by default from Google, it would be good to have another option, as well as an alternative option if Google changes their Safe Browsing privacy policy. Users could choose if they want to use Google or not when they start the browser the first time. The malware blocker would be similar to the tracker blocker, but it would block the site and warn of malware when visiting the site itself. Much of the code from the tracker blocker could be reused, it just needs to be implemented slightly differently. Here are some malware lists that could be used:
https://github.com/mkb2091/blockconvert/blob/master/filterlists.csv
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/badware.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/resource-abuse.txtTo be clear, the malware blocking does not have to be as good as Google's, it just needs to be an alternative option to Google's. Also, if both Vivaldi and google malware blocking is on, and Vivaldi Malware Blocker blocks something, the request should not also be sent to Google.
-
@code3 , good list, although I recommend using only the last three, if not, many web pages break and even some search engines do not work (Qwant, Startpage, DuckDuckGo and others are blocked).
The first 2 are too harsh filters. -
@Catweazle Okay. I didn't look into them that much, obviously Vivaldi will have to look into what filterlists it provides. I think having the option to do a strict blocker that doesn't let you access certain pages is the first step, as users can add their own lists. (Side note: it could be used to block certain distracting sites in addition to malware sites). I am using the first one - blockconvert - in Vivaldi's tracker blocker and nothing is breaking, not even google, though that is probably because the tracker blocker is designed not to break sites while a strict blocker/malware blocker would.
Note that blockconvert has a whitelist, maybe it would not break so many pages if you add the whitelist.
There are lots of other lists that could be added, and users who turn off Google Protection could also add a malware-blocking DNS.Here are other lists:
https://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php
https://blocklistproject.github.io/Lists/Vivaldi should also try to find lists that contain specific URLs of sites, because a DNS can only block at the domain level.
-
I have another idea for how Safe Browsing that does not send much data to Google could be implemented:
- The device downloads the safe browsing hashes from Google like it normally does. It could also download hashes from Norton and other services.
- If a hash matches, Google is queried to get more detailed hashes.
- If a hash still matches, instead of sending more data to Google to check further, it could consult a local directory of suspicious IP addresses and domains. It also checks if the domain is a file hosting service like Dropbox.
- If the domain is suspicious or is known to host user-generated files, the user is warned about possible malware/phishing. Otherwise, the user goes through without a warning.
-
I already use the extended list in the Vivaldi blocker, apart from using AdGuard on the Desktop. DNScrypt and Quad9 DNS. With this I think there is enough protection, without crushing half of the pages I visit.
You can also use the CyDec extension, but this is just as severe and leaves you without half the network. You have to protect yourself, of course, but you also have to find the middle of what is necessary and the silver foil hat. -
@Catweazle said in Malware Blocker in Vivaldi:
I already use the extended list in the Vivaldi blocker,
Do you mean blockconvert? I thought you said it was too strict.
And this feature request is more about incorporating more protections that don't send to much data to Google into Vivaldi by default. If Vivaldi could have an option to switch to Quad9 within the browser, that would be good to. I know that is normally done at a system level but maybe Vivaldi could modify system settings?
-
@code3 , I do not see it as necessary, if it is established in the system. It is possible to do this with EDGE, since it is part of the system itself and can directly influence the configuration of Windows, which is somewhat complicated with any other browser.
Unfortunately it is not possible to completely do without Google today, if you do not want to lose access to many web pages, which require certain APIs to function, the question is not this, but the data that we can leave to Google, without compromising our privacy. -
@Catweazle Yes - but doesn't a Google Malware blocker compromise privacy?
-
@code3 , naturally, this is why I don't use it, on the one hand, the Windows Defender itself is enough, which is already quite efficient and what the Vivaldi adblockers, AdGuard and my common sense offer.
(I also have Windows telemetry disabled) https://wpd.app -
@Catweazle I'm on linux but I will be careful with malware. Do the Adblockers in Vivaldi help with malware? I believe the adblocker is designed to not block a site, so if facebook is on a blocklist it will block facebook from third-party sites but not stop you from visiting facebook. That means, if I have malware.wicar.org on a blocklist, it will block it from storing cookies and loading scripts on other sites but I can still visit the site. This feature request is for:
- A strict blocker that will block a site from making requests AND/OR
- An "estimator" implementation of Google Malware blocking, where Vivaldi only ever sends partial hashes to Google and never sends the entire URL to Google, but rather checks it's own domain list to see if that site could contain malware.
@Catweazle said in Add Malware and Site Blocker to Vivaldi:
this is why I don't use it, on the one hand, the Windows Defender itself is enough, which is already quite efficient and what the Vivaldi adblockers, AdGuard and my common sense offer.
The goal would be to be able to give users some protection without Google and without having to set anything up. The start-up screen could ask users: do you want to use Vivaldi's malware blocking or Google Safe Browsing. Alternatively, to keep the start-up options small, the user could be asked the first time they visit a site that matches a hash on the local safe browsing list.
-
@code3 , some other setup is always necessary, everyone has their own particular preferences in this regard.
And yes, uBO or its filters, already by default protect against malicious sites, blocking access, adding Adguard filters from the system protects enough in my opinion.
In Linux naturally it is a somewhat bigger problem, they have rested too long on their laurels and for this reason there are only few alternatives regarding AV.
There is no AdGuard for Linux, but luckily there are alternatives that are.
https://alternativeto.net/software/adguard/?license=opensource&platform=linuxPiHole is the best alternative, but you need to dedicate a own server, an old PC maybe enough.
A good thing about Windows is the huge number of applications it has, much more than in Linux, even OpenSource apps. Being the most used OS, it also makes it the main client for developers.
-
@Catweazle You said uBO protects against malware and malicious sites, but would Vivaldi Adblocker do the same? My understanding is that it is less strict, if you visit a site on the blocklist it will still let you visit the site.
-
Also: I am running GalliumOS on an old chromebook, so ClamAV or something is not an option (I tried and the computer kept freezing)
-
@code3 , not if you ad the filterlist of uBO in the Vivaldi ad/tracking blocker. The good thing about the Vivaldi blocker is that you can add the filter lists you want, there I also tried the ones that you proposed and then I had to deactivate two of them because they were too strick, since they blocked even my search engines.
ClamAV is a bad Joke, but not a valid AV, apart only scan on demand, not in real time. As I say, there a very few AV in Linux.
Maybe Sophos or Commodo
Also try Panda, very lightweight
https://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers-cms3/downloads/docs/product/desktopsecure/ -
@Catweazle So, if I add the uBO list and go to a malware site, it will be blocked? Could you point me to the lists and a test site? And why are these lists not added by default? The DuckDuckGo list does not seem to block nearly as many trackers as the Peter Lowe list.
-
@code3
https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php
https://mirror.cedia.org.ec/malwaredomains/
https://www.malwaredomainlist.com/
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/filters.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/annoyances.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/unbreak.txtYou can also ad your list, without te first 2.
-
@Catweazle Thanks! I will add these. I may even have some already. Do you know a site where I could test the malware blocker? I know of malware.wicar.org, is that blocked by these lists?
-
@Catweazle Malware.wicar.org was not blocked when I added some of these lists to Vivaldi.
-
@code3 , I don't know if Vivaldi would have blocked it, but obviously AdGuard was faster to do it
Maybe for you this can work
https://hblock.molinero.dev -
@Catweazle It did not block. Vivaldi Adblocker does not block sites. It is meant to allow people to access sites that are on the blocklist. For example, if I go to facebook.com or newrelic.com or logrocket or www.google-analytics.com it will not be blocked, but those domains are not allowed ito make requests on third-party webpages. This feature request is to have a site blocker, and thus a malware blocker, natively in V, without extensions and without Google.