Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Para-Noid on April 07, 2015, 07:13:04 PM
-
This might seem silly, but is there a particular whitelist I should be using?
Or are the defaults good enough?
I'm use to AdBlock Edge in Firefox and I'm trying to find a solid ad blocker in Chrome.
Please don't suggest AdBlock Plus, I am not a fan of "paid for" whitelist(s).
-
This might seem silly, but is there a particular whitelist I should be using?
Or are the defaults good enough?
I'm use to AdBlock Edge in Firefox and I'm trying to find a solid ad blocker in Chrome.
Please don't suggest AdBlock Plus, I am not a fan of "paid for" whitelist(s).
I've never added a white list. Using it out of the box without any problems on both Firefox and Chrome.
-
uBlock is a great adblocker, I liked it immediately when I found it. The default of 51.639 networkfilters ＋ 33.312 cosmetic filters works like a charm and it is lightweight and does not slow the browser much like ABP does.
Whenever you wanna do some tweaking and you are an advanced user go to the uBlock Dashboard.
I incorporated this list there and it works like I thought: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?showintro=0;hostformat=hosts
Enjoy this great adblocker not only to block ads but also as a protection against malvertisers and additional malware. Yes, a decent adblocker is a must for every user that want to stay secure online. ;)
polonus
-
Thanks!
@ polonus
Peter Lowe's list is "on" by default.
-
I honestly don't mind Adblock Plus. I know about this whole scandal with Paid Whitelists. But that and NoScript keep me relatively protected from the dangers. Plus common sense of course.
-
I do not mind ABP either, but uBlock is better and there is another reason - ABP is known to slow your browser down considerably, while uBlock isn't. The weight on the old cycles that is the thing that counts most for me, the whitelisting that can be made undone is a second matter. uBlock is also more versatile. Also works well next to uMatrix.
I have been a long time user of Palant's ABP, but now I have met uBlock I won't look back.
polonus
-
I too have no issue with ABP - I don't mind what they do in regard of whitelists, provided I'm allowed to override them.
Same thing 'Known to slow your browser down' I certainly haven't noticed this phenomenon. Many of these so called faster/slower statements (not necessarily in relation to this) you would need a stopwatch to determine any appreciable difference.
Don't get you ad blocker of choice get over laden with multiple lists.
-
Hi DavidR,
The concept is different as we learn from a thread on the ABP forums.
lewisje there says:
μBlock does not support regex filters, in case those are important (this is a major reason it's so resource-efficient), and I don't think it supports $sitekey
Greiner there says:
Actually, µBlock is more comparable to Disconnect than to Adblock Plus since µBlock's primary focus is not on adblocking (quote: "My main goal with µBlock is to help users neutralize as much as can be privacy-invading apparatus"). An important thing to consider when looking at stats is that blocking more doesn't necessarily mean blocking the right things. sitekey (only used in the Acceptable Ads initiative). (info from the ABP user forum).
LyleS says:
I prefer Ublock over Adblock Plus for one reason: A significant portion of conventional Internet advertising streams including those paying for white listing with Adblock plus are inadvertantly delivering malicious content. Ad-blocking is not just a page layout convenience, it is a necessity. There is no such thing as a trusted advertising source so long as custom content delivery is a permitted part of that service and they must not gain access to the browsers they target. Ublock is just one tool for reducing risk and it does to a greater degree than Adblock Plus.
So there is more to it than at first site - so uBlock is more privacy driven and also more focused on blocking malvertising - protection.
polonus
-
This is where there is some cross over with other add-ons with NoScript and RequestPolicy blocking third party sites there will already be a good deal of blocking on these supposed ad delivery systems.
So many of these requests to ad servers won't even get a look in, so may not even trigger AdBlockPlus. I have been considering doing some tests in this regard by disabling AdBlockPlus and see how effective NoScript and RequestPolicy would be at blocking ads.
-
Quite a history here of malvertising campaigns involving Doubleclick, read this article and updates: https://blog.malwarebytes.org/malvertising-2/2014/09/large-malvertising-campaign-under-way-involving-doubleclick-and-zedo/
link article author = JÉRÔME SEGURA.
So a good adblocker without particular Doubleclick non-intrusibe ads whitelisting is recommended to be secure.
Those with script blockers and third party request blocking are also secure - ScriptSafe/UMatrix combination in Google Chrome and NoScript, RequestPolicy in firefox, eventually Policeman extension for firefox.
polonus
-
There are also other ways to tackle particular forms of ads here a script to remove forced download accelerators, managers, and adware on supported websites, called Adware Atomizer by noname120
It can be worked sandboxed inside Google Chrome installed via an extension called Tampermonkey (to run particular user scripts inside Google Chrome). When you have Tampermonkey installed install the script from here: https://greasyfork.org/nl/scripts/4294-antiadware
Similar specific user scripts: to Fight Naughty Ads, Go Fight For Your Right! AdsFight! by daYOda (THRSH), download here: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/89322
And very interisting AdsSkipper: http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/118033
or use: https://adsbypasser.github.io/releases/adsbypasserlite.user.js
Scripts are very light and play a particular role to assist in your ad-blocking. ;D
Only allow user scripts to run inside the Tampermonkey Greasemonkey sandbox that you trust,
there is something for everyone and every taste, also as I like it security related user scripts,
for instance to check on the jQuery versions websites run, etc. etc.
polonus
-
I guess I shall switch over to uBlock.
-
This might convince you:
With AdBlock Plus memory usage was 175,932KB and fell to 99,900KB.
With uBlock memory usage was 59,516KB and fell to 35,704KB.
I was quite stunned. They have exactly the same success rate in blocking ads. Needless to say, I've switched ad blockers.
Quote from AMReynolds on Lifehacker....a website with 15 trackers, the list of trackers I would not expect Lifehacker would have:
Amazon Associates
Reclame, Affiliate Marketing
ChartBeat
Analytics
Criteo
Reclame, Search
DoubleClick Spotlight
Bakens, Tag Manager, Analytics
Facebook Connect
Widgets, Social
Facebook Social Plugins
Widgets, Social
Google Adsense
Reclame
Google Analytics
Analytics, Analytics
Krux Digital
Bakens
NetRatings SiteCensus
Analytics
Quantcast
Reclame
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Bakens, Analytics
SimpleReach
Bakens
SkimLinks
Reclame, Affiliate Marketing, In-Text Ads
Twitter Button
Widgets, Social
Anyway, uBlock is cute and effective...
Damian
-
(For Pol):
As I've been following this topic, I was just curious if you happened to know the memory usage stats for Adblock Edge (ABE), compared to the others you mentioned?
Much obliged for any info! :)
Pete
-
Hi Pete,
About half the size of ABP, yes ABP is a sort of memory hog,
also consider the additional lists you have installed naturally...
a quite good alternative on firefox to ABP as uBlock is on Chrome.
uBlock has been ported for firefox add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/ublock/
Damian
-
Thanks very much for that info and the link, Pol!
I'd switched from ADP to ABE a short time ago. (I did so based on some info in another topic here along similar lines of what this one is discussing).
Cheers!
Pete
-
Thanks very much for that info and the link, Pol!
I'd switched from ADP to ABE a short time ago. (I did so based on some info in another topic here along similar lines of what this one is discussing).
Cheers!
Pete
Please not the following from their ad-ons site:
**This addon will be discontinued on June 2015
Reason: Discontinued in favor of Ublock, a general purpose blocker, that not only outperforms Adblock Edge but is also available on other browsers and, of course, without "Acceptable Ads Whitelist".***
-
Yep, bob3160, good advice. Since we started to comment on uBlock I had quite some users here switch over to this great adblocker, the more conservative users amongst us will follow later ;), as we all know "the unicorn is rather shy".
Damian
-
Thanks very much for the additional info, Bob and Pol!
I wasn't aware that ABE was going to be discontinued in June. For the time being anyway, I re-installed ABP. From what I've read at Mozilla's site, ublock, (at this time) has only been reviewed "preliminarily" by them, & it indicates ublock is still in beta.
Being my tech abilities/understanding of applications like ublock doesn't come anywhere close to either of yours, I'll just be one of those conservative "unicorns" you referred to Pol, and stay with ADP for the time being. (And continue monitoring the comments here and at Mozilla about ublock's development).
Best regards!
Pete
-
Hi kls490.
All out on this list are being blocked by uBlock filters or the odd one out via uMatrix: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
When I want a good adblocker I like to put it to the test. Like to see a continuous "ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT" there to know I am safe or rather my browser is.!
Example wXw.scambiobanner.tv blocked by μMatrix
and with a reason: https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/scambiobanner.tv?utm_source=addon&utm_content=popup
and here: uBlock₀ preventied the follwing page from loading:
htxp://digitalmediaonline.us.intellitxt.com/
Because of the following filter
||intellitxt.com^
Close window Why it better stays blocked ->: https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/digitalmediaonline.us.intellitxt.com
By te way, I have this blocked as well inside the Chrome browser, re:
http://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MX3BNW - ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT
but not this one: https://www.google.com/tagmanager/ what can be blocked there is (https://fonts.googleapis.com) with css 3
(as it isn't a public site)
pol
-
Much obliged for the continuing follow-up info, Pol!
It'll just take me a while before "taking the plunge", so-to-speak. (Tend to be more reserved/cautious about a lot of things than I was in my younger days). :-\
Pete
-
Much obliged for the continuing follow-up info, Pol!
It'll just take me a while before "taking the plunge", so-to-speak. (Tend to be more reserved/cautious about a lot of things than I was in my younger days). :-\
Pete
I've gotten more adventuresome the older I get. I figure that time is getting shorter and,
if I procrastinate at this stage of my life, I might miss something. :)
-
I am a bit like bob3160 in this way, and like he does I want to make a contemplated decision and when the reviews are right and I have put it to the test, having ABP next to uBlockat first to compare their actions/activity on various webpages it took me a while to tip-toe before I said: "Yes I am convinced, go for it". Also tested this extension with Google Chrome's Extension Defender and it came up fine and all green. uBlock even has Anti Adblock Killer | Reek aboard: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer , so "they" whoever they are cannot touch your uBlock. With uBlock you can update added filters and also empty al caches.
Those that hung onto ABP the filter to add is here: http://jsbin.com/AhewOcox
polonus
-
I'm using uBlock too since ABP start to "allow" ads from some companies.
-
I'm using uBlock too since ABP start to "allow" ads from some companies.
There is absolutely nothing to stop you overriding these and blocking them. You can go into the Custom Filters, Exception rules and remove what you don't want.
-
Hi DavidR,
That is not the point for me. For me it is a also question of ethical principle, just in that respect I think uBlock is just somewhat more friendly in my personal view (I am an adept of the late f.ravia), and again why should I support ABP with my clicks when uBlock does an equal job and is lighter on the OS and even more versatile. For me adware could mean additional malvertising and so also malware, that is why everybody needs a decent adblocker and uBlock suits me fine.
Banning ABP from Google's play store meant a point of no return for me. Why Tint Browser Adblock addon is allowed?
Google is willing to censor software and abandon its support for open platforms as soon as there's an ad-related business reason for doing so. :(
polonus
-
I ditched ABP and am now using uBlock on Firefox.
-
There is absolutely nothing to stop you overriding these and blocking them.
Why would I worry if I have a better solution? An antiad app that allows ads? Not for me...
-
Hi Lisandro,
As I said, it will take some time before those that hesitate now will get convinced, just wait until they will come around and switch.
Why with ABP you have to look under the hood to override the Google driven ads or what they term as unobtrusive ads,
while you can run uBlock as by default and go on with your browsing without seeing what you do not want to see or what may hurt you in the form of malvertisements or hijack your browser even. :)
Damian
-
Since it was installed, uBlock blocked 9% of the requests sent to it... Ads are everywhere.
-
But not malicious ads.
edit: type
-
It should block malware domains...
https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=129271.msg1203985#msg1203985
-
Greetings again everyone, (especially Bob & Pol)
O.k. - - I decided to take the plunge...on trying out the ublock plugin for FF. After first removing ABP, I installed it "as is" - not changing any of the default settings, lists, etc. (As mentioned previously, I'm a far cry from being an "advanced user").
Shown further down is a screenshot (like Lisandro's) of what ublock shows 24 hours after installation, and visiting the websites/forums etc I belong to + a couple of websites I've never been to before.
One question: With regard to the memory usage comparisons previously given by Pol - - what would be the simplest way to just get a general idea of how much less ublock is actually using compared to ABE or ABP?
If it simply involves looking in Task Manager (Processes tab) at what FF is using, then it appears it's using significantly less memory than before. Previously, (with either ABE or ABP installed), FF was using in the neighborhood of 250,000 - 270,000K, according to Task Manager. Now, the FF usage is between 205,000 - 212,000K (when I checked Task Manager 3 times while typing this post).
So far...so good.
Pete
-
Personally I find this recording of what it has supposedly blocked to be a bit of a gimmick (almost rogue AV'ish), what does it matter if it is blocking ads.
I can't recall the last time I ever saw an ad popup/under, etc. etc. and that is all that matters, not some available graph.
-
Hi DavidR,
Well with you Vladimir Palant has found a fine defender for his ABP adblock hegonomy.
I also first thought there was nothing outside old ABP.
By the way when you do not click the UBlock-button you really won't see any of this.
You can disable all pop-ups in uBlock easily with one click.
What about Avast's performance reports of what websites it has blocked so far etc.
This "pop up" is a whole browser page full of your av's detection report. ;)
ABP does not boast performance, ABP only gives it's size: Size: 538KB
polonus
-
I'm not trying to defend anything, I just find that recording of numbers supposedly blocked to be totally pointless, the proof is in the fact that you shouldn't be seeing any ads. But for me it isn't broken I haven't seen an ad in I can't remember how long, I don't go looking for substitutes/replacements unless I have a problem.
I see these numbers very much like the many rogue AVs that previously did very much the same thing report dubious/meaningless numbers. e.g. give them a headache and they will take the aspirin.
I rarely venture into avast statistics as I find them very poor, lacking in detail to make them in any way worth looking at. Generally when I venture into the avast stats, it is a result of a query in the forums, commonly number of streaming updates.
-
For a (Resolved) topic, this is certainly dragging on. :)
-
For a (Resolved) topic, this is certainly dragging on. :)
Maybe "resolved" but it's still a nice discussion that should be ongoing anyway.
As long as nobody starts throwing flames, I'm all for it. So far everyone is sharing
their opinions and/or statistics politely. 8)
-
For a (Resolved) topic, this is certainly dragging on. :)
Maybe "resolved" but it's still a nice discussion that should be ongoing anyway.
As long as nobody starts throwing flames, I'm all for it. So far everyone is sharing
their opinions and/or statistics politely. 8)
Very simple. Remove the (Resolved) otherwise the word has no meaning. :)
-
Agree with both Para-Noid and also with bob3160,
This topic is very informative (at least for me), I looked at an adblocker from various unknown angles and have learned a lot from what info others have put in. Agree the resolved can be removed.
Going back on topic. Going over lists with domains to block and adding to my personal filter list, I added msads.net and ads1.msads.net is also blocked by that filter, all this in view to what happened last year, read here: http://community.skype.com/t5/Security-Privacy-Trust-and/Skype-ads-in-rotation-have-been-compromised-and-contain-Malware/td-p/2894251/page/2
Again thanks to bob3160, who adviced and instructed us all how to block ads in skype. Thanks, bob3160,
my skype service now works ads free. ;D
polonus
-
For a (Resolved) topic, this is certainly dragging on. :)
Maybe "resolved" but it's still a nice discussion that should be ongoing anyway.
As long as nobody starts throwing flames, I'm all for it. So far everyone is sharing
their opinions and/or statistics politely. 8)
Very simple. Remove the (Resolved) otherwise the word has no meaning. :)
Removed.
-
For a (Resolved) topic, this is certainly dragging on. :)
Maybe "resolved" but it's still a nice discussion that should be ongoing anyway.
As long as nobody starts throwing flames, I'm all for it. So far everyone is sharing
their opinions and/or statistics politely. 8)
Very simple. Remove the (Resolved) otherwise the word has no meaning. :)
Removed.
Not that I can see. ???
Change the original title by editing the first post . :)
-
@ Bob
The title of the first post has been changed - what that doesn't do is change title all existing posts.
If you quote one of those posts you will inherit the title with resolved in it.
If you just use the Reply button, then it should conform to the title of the first post.
This post should confirm that as I have just used the Reply button.
EDIT: confirmed the title conforms to that of the first post.
-
Back to the main theme=. Why I have chosen uBlock.
Even Google begins to realize that the explosion of questionable advertising formats has become a problem. Proof is its recent Contributor program that proposes ad-free navigation in exchange for a fee ranging from $1 to $3 per month).
Quote source: frederic filoux
n addition, we received startup capital from our investors, like Tim Schumacher, who believe in Acceptable Ads and want to see the concept succeed.
quote on Eyeo’s business model - ABP whitelisting bureau, which is bordering on racketeering.
Further bad news is only 2% of the global user population will use an adblocker of sorts.
Only 28% of the US user base uses adblocking. Contrasting to the fact that 71% of users reject interstitials, 83% reject non-skippable pre-rolls or pop-overs and 81% mid-rolls. For me an additional argument has always been the notion that malware may come piggybacking on ads, these are mal-ads and I don't mean "malad", a fresh salad with a big burger on top ;D
For instance the abstinence of a China adblock list in chinese language could create a problem, adblocking in China is sparse anyway.
polonus
-
@ Bob
The title of the first post has been changed - what that doesn't do is change title all existing posts.
If you quote one of those posts you will inherit the title with resolved in it.
If you just use the Reply button, then it should conform to the title of the first post.
This post should confirm that as I have just used the Reply button.
EDIT: confirmed the title conforms to that of the first post.
@David,
I checked that before making the post and at that time, the title had not been changed.
It's actually a mute point at this time since it's now fixed. :)
-
With one click I added this subscription list to uBlock, see: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt via abp:subscribe?location=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easyprivacy.txt&title=EasyPrivacy&requiresLocation=https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt&requiresTitle=EasyList
and with uBlock installed also uBlock takes it.
polonus
-
Question: Is it possible to block encrypted Secret Media ads, like the pre-roll vid ads on YouTube, this is important because Google wants to beat adblocking with serving up encrypted ads with Adsense and DoubleClick to circumvent adblockers starting this summer, while the danger of malvertising continues. How is the present situation> this seems to work, but not not for all encrypted ads as they constantly change the url.
block the video ads in the youtube app:
CODE: SELECT ALL
youtube.com/get_ad_tags?ABP does not block,
Try ||youtube.com/yva_video?*_preroll*
the complete url for a preroll (for a vevo video):
https://www.youtube.com/yva_video?adfor ... _preroll=1 info credits
The blocking that works: http://blog.wavecrest.net/index.php/analyze-your-encrypted-traffic-with-cyblock-ssl-inspection/
Anyone - this gonna be a bad summer for ad-blocking?
And now everybody can see what is behind Google's promoting https only - not added security but adblock free encrypted advertising via Adsense and DoubleClick- pushing their core business unhindered with added security as a pre-text benefit.
polonus
-
Damien,
Do you actually believe that Google or any other Corporation should stop trying to make a profit ???
-
No, bob3160, I do not think that, but users should have a choice and eventually pay a small fee to get rid of ads.
Besides there is the argument of ads being potential malware and we want to be protected against that, not being pushed to get our malware encrypted from ever changing random urls. Here I think third party ads must always be blockable.
Or will the situation become resembling commercial TV where you have forgotten the plot of the TV series after a 15 minute ad-break. With 12 big players in the market you have a choice, with a monopoly it is slowly becoming a take it or leave it situation, you cannot even choose with your wallet there. Rather have 15 minutes of ads a day as starters, in what time I can visit a certain place and then continue adfree.
polonus
-
I think a next step will be content filtering: HTTPS filtering
HTTPS requests can also be blocked, but because the URL in an HTTPS request is encrypted, only the domain URL checks will be performed in the following order:
wXw.foo.bar.com (because of https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/foobar.com?utm_source=addon&utm_content=popup )
foo.bar.com
bar.com
.com
* (the special character for catch-all URL)
polonus
P.S. In the case of it redirecting to itself -> get instructions here for NGINX Plus R6:
http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_headers_module.html
D
-
Or will the situation become resembling commercial TV where you have forgotten the plot of the TV series after a 15 minute ad-break.
It's a max of 3 min. per 15 minutes. :) Exaggeration doesn't add credibility. We know that from those that have posted about the 6 popups per day in Avast. :)
-
Hi bob3160,
Well on European TV you have ad-blocks of a full 15 minutes every 45 minutes. In the Netherlands we even have a site where you can watch video ads you have missed: htxp://reclamegemist.tv/
Why Google cannot make a site where they show ads adblock-users have missed, and you will be free to go there. ;D
Might be a good initiative.
Going back on-topic, with https encrypted ads, the malvertising threats won't leave us: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.nl/2015/04/beyond-annoyance-security-risks-of.html
link article author = Eric Severance, Software Engineer, Safe Browsing
polonus
-
Hi bob3160,
Well on European TV you have ad-blocks of a full 15 minutes every 45 minutes. In the Netherlands we even have a site where you can watch video ads you have missed: htxp://reclamegemist.tv/
Why Google cannot make a site where they show ads adblock-users have missed, and you will be free to go there. ;D
Might be a good initiative.
Going back on-topic, with https encrypted ads, the malvertising threats won't leave us: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.nl/2015/04/beyond-annoyance-security-risks-of.html (http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.nl/2015/04/beyond-annoyance-security-risks-of.html)
link article author = Eric Severance, Software Engineer, Safe Browsing
polonus
Same reason Avast doesn't have an option to view popups separately from the program . :)
-
Hi bob3160,
Thank you for the interesting discussion in this thread.
I always value your insights.
While you are very active going all over the States promoting Avast,
you perfectly know what is going on in the real life theater.
A lot of unaware users could visit this thread
and get informed about latest developments.
Back on topic:
This has not been patched since 2012, see: http://blog.kotowicz.net/2012/03/chrome-addons-hacking-bye-bye-adblock.html
POC: http://koto.github.io/blog-kotowicz-net-examples/chrome-addons/adblock/bypass.html (with javascript enabled)
link article author = Krzysztof Kotowicz - example: http://koto.github.io/blog-kotowicz-net-examples/chrome-addons/adblock/disable.html (intentially whitelisting you adblocker service by an extension)
Damian
-
What is a fabulous feature of uBlock is that after a couple of visits to Russian websites foir instance you get an alert to the fact that a Russian filter is automattically enabled, so you will have added protection when venturing out there.
polonus
-
I have now tagged:
https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer#instruction
inside uBlock and subscribed there.
Anti Adblock Killer is present in my Tampermonkey as a user script.
uBlock Origin a great Adblocker, especially this anti-adblock-killer code is vital, now the declared war on adblocking seems on and raging! Read about the new threat: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3aa6cv/a_former_googler_has_declared_war_on_ad_blockers/
Why we need adblocking, because we need it against malvertisers and seo spammers!
Ad-privacy and security are two sides of the same precious medal, folks.
Forewarned is forearmed. Remember, you can only trust that what you have tested yourself,
and then rely on your own resources that have proven to be effective.
Stay safe and secure with Avast!
polonus
P.S. See what I mean? -> http://d3xt3r.com/anti-adblock?test
Interesting, watch: http://d3xt3r.com/dashboard
-
I added this IP block list neatly into uBlock Origin: https://www.binarydefense.com/banlist.txt
in third party filters - https://www.binarydefense.com/banlist.txt : 11.469 use of 11.469cache empty
up to date and running,
Tested - uBlock Origin prevented the loading of the following page:
http://196.12.153.45/
Because of the following filter
||196.12.153.45^
Found in:
;)
polonus
polonus
-
@polonus
Thanks. I added this list into uBlock in Pale Moon and Cyberfox.
Where I can find more information about this filter list ?
-
Hi abruptum,
Go to their main page for more info on this Managed Security Service Provider: https://www.binarydefense.com/
It is a Trusted Sec daughter open source software for corporational security.
Another known MSSP is Fortinet's known from inside urlquery dot net scans alerts.
Re: http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/definition/MSSP
The list used can be used for non-commercial purposes.
polonus
P.S. Just on one of the IP's blocked: http://www.abuseipdb.com/report-history/202.191.170.211
-
Hi abruptum,
Now read the backgrounds: http://journeyintoir.blogspot.com/2015/05/introducing-active-threat-search.html
and also learn to search on:
https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=011905220571137173365:eo5wzloxe_m
and https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=011905220571137173365:7eskxxzhjj8
and https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=011750002002865445766:pc60zx1rliu
or http://hooked-on-mnemonics.blogspot.com/2010/11/malware-analysis-search.html
polonus
-
There is another extension I run alongside uBlock and that is the Adguard Adblocker extensioin in Google Chrome and that has blocked a lot additionally - with phishing and malware option installed. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker/bgnkhhnnamicmpeenaelnjfhikgbkllg?hl=nl
I see a discrepancy with Adquard Blocker where youtube is being concerned, as uBlock blocks in the hundreds, Adguard only blocks a meagre 17 there.
polonus
-
I have noticed that Adguard follows the same policy as ABP where so-called unintrusive ads are concerned, you may allow them.
Do they also have a pay-model there like ABP with their German office - Bing and Google etc. pay to get their ads passedthese adblockers.
That is why I choose for uBlock as that is more solid as per default, as a lot of common users won't fiddle with the settings nor start the block what they don't like.
pol
-
Just wanted to say :
Try supporting and using 'ublock origin' instead of 'ublock' because it is the original ublock project and has many more filters and features than 'ublock'
There is much development going on with 'ublock origin' as well, if you use Firefox, you may want to try the beta/alpha builds as they come, mostly daily or weekly, on the other hand, the 'ublock' has lesser updates going on. Just check the repo and see the commits of both the projects.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm
https://addons.mozilla.org/en/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
So, why is the original project known as 'ublock origin' instead of 'ublock' ? and what happened? (side story)
Quote
"The whole uBlock vs uBlock Origin debacle explained:
uBlock was made by Raymond Hill(gorhill)
uBlock gets a lot of users fairly quickly.
uBlock gets supporting contributors.
gorhill gets fed up with misinformed and highly entitled users demanding things from him as if this open source addon was a paid-for product.
gorhill hands over the original uBlock repository on github to a random contributor.
The random contributor adds donation buttons and accidentally claims he created uBlock and this causes backlash from the community.
gorhill forks uBlock into uBlock Origin and starts rapidly developing this new fork.
The contributor that took over the old fork apologizes for his actions and offers to give back the original repo to gorhill.
gorhill has the contributor make some small change to make it clear that uBlock was not created by the contributor but says he'll just work on the uBlock Origin fork instead of combining them.
The random contributors continue work on uBlock but so far there hasn't been any decent development because they are inexperienced(the maintainer of the uBlock repo is 17 or something).
uBlock Origin has had some actual noticeable improvements made to it already and it is highly likely that the Origin fork will just take over as people become more informed about which is "better".
Have a great day flocks.
-
Hi Chris Thomas,
For your information uBlock Origin sits in my Google Chrome browser !
Yes I loathe the Google opt-out policy on Google Android for instance,
it works a a bit like in the Eagle's Hotel California song, "you can opt-out, but you can never leave"
to be ad-free",.
See Admob for instance (they get you location and serve you with personalized ads (after Google acquired Admob it was coupled with Google Analytics)) -
Over 650,000 apps use AdMob
$1 billion+ paid to developers in the last 2 years (quess what the Google revenue may be, very huge).
Fast, reliable payment in local currencies
High CPMs and the best fill rates
Industry-leading mediation platform
I like ads, but I cannot stand mal-ads and fraudulent ad-clicks, SE Spam, fraud and scam and like to block that.
Often your first opt-out with MS Bing is at OS install, if you forget about that oportunity it won't come again,
and you apps will get adware-ridden. How the common uneducated user gonna circumvent as they never go outside the per default settings, so they are to be had either from the left or from the right side(site :D)
polonus
-
I also use uBlock Origin in Firefox and Opera, as I want to stay with the developer.
In Opera it is also the only version available :)
Greetz, Red.
-
Hi Chris Thomas,
For your information uBlock Origin sits in my Google Chrome browser !
Yes I loathe the Google opt-out policy on Google Android for instance,
it works a a bit like in the Eagle's Hotel California song, "you can opt-out, but you can never leave"
to be ad-free",.
See Admob for instance (they get you location and serve you with personalized ads (after Google acquired Admob it was coupled with Google Analytics)) -
Over 650,000 apps use AdMob
$1 billion+ paid to developers in the last 2 years (quess what the Google revenue may be, very huge).
Fast, reliable payment in local currencies
High CPMs and the best fill rates
Industry-leading mediation platform
I like ads, but I cannot stand mal-ads and fraudulent ad-clicks, SE Spam, fraud and scam and like to block that.
Often your first opt-out with MS Bing is at OS install, if you forget about that oportunity it won't come again,
and you apps will get adware-ridden. How the common uneducated user gonna circumvent as they never go outside the per default settings, so they are to be had either from the left or from the right side(site :D)
polonus
That is great that you use 'ublock origin' :)
I saw that many here mentioned 'ublock' not 'ublock origin' so I was giving information about the both.
Many people use 'ublock'
https://www.ublock.org,
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock/epcnnfbjfcgphgdmggkamkmgojdagdnn
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/ublock/
which are not the original project and have less development compared to 'ublock origin'
I don't use Google Chrome because of privacy issues and prefer using CyanogenMod 12 instead of stock android.
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/
-
I also use uBlock Origin in Firefox and Opera, as I want to stay with the developer.
In Opera it is also the only version available :)
Greetz, Red.
That is great that you support the original dev ;)
-
I am using uBlock and I'll continue to use it. Why ?
Because they were the first to fully support Pale Moon - my default browser.
If I remember correctly, gorhill wasn't interested in supporting gecko based pre-Australis browsers at that time.
Now, uBlock Origin is working in Pale Moon, but I have a memory like an elephant and I'll stay with uBlock.
-
Thanks, abruptum, keep reporting these issues.
Your memory like an iron pot makes you takes the right decisions.
See: https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/commit/6850fa0a262b8772a502c92750fe7a5bf74515f0
versus
https://github.com/gorhill
Mind that I and the wife also cannot use the Chrome browser without uMatrix,
the httpswitchboard successor.
-> chrome-extension://ogfcmafjalglgifnmanfmnieipoejdcf/
Oh, and also very interesting is to see what is blocked by Adguard by opening up the log file.
pol
-
EDIT: Possible Link Spammer post removed as he never came back to remove the link. First post minutes after registering and never heard from since.
This is a strange first post in the avast support forums and the URL is irrelevant to the request of how to block an ad with uBlock.
Please remove the URL we don't want to be in inadvertently promoting another site (link spamming). It is certainly going to indirectly promote the URL as we can't tell intent (link spamming/SEO), something that shouldn't be done.
I don't use uBlock, but It should be no different manually adding a URL to block, if you are able to do that in uBlock. If that function isn't in uBlock then there would be no way specifically to do it.
In which case the you should be using an ad blocker like AdBlockPlus (ABP) where you can easily add an item on the page to the block list.
-
Not a site that interest me but here's your answer:
(http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/screenshots/u/Lh/1437916492109-28869.png)
-
Just bye the bye Bob/ your version of UBlock Origin is outdated.
-
If you're using Chrome as I am, this is what you get from the google play store:
(http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/screenshots/u/Lh/1437925670790-89887.png)
-
Ah, sounds good. Different versions for different Browsers ???
-
Ah, sounds good. Different versions for different Browsers ???
Either way, the version doesn't change the instructions. :)
-
Hi bob3160 and schmidthouse,
We have been through the two different uBlock varieties, the original developer one, now known as uBlock Origin and a plagiated version developed on by another developer also known as uBlock. I advise everyone to stich to uBlock Origin -> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm by gorhill.
Know that uBlock could be used smoothly along with Adguard Adblcker: chrome://extensions/?id=bgnkhhnnamicmpeenaelnjfhikgbkllg
where Adguard has some additional blocking options like
Ad blocker
Ad blocker
English filterVersion 1.0.63.68. Updated 26 juli 2015 at 12:13.
Spyware filterVersion 1.0.2.87. Updated 22 juli 2015 at 17:28.
Social media filterVersion 1.0.6.8. Updated 26 juli 2015 at 12:13.
German filterVersion 1.0.20.31. Updated 24 juli 2015 at 23:41.
Dutch filterVersion 1.0.8.46. Updated 12 juli 2015 at 14:01.
Spanish/Portuguese filterVersion 1.0.86.6. Updated 29 juni 2015 at 00:29.
Adblock PolskaVersion 1.0.0.52. Updated 23 november 2014 at 07:02.
Check for filter updates All filters
Browsing security
Phishing and malware protectionLearn more about it
Help us in Browsing security filters developmentSubmit anonymous security-related information
Whitelist
Adguard does not filter web sites from the whitelist.
Invert whitelistUnblock ads everywhere except the whitelist
polonus
-
Dear users of NoScript in firefox,
Are we protected via uBlock for what is on this list: htxp://www.ipaste.eu/view.php?id=7815 (txt)
I think uBlock blocks them all as I tested. Do not try to open the above link in firefox as it will likely compromise NoScript to a degree the extension will cease to function and firefox will crash. Therefore I broke the link as forewarned is forarmed!
polonus
-
How Adguard block lists could enhance uBlock Origin.
Good to work through filter lists like this one: http://adguard.com/en/filter-rules.html?id=1 (not recent, so
this could not be added to uBlock Origin as a filterlist added to be updated autonattically -
Take your pick from here. these lists can be updated to recent versions: http://adguard.com/en/filters.html
e.g. I added to uBlock Origin this one: http://adguard.com/en/filter-rules.html?id=3
and this was just updated by me in uBlock Origin and plays like a charm. ;D
enjoy, my good friends, enjoy,
polonus
-
I see that Privacy Badger is now active onm the KillMalware.com scan site and has replaced this AddThis button, the script active there is Possible Frontend SPOF from:
s7.addthis.com - Whitelist
(71%) - <script type="text/javascript" src="//s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-51ed0d947572df9f">
and then also uMatrix comes in to block: uMatrix has prevented the following page from loading:
-http://s7.addthis.com/
With uBlock, uMatrix and this Privacy Badger I feel aptly protected.
By the way Privacy Badger was also active on another page and changed
like and tweet and replaced the respective buttons.
polonus
-
We should be aware, dear forum friends, that all your health related searches can be tracked via AddThis, Like and Twitter Buttons also on searches via DuckDuckGo etc and land at third party sites.
Read: http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/3/183606-privacy-implications-of-health-information-seeking-on-the-web/abstract
But also other sites are into sneaky tracking and also where you do not suspect this to take place, go to http://killmalware.com/kingstonofficecleaning.com/ and there is this code that should be replaced by Privacy Badger: </div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//-s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-51ed0d947572df9f"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
<div style="background:#ddd">
Anyway it does not load for me also because of uMatrix has prevented the following page from loading:
-http://s7.addthis.com/
polonus
-
Read here: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/Changes-from-HTTP-Switchboard
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
-> https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.1.1rc3
polonus
-
The pay-model of most adblockers and adblocking apps are whitelisting ads for corporations to deliver so-called acceptable ads at the cost of 30% of the revenue (alas you understand again you are the product here).
This was one of the reasons to choose uBlock Origin over ABP despite of the fact that this whitelisting can be disabled, still ads pass through that could be malware ads. I adblock for security reasons and less for any other reason.
Eyeo the firm behind ABP now try to sell the Aceptabl Ads technology to App Makers for instance on iOS9, who will get a 1000 to 5000 euro a month when they open the acceptable ads floodgates, also AdBlocking Apps do not work for Apple and facebook ads.
So the user and user experience do not count it is just a policy to keep Google out and v.v.
As long as mal-ads and SEO spam cannot be stamped out, polonus will keep adblocking whatever he can. ;)
Read: https://blog.malwarebytes.org/online-security/2013/12/malvertising-and-the-joys-of-online-advertising/
polonus
-
Using an adblocker on a browser from the largest ad company on the internet is hardly going to be a good idea.Chrome can track you in other ways.
Really this is just getting ridiculous.
-
Read here my good friends: https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=178033.msg1261118#msg1261118
to have another reason to use a real ad-blocking adblocker like uBlock Origin.
Read here: There are two "allow" methods, one from the acceptable ads list, which is public, and another via an "x-adblock-key" that can be provided in an HTTP header. There is no list of which sites use the key.
info credits wutbrodo
So to actually know who uses the key to sneak-launch ads you have to have the header-info with the x-adblock-key whitelisting info. Better to use an adblocker without acceptable ads to be sure there are no ads you would like to block anyway or for the most important reason for us here to be secure against malvertised ads!
I know Adguard is also making a profit from so-called acceptable ads, as ABP Salesbureau takes 30% of the ad's revenue to let them through. Does Adguard also honor a likewise non-listed whitelisting system like the x-adblock-key?
Whenever you block the acceptable ads, do you also have these x-adblock-key driven ads blocked? Well I think they come all into the same category and this could be checked here: http://cheme.com/
The questions were answered here: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17699
This may all be OK with the ads driven from parked or suspended domains (the unethical sides of it not touched),
but I rather like the no nonsense uBlock Origin policy, no ads from the domain graves there...
polonus
P.S @Arnold72, other browsers sponsored by the same 6 global media players are in exactly the same league. So why not use Google Chrome where you expecting it all the time. With other browsers it is the "eyes wide open closed" approach.
Give me statistics that firefox isn't functioning in the same manner. I haven't seen a DuckDuckGo browser app on Android, while I have seen APB browser, WOT browser. I worked IronChrome, I have Sleipnir6 but I really see no way where they differ....with javascript and CSS completely phased out as is proposed for a new HTML protocol Google and others hope to really make adblocking useless and outmanoever it.
D
-
Hi Pol,
Been periodically following your posts here regarding uBlock for some time. (in fact,...it was one of the reasons I decided to switch from ABP to uBlock some time back). :)
After reading your comments, links, etc here...I have a couple of questions for you.
I've been using uBlock (not uBlock Origin) in my FF browser with the default settings it was installed with. (I don't have Chrome installed, nor do I plan to).
Questions: (1) - Would you recommend switching to uBlock Origin instead now?
(2) - Aside from the stated "less footprint/lighter on resources" of uBlock Origin...is there any significant benefit (security-wise) over continuing to use uBlock?
Much obliged for your time and any info!
-
This may interest you:
http://bob3160.blogspot.com/2015/02/adding-ublock-to-firefox.html
-
Hi kls490,
Thank you for your reaction and welcome to this thread. ;)
Always a great pleasure to find that so many users now use an Adblocker not only to block irritating ads, but importantly to enhance their security as the threat of malvertised ads is growing and growing and one cannot do without a decent adblocker anymore as one cannot go without AV software either. I think a decent adblocker is as important as a good AV solution now.
To make a simple story short, Raymond Hill (Gorhill), the creator of uBlock, left the project and then forked the original uBlock and created uBlock₀ or uBlock Origin (uBlock plays beautifully along with uMatrix - like NoScript/RequestPolicy in FF). So the original uBlock from the original creator is uBlock Origin. It was pointed out to me it was best to use that in FF.
uBlock/uBlock Origin is very versatile and will accept and run and update many a specific subscription list of your choice,
also ABP ones can be incorporated, like my third party filters added choice shows:
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/antiadblockfilters.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/fb_annoyances_full.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/fb_annoyances_sidebar.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/fb_annoyances_newsfeed.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/yt_annoyances_full.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/yt_annoyances_comments.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/yt_annoyances_suggestions.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/yt_annoyances_other.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easyprivacy+easylist.txt
! https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easyprivacy.txt
Enjoy, my friend,
pol
P.S. Seems it was the FF-community that were at the basis of the conflict. After uBlock was made available for Firefox, a huge influx of people began to use the github development page to demand more features, report blocking rules (which have nothing to do with the addon itself), and random minor issues etc. Gorhill couldn't handle the pressure and left.
D
-
Oh yes and the initial differences between the two uBlock and uBlock Origin. uBlock0 developed by gorhill now allows to enable/disable cosmetic blocking and it also shows the number of hidden elements on the current page. The second notable feature is the centralized editing of per-site switches (in the uBlock dashboard), which is only possible in uBlock0 for now.
And there will be more over time. So keep with uBlockOrigin,
pol
-
(For bob3160)
Thanks very much for that video link! Definitely short, simple, and easy to understand too!
(For Pol)
I appreciate the additional follow-up info & clarification you provided as well! I'll leave uBlock installed as it always has been (along with using NoScript which I've also used for quite some time). I'm a far cry from being as technically-adept at some things like many people here are.
[Health issues and age are taking an increasing toll on my ability to adequately understand a lot of things these days, unfortunately].
Cheers, Bob and Pol! ;D
-
Hi kls490,
We all started out that same way here and gained more and more insight through our activities to be where we are now.
Standing on each others shoulders we learn all the way, read a lot, let your nettiquette work for you and help and instruct others. The Interwebs is a real treasure house for those that know how to open the treasure boxes.
I would never have grown into being the volunteer website security analyst and website error-hunter I am to-day not after years of activity here and the hospitality I found on this platform, the official Avast support forums with scan after scan, after scan and continuous analyses and off-course being able to add to Avast detection.
As a proctor I look over the shoulders of IT students and then I am up with latest developments and trends,
so I use every opportunity to enlarge my insights.
greets,
polonus
-
Press is starting to block ad-blockers, but also extensions like Ghostery, Disconnect, Do Not Track me etc.
Read about the first tests against firefox ad-block users to see how many users of adblockers will disable their protection (because you then may be vulnerable to mal-ads, and the adblock-blocking websites cannot guarantee you a malfree ad experience: http://www.cityam.com/using-ad-blocker-city-am
The tests are meant initially against the 20 percent of ad-blocking users on FF, other browsers are not being targeted for the moment.
Remember the use of NoScript makes that you can fully circumvent this anti-adblock experiment. A pity that the use of NoScript is a minority under the 20% adblock users of the Mozilla browser.
In Germany a judge meant that adblocking is legit, but BILD magazine started to experiment with an adblock wall as well.
Well the real reason is not ads, but the continuous tracking of users to earn from selling their profiles. They are not telling you that, the anti-adblocking is just a means to another end, it is anti-tracking blocking!
polonus
-
L.S.
Is there room for some middle-ground here? Read: http://blog.fairblocker.com/brewing-battle-over-ad-block/
There is, it is an adblocker with another pay model. But apparently the formula does/did not work:
The FairBlocker project is currently on hold. All functionality has been disabled.
/
This because the brewing war on adblocking/anti-adblocking, is not really over ads - it is over marketable user-tracking.
The earlier posting in this thread has made that clear and Google departments everywhere should better be clear on this.
polonus
-
For what it's worth, I have been using Adguard AdBlocker and to get rid of YouuTube "pop=up" ads I use "AdBlock for YouTube".
Adguard AdBlocker is stronger than AdBlock Plus or uBlock Origin.
-
Hi Craig,
New developments here on the old continent however with restrictive anti-adblocker and anti-script-blocker walls installed by magazine sites (tests for firefox users (24% block ads) running in Germany at the moment). They even had a judge take down instructions how to circumvent it on the ABP blog. Seems more and more Media now join that anti-adblock bandwaggon to make users cannot view their sites with either an adblocker active or javascript blocked. The adblocking issue is a pre-text, as adblockers are a perfect way to also block user tracking and that is the main reason for the war on adblockers. ;)
On other occasions I also said that the main reason for me not to lower the adblock visor is malicious ads.
Whenever you wanna see site content without ads on such anti-adblock paywall sites, your best bet is going to a webproxy where your adblocker block all ads anyway. Problem solved for the mean time, as the struggle will go on like a cat and mouse game, especially while the anti-adblockers now feel they have the law on their hands.
What's happening to the once free Interwebs of old? :(
polonus
-
Fine list to be added - 42,550 Unique Blacklisted Domains -> https://hosts.neocities.org/
Last updated on 22:18 17-10-2015 (dd/mm/yyy) IST before posting here.
polonus