Slashdot Mirror

try adblock plus for chrome

If you use Firefox you can use Adblock Plus to remove all the social media crap.

http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions

Scroll down to the very bottom and subscribe to the Antisocial filter in the Miscellaneous section.

He's still messing with Adblock Plus https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7356

That reminds me I owe the Adblock Plus project a few ducats as well.

I love Noscript, I don't like the developer. Because of this I've dropped Noscript from my extensions long ago. It seems everyone soon forgets about a developer who thinks he can mess with your other extensions without your permission. http://adblockplus.org/blog/attention-noscript-users

If there was someway to split out the useless bloatware and the evil ads (they're all evil by default), it wouldn't be bad.

Adblock

AdBlock claims blocked downloading as a feature.
The official "Adblock Plus for Google Chrome"... I think so, unless I'm reading that wrong. Bedtime...

Using the Tracking Protection Lists, you can get very simple adblock mechanism for IE9 here:

http://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/#easyprivacytpl

It doesn't let you whitelist anything, but if you need something quick and simple, this is the Easylist TPL and it works very well.

Also missing: users who have installed Adblock Plus and don't even see the ads.

They don't see the ads, but they still see the inconvenience of imitating the limitations of a paper format.

Also missing: users who have installed Adblock Plus and don't even see the ads.

Ad Block No script fix the problem nicely.
Not sure what add-on gets rid of "stories" like this. Did anyone else think "paid link" once the site loaded?

At least no such things are listed on the adblockplus subscriptions page. https://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions There are a rickroll blacklist, though, and filters for blocking social interaction...

If you aren't even a facebook user, you might want to add the antisocial subscription to adblock,
since those little facebook icons are just as useless as the social bookmarking buttons of yore, but more viral.

Somehow none of lists shipped with AdBlock do something to all that 15th party tracking, you need to purge them yourself,[...]

So what is the EasyPrivacy list then?

It has been decided at least two years ago to put the tracking filter rules in their own
list, because they obviously don't belong in a pure adblocking list.

Yes, there had been complaints by people who wanted ads blocked but the
tracking stuff left intact.

I'm sure adblock plus will continue to function as advertised.

Seriously, is anyone using /. still seeing ads? It's a non-issue.

B: If I am fat, don't advertise Big Macs, advertise weight loss because last I checked, fatties know where BK and McDs are. And no it's not your genetics, it's because you are irresponsible with your health. A predisposition just means you have to work harder. Thermodynamics proves this; your lack of responsibility, low self esteem, and discipline does not change the laws of physics.

C: If I am in a good mood try selling me a Beach Boy's collection. If I am pissed off Rammstien might be a better choice."

How about:

D: No more fuckin' Ads.

You *do* know about AdBlock Plus for the browser, right?

Also...tell the bitch to get on her own computer. Hell, she might *accidentally* delete some of your better pr0n links.

:) "

Ouch!!

Someone out there must not like AdBlock , eh?

B: If I am fat, don't advertise Big Macs, advertise weight loss because last I checked, fatties know where BK and McDs are. And no it's not your genetics, it's because you are irresponsible with your health. A predisposition just means you have to work harder. Thermodynamics proves this; your lack of responsibility, low self esteem, and discipline does not change the laws of physics.

C: If I am in a good mood try selling me a Beach Boy's collection. If I am pissed off Rammstien might be a better choice."

How about:

D: No more fuckin' Ads.

You *do* know about AdBlock Plus for the browser, right?

Also...tell the bitch to get on her own computer. Hell, she might *accidentally* delete some of your better pr0n links.

:) "

Ouch!!

Someone out there must not like AdBlock , eh?

B: If I am fat, don't advertise Big Macs, advertise weight loss because last I checked, fatties know where BK and McDs are. And no it's not your genetics, it's because you are irresponsible with your health. A predisposition just means you have to work harder. Thermodynamics proves this; your lack of responsibility, low self esteem, and discipline does not change the laws of physics.

C: If I am in a good mood try selling me a Beach Boy's collection. If I am pissed off Rammstien might be a better choice."

How about:

D: No more fuckin' Ads.

You *do* know about AdBlock Plus for the browser, right?

Also...tell the bitch to get on her own computer. Hell, she might *accidentally* delete some of your better pr0n links.

:)

You don't have to be vulnerable. The listed exploits were patched in Update 22, last spring.

Update available here.

DoublePlusKarmaWhoreGoodness: For best protection, run a Mozilla browser with the NoScript add-on. (AdBlockPlus and RemoveItPermanently make great complements to NoScript, too.)

Oh, so you didnt notice all those advertising scripts running in the background on slashtot?

What advertising scripts?

Quit bitching.

If you don't use a browser that works with it (or something similar) then wise up and change.

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones see mvps.org ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano or kate (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK) and you already own one, and they run on any OS that uses the BSD reference design IP stack (all of them today pretty much if NOT all of them).

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript!

(Especially the latter one in NoScript: I mention it, because it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript (which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security").

****

Of course, you also have to note that ADBLOCK IS DETECTABLE ITSELF, AND BLOCKABLE, also! Proof? Ok:

----

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

----

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though! So, due to that? See the above 10 points in favor of HOSTS files (especially over adblock alone)...

APK

P.S.=> Best part of all is, HOSTS files are 100% FREE, and they work (you already own one) and reliable reputables copies can be obtained from these sources: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (MVPS version) as a single example thereof... apk

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones see mvps.org ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano or kate (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK) and you already own one, and they run on any OS that uses the BSD reference design IP stack (all of them today pretty much if NOT all of them).

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript!

(Especially the latter one in NoScript: I mention it, because it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript (which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security").

****

Of course, you also have to note that ADBLOCK IS DETECTABLE ITSELF, AND BLOCKABLE, also! Proof? Ok:

----

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

----

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though! So, due to that? See the above 10 points in favor of HOSTS files (especially over adblock alone)...

APK

"You ARE apk. We all know it. Drop the charade." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @02:23PM (#33358838)

First: Arstech's falling apart and we all KNOW it. Especially now, per Ken Fisher of arstechnica caught PULLING DIRTY TRICKS ON HIS OWN VIEWERSHIP to do so no less and being caught in it red handed here, https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266 ?

Leave it to arstechnica to "do themselves in", lol... they'll do so, everytime, be it in blunders in tech debate due to their lack of know-how, or treating users like they don't know anything and they end up "busting themselves" as shown above.

(Hilarious, utterly hilarious...)

No amount of "arstechnica off topic 'spin/damage control'" attempts are going to hide what you arstech scumbags try to pull on your own viewers, which is dwindling and getting smaller everyday because of what's shown in the url above, and lmao, I LOVE IT.

Secondly: Once more, as far as YOU are concerned, per my subject above? Again: I am "the 'Green Lantern of sector 2814'" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTiRnqnvDs&NR=1 ... and as others here noted it is obvious you're just an arstechnica luser.

Lastly, see above as well as the rest of this exchange which is beyond the control of the arstechnica forums playpen members edits of others' posts or posting as others, because they are known to impersonate apk and others as arstechnica's Jeremy Reimer was caught doing and he admitted to, then as rinse, lather, & repeat because arstech forums stalkers of apk only exemplify the insanity of attempting to attack apk online again and again and expecting different results but with them just failing as usual vs apk, just as they have here behind apk's back as is their "gossiping women of arstechnica style" usual.

"No contest indeed, moron. Who summoned you?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @09:52AM (#33354382)

Talking behind others' backs, like some beyotch? Yes, that's arstechnica's "specialty". Makes sense - you're all "not men" (the kind of guys whose girl friends we all banged in highschool and we also made you do our homework for us too, lol. You've got NO balls, is why).

Oh also, get this thru your head, whimp: You don't run me, first of all, and secondly? I came of my own volition, beyotch: Going to stop me???

New NEWS: On your best day, you aren't capable of that. The best fools like you are capable of are impersonating others, and your own Jeremy Reimer, a "self-published loser" via lulu found out what happened then, now didn't he??

Sure did, lol, in front of the entire planet at windows it pro mag's forums when he was shown to be nothing more than an off topic fake with no degrees or hands on experience in the computer sciences who libeled and impersonated apk and had his website shredded for it along with his fellow arstech luser, Jay Little.

---

"Know what Arstechnica could do to serve ads to lusers like you? Put them on their own frigging server." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @09:52AM (#33354382)

Good, I love it: Tear up your own bandwidth some more, lol. I loved seeing your "lord & master (bator)" Ken Fisher begging for viewers here BY PULLING DIRTY TRICKS ON HIS OWN VIEWERSHIP https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266 .

(Nothing could have made me happier in fact, it was hilarious! Hehehe, arstech's falling apart and we all KNOW it. The more folks block your ads, the slower you die, lol!)

---

"Where is your "Lord of HOSTS" file now?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @09:52AM (#33354382)

Same place as usual, and doing what it always has: Speeding up and securing my system and those of others (just like the one from mvps.org, etc./et al)...

---

"You get your ass handed to you every time you try to argue with the people at Arstechnica." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @09:52AM (#33354382)

AHEM: The planet saw quite differently at the Windows IT Pro magazine forums where Jay Little fell flat on his fat face on Exchange servers, and Jeremy Reimer had to remain off topic the entire time being caught with his pants down impersonating apk and having to admit it too, lol. Hilarious. Both had their websites removed by their hosting providers also, forcibly, for libeling, impersonating, and threatening apk.

(So much for your "editing and impersonating apk on your private playpen at ars' forums only. We all know better and we know how you women there operate).

---

"They say insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So who's obsessed?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, @09:52AM (#33354382)

I must have struck a nerve here saying you always talk behind apk's back, and nothing hurts like the truth, eh?

(ADDITIONALLY? WELL, IT'S SORT OF Funny BUT... ,B.AREN'T You are the ones talking behind apk's back here and getting bitch slapped by myself as usual though??)

I mean, lol: LOOK AT YOUR REACTION! HILARIOUS AND PRICELESS. TELLS ME ALL I HAD TO KNOW.

From the ac apk http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33191488 where he showed the dirty tricks arstechnica played on their own users no less:

****

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones see mvps.org ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano or kate (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK) and you already own one, and they run on any OS that uses the BSD reference design IP stack (all of them today pretty much if NOT all of them).

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".

****

After reading this comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33267350 , I had to respond because I was there and saw this and other wrong doings by the arstechnica lusers.

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though!

Due to that? You know know part of why these idiots at arstechnica who stalked apk for years forums to forums online as well as impersonated apk at arstechnica posted their usual crap here on this forums in this exchange =>

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though! APK likes hosts files as do many 1000's of others online (see mvps.org forums as only 1 small example thereof), and apk exposed arstechnica in their dirty tricks as shown above.

Due to that? You know know part of why these idiots at arstechnica who stalked apk for years forums to forums online as well as impersonated apk at arstechnica posted their usual crap here on this forums in this exchange => http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33267350 .

They try to libel, impersonate, threaten and harass, and do worse to apk, and for more than a decade now. That's sick.

They do so, not only on their arstech forums, but also their own members personal forums (Jeremy Reimer - the self published on lulu fake who calls himself a published author, what a joke, and he's one with no real hands on pro experience in computers and fakes it and with no degrees in the sciences of computing or even certs to his credit. He's a fake that tried to pass himself off as some computer expert and apk exposed him for it, and his wife the stripper gives blowjobs to pay their bills, lol) and made death threats to apk and libeled he only to have the police called on them and their websites removed from their hosting providers and being caught email harassing and online stalking apk by their isp's (Jay Little and Jeremy Reimer both here on this account) and why they posted their utter crap here in this very exchange in that url above. The link below shows even more in addition to apk exposing arstechnica for being charlatans and frauds as well as sickos online.

Arstechnica doesn't like being exposed for the cowards, fakes, and behind the back operating little cowards they are. Especially in this post here from this very exchange that goes into this even more: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33352200

Per my subject-line above: Arstechnica did that to adblock/adblock plus users:

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though!

Fact is, HOSTS files are better than adblock (especially adblock alone) on that account above alone, PLUS these also:

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones -> See mvps.org ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security". Between HOSTS files, a good firewall + antivirus & antispyware program setup? You're MOST of the way there (provided you also utilize your brain & sense online, that is).

APK

P.S.=> Best of all, HOSTS files are free, and you already own one and have COMPLETE control over it... apk

how much would you pay a month to see no ads on any website?

Nothing?

In addition to what you noted? Arstechnica did that to adblock/adblock plus users:

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though!

Due to that?

Well, HOSTS files are better than adblock (especially adblock alone) on that account above alone, PLUS these also:

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?s=35faafcfc2596ff0fdd2a54a2717153b&showtopic=33716&st=60

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones see mvps.org ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano or kate (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".

APK

P.S.=> The rest of this exchange covers what my naysayers attempted to say to put what's above "down", to no avail though, from here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 on down in that/this very exchange!

(I think those of you reading here will find it quite INFORMATIVE, overall if you're interested in speeding yourself up online, as well as securing

In addition to what you noted? Arstechnica did that to adblock/adblock plus users:

ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266

However, they could NOT do that to HOSTS files users though!

Fact is, HOSTS files are better than adblock (especially adblock alone) on that account above alone, PLUS these also:

10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:

http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?s=35faafcfc2596ff0fdd2a54a2717153b&showtopic=33716&st=60

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file[/url] OR see lists below ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...

Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".

APK

P.S.=> The rest of this exchange covers what my naysayers attempted to say to put what's above "down", to no avail though, from here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 on down in that/this very exchange!

(I think those of you rea

And that's adblock's MAIN problem: It's limited to single browsers only, and doesn't cover other programs that are also potentially threatened by bad sites or scripts even such as email programs that use HTML, like Outlook etc.

Using daemons?? Not needed in HOSTS files. Where do you get your misinformation from???

Also, to update adblock???? You also need internet access also!

Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense?

1. Adblock Plus is available for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Mozilla Mobile and even SongBird, so your mail client and media player are ad-free, too. It offers an extension to the Mozilla Sync service, allowing you to share filters across devices.
2. Requiring internet access to update Adblock is so much worse than obtaining and updating your hosts file from online sources as per your advice under 6. exactly how?

(Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.)

How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?

The same way you do now.

Recent versions of Adblock Plus allow you to block individual elements based on class and id. But once advertisers catch on and start using random names (or omitting them altogether) it'll be trickier.

And I'll leave this right here: http://adblockplus.org/en/

Careful, you were bordering on incoherent before, and now you've finally crossed the line into nonsensical hysteria.

the sites you use just appear by magic?

No, they're like any other business. Someone with a neat idea secures some funding (either privately or via venture funding), develops a site, deploys it, and hopefully attracts a user base.

Ads or paywall, it works the same way either way.

Seriously, maybe you should try taking your head out of your ass and consider that there may be business models other than the ad-supported-content-model.

but if you smugly trumpet yourself in a public forum

Sure do! I block ads! Hey everyone, get an Ad Blocker!

as if you are doing nothing wrong,

I'm not doing anything wrong. What gives you the silly idea I am? If the websites wanted me to compensate them for their content, they'd ask me to pay for it. They don't, so I alter the content the strip the ads (as an aside, I do the same thing with my PVR when I'm watching TV).

i will call you out for what you are

With nonsensical rhetoric? Wow, bravo.

you seem incapable of seeing your own shitty ignorant way of thinking about how the web actually fucking works financially

No, it *has* worked that way financially. I might not work that way in the future (though I doubt it), in which case other business models will take hold. And so the web will evolve. So be it.

Tabloid rags? WSJ? Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.

He does sound like an idiot, until you read some of what the WSJ has become under Murdoch. Once you have the context, his comments don't sound stupid at all. Sure, the WSJ still has plenty of decent business news, but now it is laced with editorials and "business" news stories that are laced with Murdoch's political agenda ... the days of an unbiased, factual WSJ are long gone, more's the pity.

Unfortunately, our perception of the rag lags well behind the change, and will probably do so for quite some time.

Thankfully, for those of us still investing and engaged with the markets, there are better alternatives:

http://www.ft.com/

with various localizations, and without the Murdoch poison:

http://www.ft.com/home/us
http://www.ft.com/home/uk

So let them ringfence Murdoch's tripe (even the formerly great WSJ he is wrecking). Please.

Or don't wait for Rupert to take both barrels to his own feet and do it for him: filter his tripe out of Google News yourself (I use both approaches: "take off, nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"):

1) Bespoke AdBlock Rules

Open FireFox, go here and install AdblockPlus:
http://adblockplus.org/en/installation

You should have a ABP stop sign looking thing to the right of your FireFox search box. Click the little arrow to the right of it. Click preferences. Click Add Filter. Paste in:

news.google.com##*[href*=".foxnews.com"]

Murdoch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation ) also owns The Wall Street Journal. Add Filter again, and paste in:

news.google.com##*[href*=".wsj.com"]

2) Greasemoneky Script

Get Greasemonkey:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748

Get Sterc's script:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/61397

"Laugh it up" :-)

[ Source: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=10c7469adda1fdac&hl=en ]

Ghostery seems to be fishy, being owned by an advertising company. Easy Privacy filter for Ablock Plus might be a better solution.

Oh, how I wish the network were still missing that "essential ingredient".

Wish no longer!

They're missing the point. Most of the ads only get them money if people click on them. From my experience people who run adblock software are also people who refuse to click on ads in general. So instead of calling people to be annoyed by ads they should call people to turn off their adblock for a second, click on an ad and turn it back on. But well, that's not gonna make the advertisers happy. The authors of Adblock Plus came up with a better proposal http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking - I wonder if Ars Technica has looked into that.

No. While it may be easy to block Flash altogether, as it stands not even Firefox with Adblock Plus can block all ads served via Flash. HTML5 will definitely be a step up from that.

I've seen sites with these vulnerabilities, and they can cruise right through Firefox if written correctly. Why Firefox was crashing instead of loading Acrobat is either you may have a plugin that blocks malicious strings, (Like Adblock Plus - Which I highly recommend) Firefox already patched a hole that the malware was trying to exploit or they were exploiting an IE hole to start Acrobat and Firefox didn't like the way it was called. Also Consider that Firefox crashed, which can also lead to a possible code injection attack if it can be exploited in a specific manner.

Ultimately, The real Culprit here is the PDF File. Adobe in in general is the attack of choice anymore. Most likely it was a malicious Flash Ad delivered from a Third party service, which then called for a malicious PDF, which the browser will happily open up using Acrobat's plugin.

If you really want to fix this, block the AD's (either with The Firefox plugin AdBlock Plus or with IE8's Inprivate Filtering and either get the latest Acrobat (which finally has some security in it) or replace it with Foxit Reader

Finally. Always Update IE Even if you exclusively use Firefox and never ever use IE. There is a lot of improvements that were made in security in IE8, and I have seen Flash apps that in Firefox will start IE to attempt to exploit unpatched IE holes. If you can't (Because Ye Be A Pirate Matey!! ARRR!! or because your company won't let you.) Then turn IE6 security to high for all security zones and use Firefox exclusively.

Good luck using the Hosts file in a computer where you don't have admin privileges.

Also, the Hosts file can't be auto-updated, like adblock.

And Hosts file block all the domain - good luck blocking that big annoying image or flash animation that's served from the same domain as the content.

And as far as I know Adblock removes the ad *before* Firefox tries to load it, so I doubt it even sends a DNS request. But with Firefox you can use both Adblock and Hosts, and get the advantages of the two. Chrome can't.

Just subscribe to the EasyPrivacy filter list.

It includes the filter ||tynt.com^$third-party already.

||tynt.com^$third-party

Or subscribe to the EasyPrivacy list, since it contains that filter already.

Another site I read mentioned that it's blocked in the AdBlock Plus EasyPrivacy subscription. https://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions

I added that subscription and it worked like a charm

Right now, it looks like AdBlock, Flashblock, CustomizeGoogle, and my own AdRater couldn't be implemented under JetPack. The Jetpack API documentation has a section "Content - Methods for interacting with web pages. That's the mechanism anything that deals with ads needs. That leads to "Page modifications", which leads to This documentation is under development. Please see the page modifications API proposal for now."

That leads to Jetpack Extension Proposal #17 - Page Mods, which discusses how to implement Greasemonkey-like functionality using Jetpack. Current status is "Implementing (since May 27, 2009)".

So the functionality needed for AdBlock, etc. is vaporware. It's not even clear that, if implemented, the proposed mechanism would support AdBlock. The author of Adblock Plus wrote last month "Jetpack has to support Adblock Plus, not the other way around. As it is now, Jetpack isn't suitable for complicated extensions."

It's significant that Mozilla gave priority to implementing "themes" and such, which are needed for vendor-branded browsers, while putting off implementation of user-oriented features like ad blocking. Is this a back-door effort to get ad-blocking out of Firefox?

There's an app for that...

NoScript

Ad Block Plus

I wouldn't know

Adblock Plus doesn't block anything by default. It does present you with a list of filter subscriptions. Just install EasyPrivacy from the same folks who probably made the subscription you use now (EasyList).