Slashdot Mirror

What worries me is, Anti-Leech have already put together a rather sneaky anti-anti-popup system that takes some serious acrobatics to get around, so pop-up blocking is likely to become uber-moot quicker than ever.

I previously read about a scheme for forcing you to look at pop-ups. I think that the way it works is it checks to see if the server gets a request for the images in the pop-up window directly after the page loads. I did a Google search, and found that I read about it here.

try this link..

d00d, if ads make up content for you, may I suggest something different?

:P

Ah, I get it. No, I do =)

However, you are stealing

Are you a subscriber?.

erik@SPAM-ME-NOT.multipledigression.com (minus the spam filter)

This site continously makes false emails randomly, this is absolutely wonderful and the first time I've ever seen something like this done. Score one for the geek team!!

Would this classify as a "case-mod" ???

Now that Netscape has re-introduced popup blocking, Microsoft may soon follow suit. However, I did see an article on /. a while back about a group of advertisers that claimed any kind of blockage on their advertisements was theft (they claimed being able to see a site without having to see the ads constituted theft of bandwidth). If all future browsers incorporate popup blocking, where is the future of online advertising headed?

It's the test page for "anti-theft." Make sure you allow popups first. Right click on the image in the center of the screen, and select "block images from this server." Turn popup-blocking back on, and reload the page. Take that, Anti-Leech! *finger!*

The image source is a script that displays the image, pops up a popup, and then attempts to access the popup window through javascript. If that fails, then it kicks you to the denied page. However, if the "image" isn't fetched, the script doesn't run.

Anti-HTML "html encrypting"? Sure, you can't see the source using "view source," so Edit -> Select All, then right click on the highlighted area and select View Selection Source. Oops! There it is!

Anti-Image? Right-click, View Image, or Save Image As.

What a steaming pile of crap Anti-Leech is.

Also their "technology" is not really effective at all.

I'd say. I tested www.anti-leech.com at their 'Test Your Site' thing and apparently they need to invest in some of their own technology.

Better yet, they don't even check post/get, so you can take a look at the results here.

Also their "technology" is not really effective at all.

I'd say. I tested www.anti-leech.com at their 'Test Your Site' thing and apparently they need to invest in some of their own technology.

Better yet, they don't even check post/get, so you can take a look at the results here.

In Mozilla and Opera, I block unrequested popups and use user CSS to eliminate most banners. JavaScript is enabled, although I reject third party cookies.

Their example just sat there in both. No access denied, no loading images, nothing.

Ironically, in MSIE, with no banner or popup blocking (and I *saw* the test popup it launched), and no reported blocked cookies, I got an access denied message after about 5 seconds.

I'm really impressed by this, uh, "technology". Seriously -- they've come up with something this poor, and actually manage to sell it to people! I wish I could do that, although hopefully with something less lame ;)

who doesn't even use the software to "protect" their site. Try putting www.anti-leech.com into their security tester. This entire site and their products are jokes, I'd wager.

From the FAQ:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...

From the FAQ:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...

From the FAQ:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...

Oops, I just noticed they have a bunch of fancy, high tech Javascript securing the pages I just listed! To view my sample, start at this page and click on the 'Example (gateway) link.

Protected images? I think not! For an example of their protected image, go to http://www.anti-leech.com/antiimage.php?id=demo_ga t&name=test

In IE, click on the View|Source menu to view the source code, which yields the following URL for the picture: http://www.anti-leech.com/ai_load.php?id=demo_gat& name=test.

Follow that URL, and get to the actual picture's URL at http://www.anti-leech.com/pics/logo.gif.

Pretty secure, huh? It might keep some people from their images, actually it will probably keep most people from their images. But it seems they haven't learned that any copy protection like that can be easily broken. Even if there was no other way to get the picture's URL, you could always do a screen capture and save it.

Protected images? I think not! For an example of their protected image, go to http://www.anti-leech.com/antiimage.php?id=demo_ga t&name=test

In IE, click on the View|Source menu to view the source code, which yields the following URL for the picture: http://www.anti-leech.com/ai_load.php?id=demo_gat& name=test.

Follow that URL, and get to the actual picture's URL at http://www.anti-leech.com/pics/logo.gif.

Pretty secure, huh? It might keep some people from their images, actually it will probably keep most people from their images. But it seems they haven't learned that any copy protection like that can be easily broken. Even if there was no other way to get the picture's URL, you could always do a screen capture and save it.

Protected images? I think not! For an example of their protected image, go to http://www.anti-leech.com/antiimage.php?id=demo_ga t&name=test

In IE, click on the View|Source menu to view the source code, which yields the following URL for the picture: http://www.anti-leech.com/ai_load.php?id=demo_gat& name=test.

Follow that URL, and get to the actual picture's URL at http://www.anti-leech.com/pics/logo.gif.

Pretty secure, huh? It might keep some people from their images, actually it will probably keep most people from their images. But it seems they haven't learned that any copy protection like that can be easily broken. Even if there was no other way to get the picture's URL, you could always do a screen capture and save it.

That you can change their message and insert html/javascript?

They claimed that you can not copy their image. So it got me interested. Took me a whole 15 seonds to copy and save it.

I clicked on the Anti Image . By right clicking you notice they have a javascript disabling the button. So what I did next? Looked at the source code. Did a search for Viewing picture to find the img src. And sure enough it is a PHP script grabbing the image. It is img src="ai_load.php?id=demo_gat&name=test". So, I took that php script and it parametes and pasted it back to the url. So now I have http://www.anti-leech.com/ai_load.php?id=demo_gat& name=test and vola!! The page returns me http://www.anti-leech.com/pics/logo.gif which is a normal copyable .gif image.


Pretty basic if you ask me. And they are charging for this? This is a stanrd way of page retrieval and javvascript button disabiling.

They say the same for their own site, the dumbasses.

Curiously enough, the site also provides an online security audit on their website. Guess what happens when I try it on their example page? All content displayed below was so easy to copy that it only took a few seconds for this script. Imagine what humans can do to you! Judge by the material below if you need Anti-Leech protection or not. You can sign up here. It also returns the HTML source for the example web page...with popups blocked on my machine. So not only are they providing a broken service, but they provide a work-around to their product on their actual site...

Curiously enough, the site also provides an online security audit on their website. Guess what happens when I try it on their example page? All content displayed below was so easy to copy that it only took a few seconds for this script. Imagine what humans can do to you! Judge by the material below if you need Anti-Leech protection or not. You can sign up here. It also returns the HTML source for the example web page...with popups blocked on my machine. So not only are they providing a broken service, but they provide a work-around to their product on their actual site...

See for yourself: here

Check this out

Seriously though - you saw it on their site - does this make it legal?

Why Oh Why!?!? ... Idiots with websites.

Visit this URL: pants-down

After that you can surf all their site with no popups hehe. I am sure this is just a demo but what good is a demo that doesnt work ?

Anyway, I tried it on Konqueror. Feel free to populate this thread with success failure cases :)

Proud-to-be-a-"leech"

Internet "Thief"

When I read the 'denial' message here, I was pretty shocked. I can't believe that they think this kind of thing makes people want to come back to their site.

When I read the 'denial' message here, I was pretty shocked. I can't believe that they think this kind of thing makes people want to come back to their site.

We love America!

Or something like this?

morons

How can they get away with this?

Can you say class-action libel suit??

"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc."

Ok, and by popping up images, information, flash movies, etc., you're saving bandwidth *HOW*???

"If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence."

If you are going to call us theives, please at least spell expense correctly. Aside from nitpicking their spelling, do they honestly expect we all get *FREE* access to the internet? And that we all have extra time to read and close all the popups that? Our bandwidth costs us too, and our time is money too.

As I browse their site, I have closed at least 7 ads, AND a popup for that stupid Gator spyware.

Heh, they offer spam protection. But, if you follow their logic, blocking spam email is theft. Those spammers take all the time and effort (download list, slap into mass emailing program, hit enter, go read a Tom Clancy novel while the email zips off to inboxes unknown..) to email us with viagra offers, penis enlargers, and 19% credit cards. All that bandwidth they use, and the email lists they have to buy, and we're stealing by not reading their emails.

Heh, here's a blurb on cookies, "What cookies have to do with all this might be hard to understand at first, but blocking cookies can also cause major problems for webmasters. Many sponsors use cookies to track from which site a sale came from. E.g. if you visit a specific site, click an ad and chose to buy something the webmaster of the website you first came from obviously should earn some money from that. When blocking cookies that revenue could be lost..."

Sure, but they don't just want to track what website you came from, what you did at their site, and where you went to next afterwards... since they seem to be buddy-buddy with Gator, they want to know what you're doing on the web, at all times...

And, as seen in previous /. articles, spam is only going to get worse. As seen here, there is a new breed of spam/popup on the horizon.

"Ralsky, meanwhile, is looking at new technology. Recently he's been talking to two computer programmers in Romania who have developed what could be called stealth spam.

It is intricate computer software, said Ralsky, that can detect computers that are online and then be programmed to flash them a pop-up ad, much like the kind that display whenever a particular Web site is opened.

"This is even better," he said. "You don't have to be on a Web site at all. You can just have your computer on, connected to the Internet, reading e-mail or just idling and, bam, this program detects your presence and up pops the message on your screen, past firewalls, past anti-spam programs, past anything."

So, taking Anti-leech's arguement to the logical extreme, blocking these invasions of privacy would be theft.

Ain't technology grand?

You're right, this is fun!

I like this one.

Ha haha.

Proxomitron handles their sad little test just fine. Here's the message I get:

We have determined that you use ad blocking software. This site is provided for free and depend on an income from these ads. By blocking them, you make it impossible for us to continue keeping this website online for free. Therefore, you will not be able to access this website again until you uninstall or de-activate your ad blocking software.

Close your browser window, uninstall your ad-blocker and come back here to visit us.

The message displayed is passed as a parameter to a script so one could easily display one's own message

is that it's so Lame. the execution i mean.

you could block it with proxomitron on windows.

you could write a little script to swap out the cookies you get with an "allowed" browser to your "bad" browser.

and these folks are trying the hard sell; not sure who would be interested in their language, much less their technology.

as for the ethical question about blocking pop-ups, i think the answer is to integrate the ads into the page content. if people block those, then i think it's reasonable to deny them access to your content.

a popup, however, is a lot like a magazine insert. a very large number of readers will just shake those out and throw them away (or pollute the street with them), and publishers are well aware of that.

Here's the letter I sent. Please feel free to copy or adapt it and send it to:

general@anti-leech.com

Whenever I used to see a pop-up ad, I was so annoyed that I actually made a point of not buying this product, and sometimes even went as far as to discourage those around me not to buy this product.

Ever since I've been using a browser that block pop-up ads, I have probably been a better customer. Your product will once again cause misguided advertisers to lose my business. I'll make sure to point this out to any web site I come across that uses your product.

Banner ads are the most that 95% of Web users will accept. Anything that "pops up" is found annoying by the great majority of Web users. The negative reinforcement can only be detrimental to business - you're only hurting those you want to help.

Also consider that, if you keep wantonly calling people like me thieves, you're liable to get sued for libel.

Did anyone else get this strange (yet true) response after blocking the popup? (click link before you mod me down!!)

(can't remember my password, damn)

JavaScript's no problem, you just have to link to an external script file. Something like this, in other words.

Allow me!

[[Warning: The preceding is considered adult material and should not have been viewed by anyone.]]

Replying to myself because this is horrible. I mean, damn. I can't try out Javascript because of the way those backslashes show up before quotes. That's a perl thing, right? I find this terribly ammusing.

Ha ha ha

I'm a fucker for pointing this out, but somebody would've figured it out anyway. look.

Be careful, kids. Get Phoenix and block images on a per-domain basis today!

I'm a fucker for pointing this out, but somebody would've figured it out anyway. look.

Be careful, kids. Get Phoenix and block images on a per-domain basis today!

This is like blocking spam as far as I'm concerned

But there must be a difference -- anti-leech doesn't mind spam blocking: http://www.anti-leech.com/index.php?option=example &example=spam ;)

The truth comes out!

Thanks to the wonderful art of XSS, we have this here