Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Using JavaScript Injection To Serve Ads On Public Wi-Fi Hotspots
An anonymous reader writes: For some time now, Comcast has setting up public Wi-Fi hotspots, some of which are run on the routers of paying subscribers. The public hotspots are free, but not without cost: Comcast uses JavaScript to inject self-promotional ads into the pages served to users. "Security implications of the use of JavaScript can be debated endlessly, but it is capable of performing all manner of malicious actions, including controlling authentication cookies and redirecting where user data is submitted. ... Even if Comcast doesn't have any malicious intent, and even if hackers don't access the JavaScript, the interaction of the JavaScript with websites could "create" security vulnerabilities in websites, [EFF technologist Seth Schoen] said. "Their code, or the interaction of code with other things, could potentially create new security vulnerabilities in sites that didn't have them," Schoen said."
Yet another reason to disable JavaScript from your computing devices.
Does this violate the copyright of the sites the user is visiting? By modifying the content stream, they're creating a derivative work without authorization.
On the other hand, user-controlled plugins and ad blockers do that all the time, so I wouldn't be too quick to make that argument in court.
Don't use random hot spots. It's like safe sex, only for your computer. Stay away from sketchy connections.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you browsed a website with Content Security Policy headers on a Comcast public Wi-Fi hotspot.
The technology is new enough that the injection technology might not handle it and thus the browser would block the ad. But if they did, by changing the CSP headers, the website might have a stronger case for suing Comcast since they would be explicitly bypassing a security technology.
Yes, definitely. Also, it violates the policies of ad-free sites to not subject their visitors to ads. Websites will not be able to maintain their terms of service. For example: if you pay the website for an ad-free subscription, and Comcast then injects ads, your customers are screwed.
An ad-blocker is for personal use -- kind of like marking a page in a book that you're reading or removing a picture because you don't want to see it. Systematic modification of copyrighted content before delivery to customers is definitely criminal.
That would be nice, but it's impossible to use the modern web and HTML5 without JavaScript. Maybe Privacy Badger or Ghostery can block it.
Maybe I'm missing some thing here but it seems like a edit to a local hosts file could resolve this.
You're not the only one who uses hosts files like this. When Flash ads first appeared on Slashdot, I started blocking servers that send Flash ads. (I'll never buy Splunk because it was the first thing I ever saw advertised in a Flash ad.) I've since switched to click-to-play plug-ins for that, but I have written a few thoughts on how to make hosts file parsing more efficient than it currently is.
Alex P. Kowalski (APK) has long been an advocate of using hosts files for DNS blacklisting and acceleration, and his tool for Windows aggregates multiple sources over a million lines long. It also looks up the IP addresses for commonly accessed sites and caches them locally. He claims that his tool is more efficient than DNS because the operating system's hosts file parser allegedly runs in kernel space (fewer context switches) and the most commonly accessed sites (good or bad) are at the top of the list.
But lately, Windows Defender has been reverting the hosts file so that malware can't use the hosts file to redirect Facebook and the major webmails and "steal" users' credentials that way. You have to opt out of hosts file protection if you want to continue using APKware.
Even if Comcast doesn't have any malicious intent
Of course they have malicious intent; they are inserting ads where previously there were none. Isn't that malicious enough for you?
... of using https for everything. I do now.
https everywhere
To bad you can't use https for slashdot. Redirects back to http. (And after all their own coverage of NSA spying?) FAIL.
Now if those @#*$&! at Mozilla gave me that convenient checkbox to enable/disable Javascript without having to mess with about:config, I'd have one gripe less.
Then you should use the NoScript plug-in which automatically blocks JavaScript from sites you visit (except certain white list sites and you may have to block them yourself). Besides, the plug-in remember what you have set it up (allow/not allow) even after the browser update (thump up for the developers to keep up with the browser). It is a simple workaround.