Slashdot Mirror


Google's Doubleclick Ad Servers Exposed Millions of Computers To Malware

wabrandsma (2551008) writes with this excerpt from The Verge: Last night, researchers at Malwarebytes noticed strange behavior on sites like Last.fm, The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post. Ads on the sites were being unusually aggressive, setting off anti-virus warnings and raising flags in a number of Malwarebytes systems. After some digging, researcher Jerome Segura realized the problem was coming from Google's DoubleClick ad servers and the popular Zedo ad agency. Together, they were serving up malicious ads designed to spread the recently identified Zemot malware. A Google representative has confirmed the breach, saying "our team is aware of this and has taken steps to shut this down."

226 comments

  1. And they wonder why I block ads... by Derekloffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is stuff like this that just demonstrates how annoying the internet ad delivery mechanisms are. Not only are they intrusive, bandwidth wasting, and often impairing my user experience, they can also spread malware.

    1. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed.

      My hosts file (across my Windows, Linux, and OSX) machines have been using the excellent MSVP hosts (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm) for years.

      Plus, it speeds up internet browsing instead of having the browser ping 10+ different domains.

    2. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always though doubleclick was a malware site. You mean it's not? Or it wasn't but now it is?

    3. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you access a web page there is only one thing you have agreed to and that is to fetch data from that page. Any attempt to make your browser access a third party should be considered malware.
      Sometimes pages serves content from a different domain but that is rare enough to manage manually.

    4. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Any way I can get my host file to block the beta slashdot?

    5. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just use adblock+. It is much faster.

    6. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Me too. Why I would allow advertising on my browser when all it does is try to lock the system using all the CPU time for stupid animations or videos, promotes highly questionable "products" such as the infamous "CleanMyPC", or plain and simply try to install hostile programs to take control of my computer?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    7. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sometimes pages serves content from a different domain but that is rare enough to manage manually.

      Not anymore.
      Far too many sites (/. included) have or use a CDN for content.
      And they will fetch at least half a dozen scripts for bookmarking/sharing with facebook/linkedin/tumblr/twitter/pinterest/googlehangouts/etc
      Then, they'll try and fetch a non-zero number of tracking/website monitoring scripts.

      Ghostery says http://slashdot.org/images/njs.gif is a 1x1 pixel tracker for WebTrends.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes pages serves content from a different domain but that is rare enough to manage manually.

      Not anymore.
      Far too many sites (/. included) have or use a CDN for content.
      And they will fetch at least half a dozen scripts for bookmarking/sharing with facebook/linkedin/tumblr/twitter/pinterest/googlehangouts/etc
      Then, they'll try and fetch a non-zero number of tracking/website monitoring scripts.

      Ghostery says http://slashdot.org/images/njs.gif is a 1x1 pixel tracker for WebTrends.

      None of that shit is "content" that I want to load, and most of the time blocking it all has little to no effect on the content I want to see.

    9. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wastes bandwidth, chews up CPU, blasts noise at you and with 57 tabs open it is hard to tell from where, starts videos, does crappy things if you accidentally hover the mouse over the window.

      And spread malware.

      I use AdBlock Plus, of course. With Flashblock carrying the other half of the burden.

      I am happy these jerks almost exclusively use Flash, HTML5 scares the shit out of me.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    10. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Careful, otherwise you will end up summoning him

    11. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I always though doubleclick was a malware site. You mean it's not? Or it wasn't but now it is?

      Odd how that was marked funny. It's actually +5 informative for sure.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is well within your right. You do have to realize and accept thought that most of the sites on the web are funded by advertising and the ads and trackers help them figure out what is working so they can continue to make money and keep the content up. Slashdot doesn't work for free. So taking the content and turning off the ads is like taking the content without paying for it or giving back for the work involved.

      Most people don't turn the stuff off so it isn't a huge deal that a few do. But if more did than there would be a serious web monetization problem and every site would have to charge subscription fees to stay afloat. It's similar to downloading music without paying.

    13. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think publishers can afford to put that content online?

    14. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, we get that, but you know what? Serve up simple JPEG ads, non executable, and refuse anything else. That will kill all malware on your ad server. Don't do that, and a lot of people are going to block ads, and you can monetize that right up your ass. There's no reason at all to have anything in an ad on a website other than images and text. Filter everything else, or die.

      Maybe we could make an ad blocker to enforce that? I understand double click needs scripts to track ad effectiveness, but there's no excuse for serving up ads from their customers containing executable content, in the age of giganame password/credit card leaks. None at all.

    15. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summoning WHO? The GUY that TALKS in CAPS every OTHER word? YOU mean APK? Consider HIM summoned. ENJOY.

      p.s. There's ALWAYS a PS at THE end OF his POSTS.

      -- NOT really APK

    16. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      It's not just the visual representation that the ad companies are after. It is their job to distract you from the info/content you are reading. So while the site might make a couple more dollars with ads they lose interest in their content or their messages are not being absorbed they way the content creator had intended.

      On top of all of this many scripts on the page from ad companies are not only tracking the ad but sitting on every event loop. Now when you scroll change focus or many other actions your browser will have to deal with that as well again distracting from the content.

      In the end the content creator is losing their power of conveying their message in relation to distraction ad revenue.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    17. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It is becoming more common, however it still does seem rare for a useful site to do this. Generally when I have to unblock more than a couple third party sites before the main site is usable, it's not worth the effort to unblock more because I was only marginally interested in seeing whatever cat pictures that site had.

    18. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any way I can get my host file to block the beta slashdot?

      https://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1

    19. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by gman003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on the browser - IIRC on Chrome, it can't prevent ads from being downloaded, it can only prevent them from rendering. Or at least that was the case several years ago, maybe Chrome's added the APIs for it by now.

    20. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's fine with me. I'll watch their ads if they agree to pay to fix up things if I get hit by malware or identity theft, and agree to actively prevent tracking of visitors.

      Sites would not have to charge subscriptions if everyone did this, it is just one potential option. They could just kill off all the "me too" self promotion sites and no one would miss them ("hey, I just started a blog and don't know how to write coherently, but please look at my ads to pay for the drivel!").

      Even if they make money with advertisements, they can do so in a socially responsible way that shows respect for the customers! Instead most of them use third party ad servers, they don't even bother screening the ads themselves to see if they're something appropriate to the customer base. That's why people just give up and use doubleclick.net and serve up the malware.

      The ads slow down the internet! Web pages show up so much faster if you shut down all that crap. Especially if you've got a relative on a dial up modem, adding ad-block greatly speeds things up, far more than any dubious internet accelerator. Why should these EVIL ad content creators by allowed a free ride paid for with MY money? I don't use the word 'evil' lightly, these are freeloaders of the first order. Even the postal service advertisements are paid for by the advertiser, yet the internet advertisers get a free ride paid for by the recipient. Why should more than half of my bandwidth go to serving up content I don't want? I don't care if some web sites die because I refuse the ads, it is not my requirement to subsidize web sites.

    21. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      By pimping their visitors with malware? That's the answer?

    22. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      As a developer if you use 3rd party javascript libs (like jquery) it can be really smart to use a popular CDN instead of locally hosting because it decreases load time as it's likely already in the user's cache.
      Of course it's also smart to load a backup locally hosted version if the CDN version fails.

    23. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Morgon · · Score: 1

      If a couple of ads are 'locking your system' and 'using all CPU time', maybe you need CleanMyPC after all.
      There's a hit, sure, but you're painting a picture that your system is a bigger bottleneck than a couple of Javascript calls.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    24. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I block ads because I don't need to have every second of my life consumed with being fed advertisements (my adblocker on just one machine has blocked nearly one million ads in just 2014, so far). That it also prevents certain tracking and infection from nefarious advertisements and payloads is just a bonus.

      Find a new model or find a new job, nutsacks.

    25. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading your post at customers. Since I don't sell ads I'm not a customer.

    26. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I read doubleclick or anything else related, my cardiac frequency is > the use and the benefit of the service of google's doubleclick to me personally.

    27. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the visual representation that the ad companies are after. It is their job to distract you from the info/content you are reading. So while the site might make a couple more dollars with ads they lose interest in their content or their messages are not being absorbed they way the content creator had intended.

      On top of all of this many scripts on the page from ad companies are not only tracking the ad but sitting on every event loop. Now when you scroll change focus or many other actions your browser will have to deal with that as well again distracting from the content.

      In the end the content creator is losing their power of conveying their message in relation to distraction ad revenue.

      The whole point is to serve ads ... think television ... the whole purpose of the 'content' is to fill time between the ads - and the web is exactly the same in that aspect - the content is present to allow the ads to be presented, not the other way around - unless you are willing to pay for content directly.

    28. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is like Anti-Zen to me. :}

    29. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      The point I was trying to make is since with web content both the content and advertising are on the same page at the same time they both have the same primary goal, catch your attention. The ads can distract the reader from the content making your content less effective. It's a trade off. But a co the creator should be wary of the ways the advertisers are interacting with their users.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    30. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a bullshit argument 15 years ago and it's still bullshit today.

    31. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by pitchpipe · · Score: 1
      Let's see, Google owns:
      • AdMob
      • AdSense
      • AdWords
      • FeedBurner
      • DoubleClick
      • Froogle
      • Google Analytics
      • Gmail
      • Urchin

      All of which they are tracking you with (probably more). But I'm sure it's harmless /s

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    32. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by pitchpipe · · Score: 1
      As a side note, who the fuck thought that "AdMob" would be a good name for an advertising site? "We're going to MOB you with ADS!"

      Fuck Off, AdMob.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    33. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Shompol · · Score: 1

      The whole point is to serve ads ... think television ...

      Do not want. Neither television nor web becoming like television.

      unless you are willing to pay for content directly.

      Find a way to monetise it, post it free, or charge for it. No awesome works of art will be lost if some "content" posters quit to do something useful instead.

    34. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      PS. You FORGOT to use BOLD

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Shompol · · Score: 1

      there would be a serious web monetization problem

      We had the same problem before web for millenia. We did fine. 99% of low grade websites that would dissapear due to lack of ad sales should not have existed in the first place. Anything of value will find means to stay afloat.

    36. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, He's busy masturbating elsewhere, in a journal, of all places.

    37. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, apparently with his girlfriend. Whoa, man! There's a match made in heaven! Sure makes the trailer park look downright peaceful, before the cops show up.

    38. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by mirix · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that had something to do with Chrome being made by an advertising company. i.e. it was never a technical restriction, but an imposed one.

      Though some searching makes it look like this is no longer the case.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    39. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't just block ads, but I also use DuckDuckGo for searches as it doesn't feed my system ads.

    40. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wazzap nigga?... You know how messy a breakup can be. Cut 'em some slack, jack!

    41. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adblock lets thru ads that have paid them money.

      not good anymore. entire purpose subverted.

    42. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by houghi · · Score: 1

      I use both. So I use Adblock+ AND I use mvps.
      I use mvps as a basis for my own DNS server that I run. That way I do not only block the seperate site on mvps that I like blocked, I also can add sites that mvps doesn't block (I block facebook).

      I also see sites that my provider blocks (TPB among others) without the need to give even more data to others like Google (DNS server 8.8.8.8).

      Next to that I also use Adblock+ that will filter out a lot more stuff.
      If you rely on only one line of defence, you are very weak. use at least two.

      On sites that I visit very often, I use userstyles so I do not see a lot of the rubbish some site. And for YouTube I use Youtube Center and Google Image gets usable again with Old Google Image Search

      So do not look for solutions in one place. Use different tools for different reasons, even if they overlap a lot.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    43. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      As a side note, who the fuck thought that "AdMob" would be a good name for an advertising site? "We're going to MOB you with ADS!"

      Fuck Off, AdMob.

      Well, they were advertising for mobile devices - basically the iPhone and later Android devices.

      (And Apple and Google were competing to acquire AdMob, but Google eventually paid more and likely paid Apple to create iAds to get around anti-trust).

      Oh yeah, don't forget that Google's ad CDN is 1e100.net.

    44. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, I block ads because I *can*.

      This whole idea that seems to be pervasive on the net that I should find a "legitimate" excuse to block out the commercial crap that ad companies want to stick down my throat is insidious. l don't need an excuse like "it's malware", I reserve the right to filter out any and all information I don't like. I reserve the right to pick and choose the fonts, to pick and choose the colours, to pick and choose the pictures, and to pick and choose the bits of content of every web page that's offered to me.

      I don't accept package deals. I don't care about the experience the content provider wants me to have. I don't care that companies have stupid business models where they try to sell ad space, or try to collect my data to make their ends meet. It's not my problem, and I'll ignore it just because I feel like it. The fact that I'm also blocking malware is just icing on the cake. And if I'm bored, I'll teach others how to do all that too. Just because I'm bored.

      I'm not some guest on somebody else's net, where I'm supposed to stay inside a walled garden of bullshit and I need permission to sit down on a chair. It's as much my web as everyone else's, and I'll do what I please with the bits going through my section of tube, malwaew or no malware.

    45. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously you've never loaded one of the "aggressive" flash ads with a bunch of buttons and clickable crap built into the animation? Because I have seen one of those drag a 3GHz quad down to a crawl thanks to all the crap its trying to render being spread like the clap across a dozen CDNs, half of whom take forever and a day to respond or time out, which causes it to call the next CDN in its list...yeah sorry but the new ads are even nastier than you can imagine.

      If you want to see it for yourself just surf some "mainstream" sites like CNN, AOL, Yahoo "News" and the like for a couple hours with no adblocking, just be sure to have an offline disc image so you can blast the OS and restore from images. Hell I used to use a VM at the shop to let an image get the latest drive bys to test various AVs and stay up to date on removal methods but not anymore, with the latest bloated mess called "interactive ads" I had to quit because even with a C2D doing nothing but running the VM those bastards would slam it so hard I'd be lucky if I could kill the VM, it would just redline the cores to the firewall, nasty shit. Maybe if I slapped in a C2Q and limited the VM to only 2 or 3 cores I could do it again but frankly articles like this only prove my theory correct, back any precious memories, nuke the OS, and make sure they have a choice of browsers with ABP loaded into all of them.

      Oh and just FYI since insisting that my customers only use browsers I've preloaded with ABP? I've watched infections disappear, even my most clueless click happy customers only have to call me for hardware or networking issues. Of course it turned out just as I told my clueless former boss it would, because I'm "the guy that builds PCs so they don't mess up" I get referrals up the ying yang so I don't have to worry about repeat business, they are happy to tell everybody and their dog the ONLY place they should get a PC fixed or have one worked on is from/by me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    46. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yeah, we get that, but you know what? Serve up simple JPEG ads, non executable,
      >and refuse anything else. That will kill all malware on your ad server.

      Take a look at the jpeg related bugfixes on something like:
      https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2013/msg00211.html

      Image formats heva been uses to jailbreak devices (eg tiff for psp/iphone), these things are apparantly complex enough to introduce the ability to run arbitrary code.

    47. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My hosts file ..."

      Phew, for one moment I thought you'd give us the hosts spam.

    48. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on the browser - IIRC on Chrome, it can't prevent ads from being downloaded, it can only prevent them from rendering. Or at least that was the case several years ago, maybe Chrome's added the APIs for it by now.

      The ability to intercept requests was added 2+ years ago.

      Chrome used to not expose its network layer to javascript; it does now, so the scripts can hook at the connection layer instead of walking the finished DOM and removing the ads which is what they used to do.

    49. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use adblock+. It is much faster.

      Faster at what? Bankrupting the people who bring you free content? Hosting and time/effort to build and maintain websites is expensive. People should get paid to deliver websites just as you benefit non-monetarily by viewing a web page.

    50. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      My hosts file (across my Windows, Linux, and OSX) machines have been using the excellent MSVP hosts (http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm) for years.

      Plus, it speeds up internet browsing instead of having the browser ping 10+ different domains.

      Yup. Been using that for years. Very nice. Very little in the way of bullshit from Google or anywhere else.

    51. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Just use adblock+. It is much faster.

      Faster at what? Bankrupting the people who bring you free content? Hosting and time/effort to build and maintain websites is expensive. People should get paid to deliver websites just as you benefit non-monetarily by viewing a web page.

      Entitlement mentality much? How much is left on your EBT card this month?

      If they didn't want to go out of business, they would run their own ads and keep careful watch on what those ads do.

      It's a pain in the ass to block stuff, but a bigger pain in the ass to get infected, or clean PCs of grandma and other relatives all the time. Nobody would bother blocking if ads weren't intrusive and dangerous.

    52. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Also of note, zedo.com shows up in NoScript as a site that has javascript awaiting permissions on the /. home page.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    53. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " I reserve the right to pick and choose the fonts, to pick and choose the colours, to pick and choose the pictures, and to pick and choose the bits of content of every web page that's offered to me. "

      I could guarantee you don't have the right and you don't even have the technological capability to do so unless you're intercepting the packets and re-writing the code on the fly.

      Which means you're obviously not using HTTPS and thus you're a moron ripe for security hijacking.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    54. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever the economy tanks, advertising companies get more aggressive.

      Cryptolocker has been on Yahoo's ad network for damn near a year now, and now google is spreading it.

      But, we live in a day and age where the aristocracy is immune from handcuffs, so this bullshit will continue until it becomes truly destabilizing.

    55. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      By default, adblock lets through a certain subset of non-intrusive ads. You can disable this, as well.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    56. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps so but you're missing several key points. For one, we shouldn't HAVE to download a secondary program just to get the web browser to work right. Moreover, we wouldn't need to if ads were simply ads. One or two on a page, unobtrusive, and doesn't require any system resources to display. Furthermore this particular problem is not in one single site, but rather in thousands of sites, so basically we're talking about a company that makes billions allowing millions of people to be exposed to a virus simply for using their product. They should be spending their money better then that. With the infrastructure of the company, their computer expertise, and their elephant dollars, this should not have been possible. Moreover, internet advertising has paved the way for computerized advertising in a way that's really detrimental. It's gotten to the point now where you cannot buy a product on the market without getting an ad for several others. Buy a game it'll push you to buy Steam. Buy MS Word it'll push you to buy office. Hell buy windows and they'll push you to buy a different version of windows.

    57. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always say no to a salesman. If they insist simply say you are aware that NO is where salesmanship starts. Ironically it's where rape starts as well. The hard or upsell will stop right there. I know I say it all the time with a huge grin as I walk away.

    58. Re:And they wonder why I block ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Chrome, I also use "HTTP Switchboard". Takes some time to configure, but I think it was well worth it.

      Would be nice if they would add a mode that enables you to also configure it visually, directly on the page.

    59. Re: And they wonder why I block ads... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      When _you_ start paying for _my_ internet access THEN we'll talk.

      Otherwise Fuck Off with your entitlement attitude.

  2. And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use Adblockers / flashblocker and NoScript.

    And I utterly will not reconsider for any reason.

    1. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Right now, there are a few sites (majorgeeks) that ask you to please allow ads because that's what pays for the site and others simply refuse entry.

      You will reconsider when sites tell you to disable all ad blockers and hosts files that block ad sites or you will not be able to view the content.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:And there's the reason why... by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you will not be able to view the content.

      Sounds like a challenge!

      (Not a very hard one, but a challenge nonetheless)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:And there's the reason why... by reikae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't think of any website I wanted to visit this year but couldn't due to adblocking. I doubt it's necessary to reconsider any time soon. Even then, I'll first look into alternative websites.

    4. Re:And there's the reason why... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong.

      Right now, there are a few sites (majorgeeks) that ask you to please allow ads because that's what pays for the site and others simply refuse entry.

      You will reconsider when sites tell you to disable all ad blockers and hosts files that block ad sites or you will not be able to view the content.

      Wrong. The only thing I'll reconsider is visiting those sites.

    5. Re:And there's the reason why... by aevan · · Score: 2

      ...and then someone will capitalise on all those customers lost, and provide an alternate they can palate. ..then they will get too big, make a drastic change or such to lose their group.. and a new alternate will emerge. It's almost like it's happened before.

    6. Re:And there's the reason why... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      I not only use AdBlock and Flashblock, I use Facebook block as well. I use the "Google cache" "text-only" version to view anything semi-interesting that won't let me view it, which is pretty rare anyway.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    7. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no fucking way would i reconsider my use of adblockers, even on legitimate sites like majorgeeks or bleepingcomputer. they have lost my ad eyeballs _forever_ due to their continued use of multiple 3rd party tracking sites, 3rd party ad networks, and display of misleading ads and sometimes confusing download links that can easily end up making a poor guy's computer even worse off than it was before they went to the site looking for help or tools to clean off the crud they already had.

    8. Re:And there's the reason why... by Arker · · Score: 0

      No, I wont.

      As sites, one by one, go insane, I quit going to them.

      The nice thing is, the internet is still very useful without them.

      If you are tired of facebook bling and mindrot, if you are looking for the informative web that we used to have, you have only to open your eyes. Turn off ecmascript, and when you hit an address that refuses to return a web-page, just hit your back button and go somewhere else.

      It's a good thing in a way. I used to have to spend some time reading to figure out that a site was worthless. Now I just notice that it isnt actually a webpage right off and save some time.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    9. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Your post isn't actually a webpage.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1, Funny

      You could just unplug the modem ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Not when it's all of the sites.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to visit majorgeeks all the time, until I got banned from their forums for finding (and providing proof of) malware in one of their recommended programs. That's the day I said fuc* windows and converted to Linux.

    13. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      You're not getting it.

      It's not the sites that will block you. It's the ad servers that the site is throwing at you.

      If you aren't alive to the ad servers, you're dead to the website.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, sites that are foolish enough to make a blanket demand like that will die off because too many people will give them the finger and go elsewhere. This isn't 1999 anymore, there are no unique sites.

      What's more likely is sites that notice this trend will start using "trusted" advertisers that vet their content delivery systems more strictly, ensuring a minimum of crapware gets served to visitors. Are you familiar with how whitelists work?

    15. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people use flashblock when they just simply could uninstall flash!

    16. Re:And there's the reason why... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Or, actually, right, given that the GP was expressing his own personal opinion. But, hey, if you know his mind better than he does...

      You will reconsider

      Also you can see into the future. Neat!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    17. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here - if they demand ablockers off.... well guess what happens.

      I Dont Go Back.

      So I am 100% right and you are wrong. No. Fucking WAY am I surfing without protection.

    18. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just checked both of the sites you mention, and they show up just fine with no warnings or kick-out messages.

      You just have to live with the fact that they both look like they were made in 1996, with no CSS or fancy layouts.

      You don't see it? Here's why:
      - Firefox (current version, just update as they do, no need to hold back)
      - AdBlock+ (to block ad server requests before they ever happen)
      - FlashBlock (to stop execution of Flash objects post-load, but pre-run)
      - NoScript (to whitelist Javascript execution)
      - RequestPolicy (to whitelist Javascript remote loading)
      - NoRedirect (because some sites use an onLoad Javascript to remove a time-delayed meta redirect that kicks you to a "use javascript or die" page)
      - Ghostery (to refuse all sorts of nasties)
      - Click To Play per-element (to put Firefox back to pre-24 behavior for FlashBlock)
      - Click to play switch (to allow me to toggle the above click-to-play modifier)

      I haven't met a site yet that can stop me from browsing any part of it I want. Couple it with Firebug and good old Web Developer Toolbar, and I can extract things they think are hidden.

      That's the problem with all these stupid newbies on the 'net these days: they just don't know how shit works. It's like old-school management just gave them a full-on stupid transplant, and they think they rule the world because they use a frickin' Mac. Nevermind the fact that Mac users are generally about as far removed from "how shit really works" as any computer user can actually get without shorting out their keyboard from the drool.

      No offense if you don't fall into that category. I'm just ranting now. You, in fact, seem to be one of the sane people that blocks all of this crap up front. Just don't give up on getting whatever you want just because they throw up a full-screen div overlay. Nuke that shit from orbit with whatever tools you have, and for god's sake, don't be afraid to use an HTTP mimic tool to scrape whatever you damned well please.

    19. Re:And there's the reason why... by tepples · · Score: 1

      I don't see Wikipedia or All The Tropes adopting such an ad blocker blocker any time soon.

    20. Re:And there's the reason why... by gman003 · · Score: 1

      There's a couple webcomics I read where the "only traitors enable adblock" images are still less obnoxious than the actual ads, so I keep it enabled and just buy some of their swag instead.

    21. Re:And there's the reason why... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I won't reconsider. When that happens I will not view the content and go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting that there actually is content on the internet that is mandatory viewing?

    22. Re:And there's the reason why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's like saying because we can't fight the government we may as well stop our protests and start loving the government instead. If we can't stop war with a protest we should learn to love the bomb. Do you fail to see the raw anger that these anti-social and irresponsible advertisers are generating? If all of the sites vanish then maybe that will be a good thing.

    23. Re:And there's the reason why... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      any site that demands I disable ad-blockers is not a site I NEED to visit. so, its self-filtering.

      (what's the problem, again?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:And there's the reason why... by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      You will reconsider when sites tell you to disable all ad blockers and hosts files that block ad sites or you will not be able to view the content.

      No I won't. I'll just remove that site from my bookmarks file and never go back.

    25. Re:And there's the reason why... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's an awful lot of trouble to see some cats or boobs. Not worth the bother.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    26. Re:And there's the reason why... by Tom · · Score: 1

      If they ask, I'll consider it and I may decide this way or that.

      If they lock me out without ads, I'll never visit their site again. I don't want ads, they don't want me as a visitor, we seem to have a concord.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    27. Re:And there's the reason why... by Patman64 · · Score: 1

      If you aren't alive to the ad servers, you're dead to the website.

      Then download the ads directly into /dev/null. You make it sound like a difficult problem.

    28. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just add Stylish to your arsenal and unhide content or hide the begging.

    29. Re:And there's the reason why... by griffjon · · Score: 1

      I actually find that Ghostery is quite nice.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    30. Re:And there's the reason why... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      The Life Cycle of the Internet.

      "Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them."

    31. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No, that's not like what it's saying.

      What it's like saying is, you have a choice:

      1.) Don't block ad servers
      2.) Block ad servers.

      In the first case, you get to to see the web's content. In the second case, you don't.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    32. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No.

      YOU make it sound like a difficult problem.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    33. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Then you will visit pay sites.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    34. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      As more ad servers deny access to content, your bookmark file will fill with dead links.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    35. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If you haven't visited that site before, how can you predict that you don't NEED it?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    36. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I am suggesting that you, which is not representative of any population greater than one, have no reason to be on the Internet,

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    37. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Then adblock didn't achieve its goal if you are having to buy, right?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    38. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Cool. You go to two (2) web sites.

      I think you'll agree that, as regards the Internet demographics, you don't actually use it.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    39. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      We all can see into the future. Advertisers are going to deliver their content to your browser FIRST, and then the content will follow.

      We've already been through this.

      Perform the following experiment as a predictive exercise to explain what will happen when you use an ad blocker in the future:

      In your browser, disable cookies.

      Then navigate to sites.

      Enable cookies.

      Document the experience.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    40. Re:And there's the reason why... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if all the ads were limited to an image, maybe some text and clickable links, it would make everybody happy except the most hard-core advertisers looking for the next big thing and the poor slobs who actually click on the ads.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    41. Re: And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those "refuse to deliver content to ad blockers" scripts don't work against Opera 12.

    42. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need to block ads with something like AdBlock. Using NoScript with Flash and SilverLight blocking enabled is sufficient to ward off almost every kind of browser malware without eliminating advertising outright. There have been a few exploits which take advantage of bugs in image loaders, but those can be thwarted by sandboxing the browser. I still see ads, just nothing that dances across my screen or abuses my speakers. I don't mind text and image advertising, and I can tolerate animated JPEG ads, though I do find them awfully annoying. Honest advertisers will eventually determine that hijacking the users' web browsing experience just leads to poor (or even negative) ROI.

      - T

    43. Re:And there's the reason why... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yeah it did, he's not seeing ads. Where did it say he *had* to buy? It seems he doesn't mind supporting sites by buying swag; he just doesn't want to see ads.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    44. Re:And there's the reason why... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I've lived this long without it. If I needed it, I wouldn't have,

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    45. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You'll be living tomorrow, though ... right?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    46. Re:And there's the reason why... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that I won't live past today if I don't disable my adblocker to be able to view the contents of laughatmycat.com?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    47. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If today is opposite day, I am.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    48. Re:And there's the reason why... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Then we agree, if I didn't need it before today, I don't need it now. At least, as far as content on a website is concerned.

      Until organizations that provide the paid services I rely on start cramming ads down my throat, I don't think it'll be an issue. Once they start that, we're all fucked, anyway.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    49. Re:And there's the reason why... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And we didn't even get a kiss.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    50. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a time when shills at least tried to be non-obvious. You are ridiculously obvious.

      And, of course, you are also completely wrong.

      But you already know that, and don't care.

    51. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...And if the content is worth paying for, whats the problem with that?

      No ads, no problem with that at all.

    52. Re:And there's the reason why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With it forcing monospace on everybody, it isn't particularly readable, either.

      The "Code" post type should be used for code, not discussion.

    53. Re:And there's the reason why... by Tom · · Score: 1

      And free sites. They still exist - I run a couple myself. I found that for me, a mix of free and paid sites covers almost everything I need on the Internet. You just have to spend a little time finding what's for you instead of always following the top three Google hits.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Google = Direct arm of the CIA/NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they want to infect as many people as possible.

    1. Re:Google = Direct arm of the CIA/NSA by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're wrong!
      The CIA and NSA are direct arms of Google.

  4. Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stupidity is sufficient.

  5. No surprise by networkzombie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been blocking doubleclick on the corporate firewall for years, and in every hosts file I come in contact with. No one ever complained, but now if they do, I have ammunition. If you serve up a web site, you should personally vouch for not only the product you are advertising, but the source of the advert as well. I blame Google for placing advertising dollars above their users (I know, they don't have users, they have sheep for fleecing).

    1. Re:No surprise by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Most of these sites don't know what ads they are serving. They just sign up with some ad suppliers and wait for the pennies to start trickling in with no work or effort on their part. Can you even imagine if television shows did the same thing, allowing anyone and everyone to show an advertisement with no oversight, with viagra being advertised during children's shows and Cheeze Whiz advertised on the Food Channel.

    2. Re:No surprise by A+NonyMouse+CowHerd · · Score: 1

      First thing I install on any system I buy - privoxy. (http://www.privoxy.org/) Blocks ads and web-bugs out of the box.

    3. Re:No surprise by kevmeister · · Score: 1

      It's really not Google or any other advertizing reseller as it is the way ads are normally placed on sites. It makes it nearly impossible for even a careful web site to be safe.

      Most ads are delivered as links to blobs of ECMAscript. They are difficult to check for malware even by knowledgeable webmasters. And, even the best don't know when some innocuous blob downloaded by might change to something evil at any time. The whole system is nearly impossible to make secure.

      For this reason I run NoScript on all systems. Too bad that it blocks legitimate ads, but I just don't want to deal with the potential infections. It also makes some web pages that make heavy use of multiple external services to work difficult to use. Video and streaming are the worst, but I find it to be worth the occasional pain.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    4. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you even imagine if television shows did the same thing, allowing anyone and everyone to show an advertisement with no oversight, with viagra being advertised during children's shows and Cheeze Whiz advertised on the Food Channel.

      You've never heard of product placement, have you?

    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "video and streaming are the worst"

      Give livestreamer and/or youtube-dl a shot to watch streams in your desktop media player of choice. The two, between them, I find are sufficient for just about anything worth watching.

  6. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    So to all those site operators that cry foul when I say I block all ads all the time: This would be why. It's not because I object to being shown products I might be interested in. It's not because I'm trying to hurt your revenue stream. It's because ad delivery servers are so ubiquitous, they're a major malware vector.

    Sorry, but funding your site is not worth my entire network getting infected. You want me to change, lean on the advertisers to stop pushing security responsibility solely on the end user.

  7. Ad Blockers... by Dega704 · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the best endpoint security tools you can deploy.

    1. Re:Ad Blockers... by ark1 · · Score: 1

      FYI, by default Ad Block plus allows some non intrusive ads from Google and others. Make sure to disable "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" and only whitelist ads on sites you want to support.

  8. Just say block by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DoublcClick has such negative value that their servers should be blocked at firewalls, or at least "host.txt". Even if you have AdBlock, blocking them earlier saves bandwidth.

    1. Re:Just say block by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      At home I made my DNS server authoritative for .doubleclick.net (and admob and few others) all pointing to 127.0.0.1:

      % host foo.doubleclick.net
      Using domain server:
      Name: 192.168.1.5
      Address: 192.168.1.5#53
      Aliases:

      foo.doubleclick.net has address 127.0.0.1

      That way mobile devices and everything are covered. Hard to have a hosts file on an unrooted iPhone, etc.

    2. Re:Just say block by Bengie · · Score: 1

      127.0.0.1 doesn't respond, so the page won't finish loading until it times out. That's worse than just letting the ad load from a performance perspective.

    3. Re:Just say block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127.0.0.1 doesn't respond, so the page won't finish loading until it times out. That's worse than just letting the ad load from a performance perspective.

      Yes, it's faster to run a light webserver locally and redirect * to that.

    4. Re:Just say block by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      127.0.0.1 doesn't respond, so the page won't finish loading until it times out. That's worse than just letting the ad load from a performance perspective.

      Seriously? You think if it acted like that anyone would really do that? Or use a hosts file? Really??

    5. Re:Just say block by amaurea · · Score: 1

      How does blocking them earlier save bandwidth? AdBlock makes your browser not even try to download the blocked element. I don't see how that results in any useless traffic.

    6. Re:Just say block by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Meh, that's what NXDOMAIN is for I suppose. That's what I get when I try to resolve them. I must have 25 domains configured this way.

    7. Re:Just say block by SirCowMan · · Score: 1

      I have the DNS server point to an IP running pixelserv rather than 127.0.0.1. Notwithstanding browsers with cross-site scripting warnings, ads are replaced with a single pixel image.. saves the iframes of error messages.

      --
      !Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
    8. Re:Just say block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127.0.0.1 doesn't respond, so the page won't finish loading until it times out. That's worse than just letting the ad load from a performance perspective.

      Pssst: 0.0.0.0
      Prevent hits to your local webserver and its logs

    9. Re:Just say block by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't respond, isn't that an instant "not available", why would there be a timeout? I try a connect, I instantly get nothing, browser realizes it has to skip. Also, this all happens in the kernel, not even hitting a device driver.

      Why that would be slower than going to google/doubleclick, having them decide on an ad, and sending to me?

    10. Re:Just say block by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wrong, you should get an ICMP response immediately.

      Unless you're firewalling 127.0.0.0/8 to yourself, which would be incredibly stupid.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:Just say block by TCM · · Score: 1

      The stupidity lies in answering with an A record at all.

      Just say there is no address (NXDOMAIN). No useless traffic, no semantics to worry about.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    12. Re:Just say block by TCM · · Score: 1

      No, you should be getting a TCP RST.

      Do you kids know anything?

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    13. Re:Just say block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are different ways a website can be unavailable, and they behave in different ways.
      Methods that will make the web browser give up immediately include:
      * DNS NXDOMAIN, which you can't do with a hosts file
      * TCP reset (server refuses the connection) - default behavior for 127.0.0.1
      * HTTP 400- or 500-level error

      Methods that will take a long time to time out include:
      * "Stealthed" port on the web server (no response to port 80 or 443) - this is apparently what Bengie has for 127.0.0.1
      * Delegate the domain to a nonexistent DNS server (no response to port 53)

    14. Re:Just say block by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You should get an ICMPv4 response with a type value of 3, and code value of 3.

      RST happens when something borks up in an existing session, not in response to a SYN. (exception: when firewalls/NAT gateways are configured to reply with an RST, instead of dropping or ICMP).

      Don't you kids know anything?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Just say block by TCM · · Score: 1

      I have no idea WTF you are talking about. A closed TCP port emits an RST. It even says so in the very link you posted:

      http://www.tcpipguide.com/free...

      "Receipt of a SYN message on a port where there is no process listening for connections."

      Next time you try to be a smart-ass, get your facts straight. Idiot.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    16. Re:Just say block by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You really are an asshole, aren't you? The attitude isn't necessary.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:Just say block by TCM · · Score: 1

      Because I don't sugercoat idiocy? You had two chances to state simple and correct facts, yet you chose to claim authority over stuff you know jack shit about, being a pompous idiot in the process and now you're all butthurt?

      Get off my lawn, kid. Good riddance.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  9. Ad servers in general... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ... and doubleclick in particular, do not get past my firewall. Among the reasons I block 'em is this malware distribution issue.

  10. Privoxy by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

    pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?gdfp_req=
    blocked by three different rules

    d3.zedo.com/jsc/d3/fo.js
    blocked

    static.the-button.com/d2.php
    blocked by a five-year old exploit protection rule

    inter.wiab-service.ge/geobalancer/geo2.php
    blocked (alright, by a geo-location rule, but still blocked!)

    I don't think that one stood a chance here.

  11. Proxomitron by elbiatcho1 · · Score: 1

    Anyone still using Proxomitron with Sidki scripts?

  12. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    127.0.0.1 ads.double.net
    127.0.0.1 imp.double.net
    127.0.0.1 ad03.doubleadx.com
    127.0.0.1 marketing.doubleclickindustries.com

    Doubt that was a problem for me.

  13. Disconnect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen anyone mention the Disconnect extension yet. I've been using Disconnect combined with Chrome's click-to-play plugin setting. Assuming that these ads are flash ads, that would probably be enough to knock them out. Adobe Flash has been a prominent infection vector for so long, it's amazing anyone lets it run by default.

  14. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Do you want to pay for a subscription on every single site that you visit?

    Yes! I want to pay if it means that I never see another ad or sponsored result on that site. But such a payment system must be anonymous, limited in value, and efficient - 100% of the money has to go to the website. I will not pay for a site that takes my money and also shovels ads in my face.

    > Do you want the internet to get splintered so that you have to pay for the X package which gets you access to nytimes, cnn and aol? But if you want slashdot and ars you have to pay for the special nerd Y package?

    No, agregation into packages is completely unacceptable. That's just as bad as "Internet Fast Lanes."

  15. You're not the real APK by tepples · · Score: 1

    I can tell you're trying to trade off APK's "valuable reputation" too because the capitalization pattern doesn't match.

    1. Re:You're not the real APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he forgot to embolden a few words or entire lines like he does. He also forgot the hyperlinks of his old posts taunting his opponents as 'proof' of something.

  16. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by tepples · · Score: 1

    No, agregation into packages is completely unacceptable.

    Then be prepared to pay $19.99 per year for each website, even if you plan to view only one page on that site, because you are unwilling to pay for bundles of multiple sites. Look at 50 different sites one month? That'll be a thousand dollars.

  17. So why did it take Google so long to fix this? by dhammabum · · Score: 1

    malwarebytes (imply that they) reported this on 30 August. Did they report it to Google?

    Nearly 3 weeks till it was shutdown on the 19th. That's a hell of a lot of malware getting dished out.

    --
    I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
  18. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say that like Bitcoin isn't a thing.

    That bundling model you're thinking of is dying too.

  19. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been hearing this since 1995. It's getting old...

  20. edit host file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First thing I do with a new OS?

    127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net

    1. Re:edit host file by networkzombie · · Score: 1

      Not good enough. There are many:
      0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 ad.n2434.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 a.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 b.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 c.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 d.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 e.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 h.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 i.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 j.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 k.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 l.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 m.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 n.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 o.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 p.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 q.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 r.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 s.doubleclick.net
      0.0.0.0 ad.ar.doubleclick.net
      etc...

    2. Re:edit host file by ruir · · Score: 1

      DNS proxy, or BIND with RPZ technology , *.doubleblick.net

  21. This is one reason why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I DNS blackhole ad servers.

  22. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you also do realize that the old and military/civil internet was a non-commercial network? It's all about how clean and tidy you intend to keep your digital infrastructure. The rest is compromise. I'm just saying, you've gotten your argument across. I've even used an almost identical argument once to push a point. A server must be paid for, undoubtfully. Yet, it could work like day. Those ultra-rich techfirms should pay for the net exclusively, and simply offer servers free from charge to anyone requesting it. Of course in an orderly manner. (etc)

  23. Windows computer please by ruir · · Score: 2

    Please be objective in the articles. Windows computers, not "computers". And no malware here, adblock+host files to 127.0.0.1+OS/X+iOS

  24. Popular Zedo? Really? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked at Zedo pretty early on. I did a year there, pretty much exactly year 2000 (now coworkers now know who I am).

    I was their C guy, did an apache module for the adserver, and some mild javascript work until they got a better Javascript coder than me. I also helped out a bit in Java and DB work, and most of the Linux/FreeBSD sysadmin for a bit. We were in a small live-work loft in SOMA where I walked through two slums to get to work.

    In the beginning, it was about "choice". We had a small on page ad client. At first a Java one, then a Javascript one, with a GUI that let you choose your ad. It was new, different, and a way to try to get people the ads they want and not have to keep huge track of users. (You can check the patent out if you like though I can tell you this was theoretical design and it wasn't built this way). It put the emphasis on the ad, not on the tracking. Ads needed to be designed to be engaging or they'd just be skipped. We kept track of your ad choices, not your pages. It was fun, true startup culture. We were going after the (then) mighty Doubleclick, railing the fact that they stored too much info. I remember tailing the server logs on our first paying gig, cheering as I noticed the URI fragment for the first ad clickthru. We checked the guys IP address, noticed he had an ICQ run webserver on his box, and talked to him over ICQ thanking him for clicking. In hindsight, yeah, that must have freaked him out.

    We didn't see Google coming to crush the ad market at all. I had already left but Im sure Google's elephant sized footprints in the market made them radically change their business plan. I didn't talk to them much, and on the web I read stories about intrusive Zedo cookies, heard them called "king of the popunder" and heard stories about "popup blocker blockers". This made me a bit sad, why do all that? But I guess you either do that, or throw in the towel and close up shop. I can't say what I'd do if it was my savings on the line.

    As an aside (always a tangent!) I had an 8MM videocamera. Though I filmed some stuff in San Francisco (hey Dave, any news on the video for me?) I always wanted to film us. But I couldn't both work and film. I was actually slightly pissed when Startup.com came out. Hey that was my idea! But you can't objectively film what you're in.

    1. Re:Popular Zedo? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (now coworkers now know who I am).

      Is there a typo somewhere in that line?

  25. Do you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the sound of millions of users feeling justified in using Adblock Plus.

  26. The very reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have noscript set to block doubleclick. I run adblock+ as well. I pay for my bandwidth, and don't like ads using it. I don't like ads.

  27. Microsoft Windows exposes computers to malware by lippydude · · Score: 0

    corrected title ..

  28. Windows Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows is the malware magnet here

  29. Re:Websites have to be paid for... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    ads != doubleclick.

    There are ways for sites to include advertising without surrendering their site to third-party-hosted malware. Many ways which aren't even blocked by adblockers by default. It's a bit more work for them than just using doubleclick/etc, but it's worth it.

    So you're really saying that all the stupid/lazy sites will die off or retire behind paywalls. Surely that's "mission fucking accomplished."

    (I'm constantly amazed that newspaper and TV-network sites mindless use doubleclick/etc for their websites, even though they have large advertising/marketing departments for their non-web products. You are already paying for an ad department! You already have a network of advertisers! You already have their actual ad-content on file! Why are you giving money to another company to do what you already do yourself and have done for over half a century?)

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  30. This is news? by doccus · · Score: 1

    I can't begin to say how many times Google's doubleclick ads have set off the "This website may damage your computer", even though I I'm relatively protected, as I use a Mac, and the warnings come from, of all places, Google Chrome!. It then warns me that if I choose to continue, "bad things" might happen.. However, it doesn't actually allow me to continue. So why the warning at all about what could happen? Go figure...

    1. Re:This is news? by ruir · · Score: 1

      My favourite one is telling me to install a Windows "AV" to protect my computer. Or a "video plugin". No wonder my relatives Windows computers are always messed up.

  31. They are stupid and lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that is the only reason they do that. It is NOT difficult to negotiate your own deals with advertisers for your site, that are targeted to YOUR audience, YOUR demographics, YOUR content.

    I think this is the biggest issue with why people hate ads in the first place. Sure they hate blaring, loud, flashing ads doing every damned thing they can to get your attention, but the reason they do all that to get your attention is because what they are selling is NOT relevant to the views/mood/interests of the viewer.

    So we ignore it. And they crack up the volume, metaphorically, to 11 to get that attention back. And it becomes a massive negative experience that, as you can see, negatively impacts the site displaying the advertising. The businesses purchasing the ads do not care, it doesn't impact them much at all really, they already expect insanely low turn over numbers form advertising anyways.

    And that expectation is the other massive problem. Widespread advertising has watered down the pool, and trying to drive that sub-1% number upwards is why they go louder on advertising. They still want to sell on quality versus quantity without understanding why volume works better, but also without realizing why websites are not the same as billboards and shotgun-ads are always gonna have shitty returns even if you advertised on every single website on the net.

    Target advertising to interests...website interests. Why do I want to see car ads on Slashdot (fo example, i don't see any ads on slashdot anymore)? Why do i want to see ads for a Lexus while watching a Japanese cartoon about giant robots? Why do I want to see ads for music when I am watching how-to videos on welding? The simple answer is, I don't. And its stupid to not only waste advertising budgets getting those ads onto these sites, but its also a waste of the site's resources and reputation to show them to me in these contexts. Ad networks are the worst of middlemen, they show what THEY want and to hell with your website's content. Even if they promise not to, they do anyways.

    So no, at this time, i will not bow to them and "allow" ads on their website. Not even "banner ads" not even Adwords. If it is so important to their revenue to have ads on their site, they can either figure out a way to subhost and fetch them so they are truly a part of the website and thus get around my blocks, or they can start selling advertising space directly to other businesses and host content themselves for that. I really don't care but either way it makes them a lot more responsible for their own revenue.

  32. mod parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly this^^^^^

    I have not understood this since they started getting online back in the 90's. Why why why let someone else manage your online ads for you like this and accept paltry payouts for it? If the answer was "it was hard back then cause the net was new" well it isn;t hard anymore, these ad networks do it, why can;t you? Make a trusted web platform for it to sell to others in your field and *gasp* make money directly off your competitors!

    That's what Google did after all.

  33. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  34. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  35. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  36. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  37. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  38. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  39. Do so the BEST way possible (hosts)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  40. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  41. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  42. Impersonating me now? Please (lol)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Validly disprove my points on hosts adding speed, security, reliability instead http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    APK

    P.S.=> Good luck - you'll need it (more like a miracle - it can't be done validly)... apk

    1. Re:Impersonating me now? Please (lol)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like sucking cocks.

      APK

      P.S.=> I also like jerking off strangers in dark alleyways for free.

  43. Why use 1 source only? Use 12 instead... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  44. You're MORE than welcome to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Validly technically disprove my points on hosts adding speed, security, & reliability here http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * As are any other "naysayer trolls" in this article's replies... since "the best you got" = mere effete off topic trolling, & nothing more.

    APK

    P.S.=> Good luck - you'll NEED it (more like a miracle: It CAN'T validly be done)... apk

  45. Just for you puny troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a read & a challenge to validly technically disprove my points on hosts (good luck, you need it) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    APK

    P.S.=> Puny trolls - you're ALL the same (predictable stooges I dispatch with facts & truth you can't get the best of, lol)... apk

  46. Disprove my points on hosts troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Validly technically disprove my points on hosts (good luck, you need it) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    APK

    P.S.=> Puny trolls - you're ALL the same (predictable stooges I dispatch with facts & truth you can't get the best of, lol)... apk

  47. Why use 1 source only? Use 12... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  48. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  49. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  50. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  51. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  52. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  53. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  54. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  55. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  56. "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impersonating me again? Take a read/see subject-line & this -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    APK

    P.S.=> Your stupidity is what lets me KNOW that I am winning here since it's clearly "the best you got" (thank you)... apk

  57. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  58. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  59. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  60. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  61. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  62. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  63. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  64. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  65. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  66. Hosts != detectable - Addons are... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my subject: Browser addons = easily detected by native browser methods & hosts aren't!

    Hosts are better on that alone as well as doing tons more for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity vs. browser addons (which are redundant and eat more resources, by far).

    Addons are SLOWER: How/why?

    1st of all - They have messagepassing overheads hosts don't - use a few addons concurrently & see (you slowdown the browser). Secondly - Addons operate in usermode instead of kernelmode like hosts do layering on OVER usermode browsers slowing them more!

    Third - Hosts are the 1st resolver queried before remote DNS servers even, long before browser addons even BEGIN to operate, limited to webbrowsers as they are only, hosts operate on ANY webbound program (think external to browser email programs for instance)).

    APK

    P.S.=> Hosts are the SUPERIOR solution by far, on many levels... apk

  67. Ghostery = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  68. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  69. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  70. Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

  71. Ghostery = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

    ...apk

  72. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can Ghostery do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Ghostery" ('souled-out' to advertisers in Evidon, who OWN them, defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  73. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can Ghostery do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    (Ghostery's a browser addon - & easily detected + blocked by native browser methods - hosts aren't!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Ghostery" ('souled-out' to advertisers in Evidon, who OWN them, defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

  74. Thanks tepples... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for the late thanks, but it's the thought that counts - as did yours to me!

    APK

    P.S.=> I'd almost GUARANTEE It's BarbHudson (who now has yet ANOTHER sockpuppet account, & has started up with me again after her other 2 were banned http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... = http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) again doing what she's said to do to me (harass & stalk me by AC posts):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    As well as moddown all my posts on hosts especially when "shim" has modpoints in those sockpuppets of hers!

    Why?

    He/she's a webmaster making monies from ads -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Which tells me that "her kind" & their colleagues (advertisers) are SCARED SHITLESS of hosts

    (Hosts can't be BOUGHT OUT & crippled like AdBlock OR detected for by native browser methods to dump addons you use, to block you IF/WHEN you block ads).

    (Obviously, that IS part of his/her twisted "motivation" along with me proving her wrong @ every turn with facts on hosts value (pride?), vs. her b.s. (those accounts listed above? Only SOME of them, & , shown here @ this posts' termination also) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - Man!

    That literal transsexual twisted stalking, harassing, libeling freak (no lie) has done TOO MUCH ESTROGEN & it's fucking up he/she's mind (not good for men to do, this IS the result) - obsessed with stalking, harassing, impersonating & libeling me for YEARS now on this site... apk

  75. You're more than welcome to... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To validly technically disprove my points on hosts' superiority over AdBlock here http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * Good luck - it's NOT possible, since I used nothing but technical facts & truth (all I need).

    APK

    P.S.=> You poor trolls: Obviously, you're advertisers or webmasters, malware makers/botnet herders, or inferior competitors (the only ones threatened by hosts, since hosts can't be detected for & BLOCKED by native browser methods OR sold out to advertisers like AdBlock is, crippled by default defeating its purpose) - you're losing, & your stupidity shows it.

    LOL - So, according to YOU, it's "ok for adblock spam" constantly, but not for me to SHOW HOW INFERIOR ADBLOCK IS? I do so with facts you cannot get the better of, clearly!

    So, Make me laugh some more... lol!

    ... apk

  76. jQuery.com Compromised To Serve Malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my subject-line above, & "Read all about it" -> http://developers.slashdot.org...

    APK

    P.S.=> Anyone wondering WHY I use hosts to blockout ads using my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit to populate them (especially vs. malicious sites) http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ? Don't - YOUR POST HELPS ME PROVE MY POINTS IN THAT LINK (thanks)... apk

  77. Project much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously apk has valid proof of taking you down before or you wouldn't be posting ac, imbecile. Talk about obvious.