Slashdot Mirror
Superfish Injects Ads In 1 In 25 Google Page Views
An anonymous reader writes: A new report from Google has found that more than 5% of unique daily IP addresses accessing Google — tens of millions — are interrupted by ad-injection techniques, and that Superfish, responsible for a major controversy with Lenovo in February is the leading adware behind what is clearly now an industry. Amongst the report's recommendations to address the problem is the suggestion that browser makers "harden their environments against side-loading extensions or modifying the browser environment without user consent." Some of the most popular extensions for Chrome and Firefox, including ad-blockers, depend on this functionality.
Google sez we must remove ad blocker functionality!
I smell an ulterior motive..
As a serious coffee consumer, their main problem is you can't customize the cup of coffee. I drink so much coffee that I started making it weaker, and weaker, and then half strength. The last time I stayed in an office with a Keurig setup, I think I nearly killed myself before I realized what was happening.
I'd love to have one, but the 'my way or the highway' reality of those little cups doesn't work. And don't even start on the cost.
that's what it's Supposed To Do.
whoever thought running scripts from random sites and ads was a good idea?
Jeez!
Since when is 5% the same as 1 in 25??
It also hijacks all your SSL/TLS sessions via MITM attack with the installation of a self signed root cert. It also goes to some unusual lengths to hide itself to prevent uninstallation, IIRC. It's straightup spyware.
Why should the add blocking plugin require side-loading without user interaction?
It don't as far as I know.
Just allow JavaScript on the main URL.
Google is providing a service, or is serving ads on behalf of the webpage owner you are viewing.
Superfish is getting ad revenue without providing you a service.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimate and limited advertiser and leech malware then you need your eyes checked.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
So Google, an advertising company, recommends that browser developers disable the capabilities that ad blockers rely on? Surprise, surprise. It sounds a little too much like the FBI saying we shouldn't use encryption because a few terrorists or perverts might take advantage. Sorry, I'm not into throwing out the browser with the bathwater.
Firefox hasn't been doing so well lately, but getting out of bed with Google might have been a big benefit.
Buy Viagra!
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Can you tell when looking at a normal webpage which ads are legit and which ones aren't?
The answer is of course no.
All advertising is malware.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I run two browsers, main one armored by Adblock Plus, NoScript, settings, etc and another one bare. If there is a hitch I move over to the latter. If it shows me a penis enlargement scheme guaranteed by Google top management I return to the first.
I don't see ads because I run adblock.
But I'm not deluded enough to believe ads don't have a legitimate use.
Slapping a sponsored link to adobe at the top of my search for "pdf editor" is vastly different than overwriting the links and sending me to a hack job website trying to sell me genuine counterfit handbags, black magic love slavery spells, and adobe pro licenses for 1/10th what they normally cost.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
The relevant software products that are getting extensions sideloaded into them -- Firefox and Chrome -- are both open source. If a vendor like Lenovo wants to put ads in your browser with an extension, what do you think is going to happen when Google shuts off outside extensions in Chrome? That's right -- they're going to ship a fork of Chromium and call it "Lenovo Browser" and make it the default browser. You read it here first, folks.
The solution, for consumers, is simple. Don't use the pre-loaded OS installed on your system. Use a program to get your product key back, then wipe and reinstall from the original OS media. Or if you happen to be able to tolerate a non-Windows OS, just install one of those.
It's also worth mentioning that, as long as Chromium or Firefox is open source, people who want to use ad-blockers will be able to use them, no matter how hard Google tries to stop people from using them. Even if Google used their might to convince Mozilla to take Firefox closed source, another community fork would spring up to maintain Firefox and keep it up to date.
These companies need to understand that you can't strong-arm an idea. Open source code is basically an idea, and as long as there are people, there will be people who are building open source projects that do things that make you lose money. If that keeps you from getting any sleep at night, tough cookies. It's exactly the same reason that we can't defeat terrorism no matter how many people we kill. You can't kill your way through an idea, unless you kill every last human on the planet. This is especially true when tightening your grip makes people want to do that thing you don't want them to do *even more* -- ad blocking has this characteristic to it, too.
Exactly my thoughts. Both do it against the users interests.
But at least Google is nominally in control of the page, so they have a certain right to do it. Superfish would argue that the user installed it, and so they have a right, too, but the way that it prevents removal indicates otherwise.