Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Research Paper Considers Serving Web-ads From Localhost
An anonymous reader writes: A paper from Microsoft researchers (PDF) posits the possibility of 'pushing' web ads to a user's own computer and serving them into pre-arranged containers on web pages, with the EFF or ACLU serving as privacy mediators between the user and the advertisers who want to engage them. However the framework — dubbed 'Privad' — would need to get installed on the user's system by the same familiar means which the likes of Superfish use. The report admits that Privad would probably need to be disseminated "through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other incentives."
Localhost is my home. You DO NOT touch my home.
disseminated through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other incentives
It's sleaze-ware. Fuck off!
No, wait... HAHAHAHHA... no.
No. No. No. No. No. Definitely No. Nope. Don't Even. No. Lets not, and say we did.
In the event of nope, just no. Absolutely not. So, as you can see, NO.
Sincerely,
No@nope.com
They could just bundle this with "edge" and call it a privacy and security upgrade... if only people trusted them not to fuck us with it.
This idea will be received with open arms, here on /., I'm sure.
I'm somewhat worried (absolutely petrified, I should say) about the effort spent on advertisements. I guess considering human nature it is a necessary evil, but still...
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
We'll see how long it takes us before we remove/block this "feature"
"Channels" on your desktop, back in the IE4/Win98 days!
NEVER FORGET THE STARING MICKEY MOUSE AND TAZ
Wow. Thanks /.'s Timothy for your editing work.
After all the years we're used to your frequent grammar issues.
But incorrect markup with raw URLs like that, that's an impressive low.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
More like, "From the Microsoft Marketing Department." Unless I'm missing something, this is just bundling "safe" adware as part of Windows. Hmm, maybe Ubuntu will have new life breathed into it.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Privy(outhouse) + ad (derived from)
love is just extroverted narcissism
Privad would probably need to be disseminated "through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other incentives."
Given what MS just did with the Ask toolbar, it looks like the Ad Wars are starting.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The GOATSE is coming from INSIDE YOUR HOUSE!!
{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
There's the evil empire I grew up with! I was wondering where they'd gotten off to.
Is it compatible with AdBlock?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This could be the best thing since Steve Balmer got rid of the start button. How to truly bring about Apple and Linux global domination.
It's the competition.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Not to start a Platform War; but this is something you will NEVER see Apple do. Not because they don't like making money; but because that simply isn't their business model (iAds notwithstanding). And besides, Apple is trying to distinguish themselves from virtually everyone else by making it very clear that they don't play the "Selling Personal Information By the Pound" (with apologies to Genesis) game.
Are they paying for the bandwidth of mine that I pay for and they are wasting?
One of Microsoft's licensing tiers for Windows 8 was free, but OEMs were forced to set the default homepage and search engine to Bing. This sounds like the adware equivalent. I'm not sure how they'll implement it, since Windows 10 licenses are going to be free for upgraders.
Here's something interesting to think about though. Unlike the rabid-anti advertising folks, I don't really do much on my own systems to avoid ads. I really don't like them, but I'm content with ignoring them simply because I don't want to spend the effort to install ad blockers or change HOSTS files. If someone like me, who could do all this stuff, chooses not to do so because I have more important things to do...then what will your average consumer do? Given this, it seems like it could have some traction. Serving up ads from localhost, and therefore having at least some access to the local machine might be where I would draw the line and start the blocking.
Oh, and to the person who mentioned Internet Explorer 4.x "channels" on Win98...thanks for the horrible flashbacks to the Mickey Mouse and Taz. :-)
Class action.
I hope it's in the billions.
I come here for the love
"The report admits that Privad would probably need to be disseminated 'through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other incentives.' " ... or the OS!
Why are we discussing this paper from 2009 (http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2009/program.html) as if it is new?
So basically this is your bullshit way of monetizing our desktops directly and preventing us from using ad blockers?
Fuck you, it's our desktop, we own it. It's not there for you assholes to monetize it and fill it up with advertising shit.
God but the people who sell ads are self entitled assholes.
Placing the ads on our machines directly is a bullshit move. How about we protect our fucking privacy by not having this shit on our machines in the first place.
Assholes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
HTTPS should be truly end to end with no MITM. Any software vendor putting stuff on my computer that bypasses this will not be supported by me financially in the future.
To be perfectly honest, I'm so strongly in favor of encrypting everything that I say, if there's a non-HTTPS site out there that only serves traffic over HTTP, and they want to bundle malware on my system that *only* injects content into regular HTTP (not HTTPS) connections, I'm all for it. Go ahead and punish users and sites that run without TLS enabled. It'll just increase the pressure on webmasters and users to get TLS up and running on absolutely every host.
And with things like StartSSL and soon that Mozilla-funded free CA, there's really no excuse not to have a trusted cert (not a self-signed or snakeoil cert).
Let's encrypt the web. But don't you dare interfere with or modify my HTTPS traffic through any means. That will immediately get your company blacklisted in my book of companies I'm willing to do business with.
Speaking of ads, why in the higgidy heck and I seeing full page splash ads on the home page?!
As long as it REPLACES all of those linked web adds AND its source code is vetted by independent parties (EFF, ACLU, etc) for privacy/safety sign me up. The current nightmare of interdependent web pages displaying third party advertisements some of which are hosting adware/malware needs to be curtailed. The fact that it is coming from M$ is a bit of a concern but that doesn't necessarily negate its usefulness, especially if a close eye is kept on it.
I think there are obvious implementation problems that will ground the concept but the basic idea is an imporant one.
Attack surface reduction.
Traditional Ad networks are a fucking security nightmare. Compromise an Ad network and you gain access to a HUGE surface because you can now inject malicious code not just on one site, but hundreds of thousands.
Lock down the ad network, cut down on the amount of requests to 3rd party addresses on any given site. Deliver ad content in secured, encrypted, signed bundles and reference them locally like you do software. No chance of manipulation or injection in transit.
We're going to have to start treating ordinary web pages more like we do software. With software we sign and control everything end-to-end.. Web pages have zero guarantee in transit and you don't know if you could be harming your users.
I don't think this particular idea will work (You have to get users to run custom software) but there are good ideas that could be included in future browser/http/html/whatever specs. Why not have a mechanism where you can deliver secure and un-tampered bundles of content? Reduces requests, lookups, and attack surface. That content does not have to be ads, but ads would be a good use.
That means I'll have to block localhost in the hostfile.* *(I know that's impossible )
Ads stuffed into my machine, but also prevetted by the ACLU and EFF? How high do you think we are?
Not only do you want to suck up my bandwidth, you want to suck up my drive space. And only those ads deemed 'acceptable'?
Didn't we go through that whole push thing about 1998 or so. Hell, you even got free dialup if you accepted their pushed ads. Of course, it rendered the machine unusable, because it was trying to keep up with the ads stream...
Windows 8 appy apps are already jam-stuffed with adds. News app? Nope, here is a 45 second cadillac commercial first. Weather app? How about you watch this cat food commercial first? Email? Here have some full page add for candy crush!
This paper contains a sizable quantity of words, a picture and a graph.. authors obviously spent a lot of time on it...most unfortunate.
Oh man, APK's head is going to asplode!
I'm no expert, but would this not be very easy to block the ads from being displayed if they were local host?
Just when you think they have done everything to deserve the title to the most despicable company, they come up with something that makes them even more despicable.
Given local storage extensions supported by most browsers these days advertisers don't need to install anything to pull this off. They have all the tools to do it right now.
*standing ovation for a brilliant bit of fact-finding* My kingdom for mod points!
Microsoft can simply extend systemd so that the adware ecosystem is preloaded during startup, thereby limiting impact to the user's desktop session.
HAHAHA capcha is MALICE
Yeah I think you are spot-on. They are exploring ways to generate revenue without charging for the OS.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Lately I've been thinking how much more I enjoyed my computers before I connected them to the world.
I tinkered with the hardware, wrote a little code, installed apps from physical media, did some creative writing.
Pr0n was Penthouse Forum and VHS tapes, music was played on radio's tuned to locally owned stations and there was actual variety. Newspapers did reporting, and local television the same. Now my local "news" shows are just paid ads and some lady reading the stations Facebook feed on the air.
No one tried to spam my phone.
I didn't know what Goetse was and there were no Kardashians.
It was bliss.
I, for one, definitely can't see anything sinister about an OS vendor scheming about how to use a privileged position on local host to push ads. Totally unthreatening, and no risk of subverting firewall type appliances or providing a temptation to'rewrite' ads from a hypothetical web-centric competitor, where one to-Google-exist.
Fuck, MS, why not just remind me that having access to my frame buffer and audio output offers a superb opportunity to present 'rich content advertisements' without risk of blocking. This idea earns the researchers a spot in the special hell, probably between direct mail marketers and Jenny from cardholder services.
hint--
They still have to download those ads to your computer from somewhere...
APK solution STILL relevant
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
... Sort of. I have a giant ad-blocking /etc/hosts file, and since I actually run httpd on all of my Macs, I often see my own 404 page in an iframe on sites I visit. So, yeah, works for me. :D
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
LOL
The paper was published 6 years ago, when the authors were at Cornell and Max Planck Institute. One of the authors now works at Microsoft Research India, so I do not see a relevant Microsoft connection here.
I have been wanting to see Apple or Microsoft or Netflix embrace torrent like local servers. But not for ads. For movies. Just push out all the movies to people's computers at night. Then let itunes or whoever form the torrent networks to deliver movies to paying customers. As long as I get a discount (since it's my bandwidth and electricity) why not? I'd like it as thumb in the nose of comcast and anyone else throttling the net.
I'm not talking about illegal file sharing, I'm talking about just having content served right within Comcasts own network so there's no peering issues.
Yes I appreciate how long comcast would let that go on. Just a fantasy.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
new "feature" implemented in honor of having more than 4M users !
Enjoy !
In what universe is this a good idea?
The whole problem is that the advertisers don't trust the websites they're advertising on. If they embedded the advertisments in the websites themselves, instead of serving them from a different domain, add-blocking scripts would have a hell of a lot more trouble trying to block that stuff. The advertisers want more control, though. So... now they explore this concept. Which is going to fail spectacularly.
The problem isn't the viewers. It's the websites and the advertisers themselves.
I just want more video game developpers to embrace Linux so that I can fully move away from M$.
If you want to migrate away from gaming on Microsoft platforms, you could always switch to Sony's Orbis OS, the FreeBSD-based operating system that comes installed on every PlayStation 4 game console. That way you can do your major and mid label gaming on a PS4 and everything else on GNU/Linux.
A good advertisement is one served to the correct audience. For example, if you are a single man, an ad for feminine hygiene products is unlikely to be good. Therefore some measure of targeting is required.
Saikat Guha, Alexey Reznichenko, Kevin Tang, Hamed Haddadi, Paul Francis
Max Planck Institute for Software Systems and Cornell University
sguha@mpi-sws.org
areznich@mpi-sws.org
hamed@mpi-sws.org
francis@mpi-sws.org
kt258@cornell.edu
Wouldn't that be a "Trespass to Chattels", due to their storing their stuff on your property, thus depriving you of use of said property? (That is, permanently, not in a browser cache.)
IANAL.
...A paper from Microsoft researchers posits the possibility of 'pushing' web ads to a user's own computer and serving them into pre-arranged containers on web pages...
So this is what Microsoft meant when they said Windows would become a service. Microsoft just neglected to mention who would be of benefit from this service --- the advertisers.
No. Just no. Who is the person or persons with whom this idea originated? They need counseling.
Seriously, a man's PC, be it Windows, Linux, Mac, is private. I already block all forms of ads, beacons, cookies, scripts because of malware vectors. And now these geniuses want to serve up ads in the manner they describe. No. Just no. Fortunately, in my household, we are simply a few months (if this long) away from there being no Windows PCs in the house. My wife's PC is literally on it's last leg after almost five years. She understands and agrees that the next PC will not be Windows. She's choosing Mac or Linux -- hopefully Linux, as the rest of the PCs in the house are Linux. Macs are too commercial for my taste. I dislike the closed ecosystem something fierce.
It really seems that these days, you choose one of three fiefdoms: Microsoft, Apple, or Google -- and live within those ecosystems. I choose to use open source software, my own domain names for email, my own cloud, and so on. I don't trust any company whose business is marketing or advertising. Ads are a poor business model, especially since I have not seen one in years and will never respond to any I see outside the house. I've trained myself to ignore ads, I FF my DVR, I mute commercials on shows I do sit through. No ads. Not for me.
And the author was a postdoc at the Max Planck Institute at the time! Nothing to do with Microsoft!
Microsoft could offer a means for you to buy back the ad space on these pages by acting as an advertiser on your own machine. It would be Microsoft's counterpart to Google Contributor, which is in private beta. Would you be willing to pay more for a copy of Windows that includes this?
I do'na know what they call this where's ya from but here We call this kind of thing trespassing! It's bad enough that you insist on running all this Java Script stuff, but now you want to store stuff locally so you can better control what popup boxes I see and be a light'n the load on ya end yonder? No sir, I'm done being nice and putt'n up with ya. You can take ya North West sourced, high wheeling fancy software and the low down good for nothn snake oil sellin' business off my property afor' I be calling the law. There will be no billboards bein' built on a my stake, a'n'a I won't be buy'n no truck I'sa see's ya try'n to sell that way. No sir, not gona be buy'n nothing.
Now, I'm gona warn ya fella, if I see you, ya friends or any of your varmints trespassing on ma property after today, I'm a gona shoot first with this here six shooter. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot a-gin, and if'n ya still breathin I might be asking questions, or I might just shoot so'more depen'n on how mean I'm a feelin' and how I'm stocked for ammo at da-time. Ya either gon' be dead, or wish'n ya already was...
Now shoo, ya lazy good for nothing, free loading, yella pond scum. If'n I'm still see'n ya face once I get to count'n to ten, I'm a gona be count'n six more as I be pullin' the trigger. Ya' here me clear? (Click) All ya'll be going now, mind ya mannors as ya be on the trail. Make sure on close'n the gates ya open on the way home to Redmond or I'll be making sure ya learn ya manors..
A one........ (Mississippi)..... A Two .... (Mississippi)........
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is /., why let facts get in the way?
And with things like StartSSL and soon that Mozilla-funded free CA, there's really no excuse not to have a trusted cert (not a self-signed or snakeoil cert).
Even if the StartSSL certificate is available without charge, it doesn't renew automatically. So there's still the manual task of remembering to renew it every year, which in some cases involves opening a trouble ticket with your web host to get the certificate installed. There's also usually an extra charge for a dedicated IP if you still have viewers who use SNI-ignorant browsers such as Internet Explorer on Windows XP or Android Browser on Gingerbread.
Have gnu, will travel.
Won't work for me! I redirect localhost to 127.0.0.1!
BTW...why are we discussing a paper from 2009? Is this really news?
I'm always interested in enhanced browsing and shopping experiences.
I would be sure to send Comcast a monthly bill for using drive space on my computers too.
"through adware-style software bundling, shopping discounts, toolbars or other DECEITFUL SCAMS "
ya, this is gonna go real well
And wouldn't ya fukkin know it! The ONE TIME his blathering might actually be relevant, he's not posted one damned thing. Pathetic but typical.
I mean, let's look at it from the other side. Might it not make ad-blocking easier?
In the browser, ad-blockers would just have to block anything coming from localhost; except in rare occasions (web-developers, etc). it is unlikely that any other web-material will be served from there. Rather than having to keep track of an increasingly byzantine list of adservers, the Adblock app would just have to stop the ads coming from one source.
Of course, blocking it on the browser only keeps you from seeing it; if you want to prevent any communications (to /and/ from the advertisers) you'll still want to prevent communications between your computer and the advertisers. But if this data is being run through and vettted by Microsoft, it should be fairly simple (or at least less complicated than current methods) to block certain IPs at the firewall or even prevent certain executables from running at all.
Unchecked, its a horrific violation of privacy... but with the proper tools it might make managing advertisments much easier. Maybe? Any thoughts?
Microsoft should mark themselves as malware and automatically remove itself.
Considering that MS is giving away its OS completely for free, it makes total sense to users that they should support the struggling company with ads installed on their computers.
What's the host file solution to Mr Clippy living in localhost?
For those of you not reading Slashdot {...} ads appear {...}
What ads ?
I have both
- uBlock running
- and the Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great! box checked.
Sorry, I pay for my bandwidth, I don't want my money wasted on annoying flashing things trying to persuade me to throw money on goods that I don't give a fuck about (in addition to disrupting the flow and making the overall internet experience shitty).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Note that it the meaning is still correct in topology, and the original meaning of the word when the english borrowed it from the french, before its meaning drifted appart.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You mean like they're doing with the forced updates in Windows 10? It's basically the same thing.
Just think no more waiting for those pesky ads to load.
Now when I open up a web page the first thing that I'll be greeted with will be the helpful ads, which of course is the reason I get on the web in the first place.
Metro apps have ads built in - the provided Weather app has a block ad permanently lodged between the hourly forecast and the radar maps, for example. This has nothing to do with the web, the browser, or slashdot.
You deleted all the relevant bits of the post to make a non-point about some random ad blocker that would have no effect.
John
See subject: It's just like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts!
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G.:
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the iltering method this uses even taking place).
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads AND for sure vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
See subject: It's just like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts!
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G. -
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the iltering method this uses even taking place).
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads AND for sure vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
See subject: It's just like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts!
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G. -
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
VIA "LAYERED SERVICE PROVIDERS" entries in the registry also... that's HOW it worked, & it's JUST LIKE THIS (& easy to stop).
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the filtering method this uses even taking place).
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads AND for sure vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
See subject: It's just like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts!
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G. -
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
VIA "LAYERED SERVICE PROVIDERS" entries in the registry also... that's HOW it worked, & it's JUST LIKE THIS (& easy to stop).
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the filtering method this uses even taking place).
You fail, as always - & you are typically wrong and as per your usual, pathetic.
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads AND for sure vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
See subject: It's just like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts - hosts work vs. SuperFish ad sources too.
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G. -
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
VIA "LAYERED SERVICE PROVIDERS" entries in the registry also... that's HOW it worked, & it's JUST LIKE THIS (& easy to stop).
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the filtering method this uses even taking place).
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads + FOR SURE vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
See subject: Like stopping SuperFish 1st of all (cake) by removing its elements that pump the ads & blocking it in hosts - hosts work vs. SuperFish ad sources too.
(OR, it's like how Norton AntiVirus used to use layered filters on the ip stack to do its scanning of online email):
E.G. -
127.0.0.1 pop3.norton.antivirus
127.0.0.1 pop3.spa.norton.antivirus
VIA "LAYERED SERVICE PROVIDERS" entries in the registry also... that's HOW it worked, & it's JUST LIKE THIS (& easy to stop).
Secondly, I use 0.0.0.0 for blocking (vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1) & thus?
YES - my overrides in hosts *will* take precedence over the layered on filtering method used since hosts query 1st, everytime, by default RIGHT IN THE IP STACK ITSELF (prior to the filtering method this uses even taking place).
APK
P.S.=> I'll always win vs. ads + FOR SURE vs. other online threats like maliciously scripted sites + botnets etc. - et al... apk
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
See subject: You're wrong moron, & this is why http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7538247&cid=49899505
APK
P.S.=> Stupid little trolls - why don't you create something useful (like I have for added speed, security, reliability, & even added anonymity) instead of being online jackasses? Oh, that's right - you don't HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO DO SO... lol, fact! apk
You FAIL as per your usual vs. myself (even talking behind my back this time) stupid. Here's how/why http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7538247&cid=49899505
* Why don't you TRY to create something useful as I have that actually gives others more speed, security, reliability & anonymity? Is it since you don't HAVE WHAT IT TAKES, Mr. Talk a LOT but has nothing to show for it?? Yes.
APK
P.S.=> Fact is, YOU are one of the BIGGEST BULLSHITTERS on this forums I've ever seen - lots of talk, no action (or works in programs anyone can see etc.)... apk
See subject & I take a lot of bs from 1 of 5 types on hosts failing @ "getting the best of me":
1.) Advertisers
2.) malware makers &/or botnet herders
3.) webmasters (I held it back for them in fact, it was done, in 3 parts though in tty mode, as far back as 2003 here but when malvertizing went out of control, out the door she went to 'the masses' for the absolute good, since any idiot knows being destructive = easy, but doing good NEVER is, but it's worth it imo)
4.) An INFERIOR competitor (e.g. - AdBlock, Ghostery etc.)
* Doesn't 'take a brain' to realize that - after all: THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GET "HURT" by it. However: They're the ones who have been hurting others bandwidth/speed, security, & more for DECADES!
They certainly CAN'T get the better of me by validly disproving my points on hosts files' mulitiple nigh ubiquitous value to end users: They can't prove ME or truths/facts I use, wrong, & THAT truly IS, that.
APK
P.S.=> Floyd/justthinkit - If you use hosts, "just think ABOUT it" (justthinkit): I don't need grief from those who actually use hosts. That's not necessary at all... apk