Slashdot Mirror


Inside the Booming, Unhinged, and Dangerous Malvertising Menace

mask.of.sanity writes: The Register has a feature on the online malicious advertising (malvertising) menace that has become an explosively potent threat to end-user security on the internet. Experts say advertising networks and exchanges need to vet their customers, and publishers need to vet the third party content they display. Users should also consider script and ad blockers in the interim. From the article: "Ads as an attack vector was identified in 2007 when security responders began receiving reports of malware hitting user machines as victims viewed online advertisements. By year's end William Salusky of the SANS Internet Storms Centre had concocted a name for the attacks. Since then malvertising has exploded. This year it increased by more than 260 percent on the previous year, with some 450,000 malicious ads reported in the first six months alone, according to numbers by RiskIQ. Last year, security firm Cyphort found a 300 percent increase in malvertising. In 2013, the Online Trust Alliance logged a more than 200 percent increase in malvertising incidents compared to 2012, serving some 12.4 billion malvertisement impressions."

259 comments

  1. Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It costs money to vet customers.

    For once we get to see the tragedy of the commons at work in an industry that deserves it.

    1. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by gweihir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Very much so. Advertising is a plague and deserves to be eradicated. And don't tell me "it finances content", because so can crime, and apparently the distinction is not entirely clear anymore. There are other ways to finance content, and if you do not qualify, maybe your content was not valuable in the first place.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet another reason to make sure you have a good adblocker with a good filter setup.

      At the same time newspapers starts to complain when you use an adblocker, so it means that the use of adblockers are successful and effective.

      Now web browsers need to work on improving security even more to avoid cross-site content and block suspicious sources even better. This is not only the ordinary cookies or injected ads that are to be considered but also "super-cookies" and cookies/caching of plugin data. Virtualization by default may also be useful - so that each program runs in its own sandbox.

      And Android do have some concept of security permissions where the app requests rights before getting installed but at the same time it don't allow the user to actually say no to the request and still install the app. That is something that has to be improved, I as a user can accept that the app I install don't have the full functionality if I for example deny access to the address book.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by javaman235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now web browsers need to work on improving security even more to avoid cross-site content and block suspicious sources even better. This is not only the ordinary cookies or injected ads that are to be considered but also "super-cookies" and cookies/caching of plugin data. Virtualization by default may also be useful - so that each program runs in its own sandbox.

      A lot of the stuff isn't even hacking, its abuse of permissions. The other day I had a third party tracker request permissions to turn on my mic, and my understanding is if I said yes, the permission would remain across all sites with their tracker on Chrome. So they could listen to me across the Internet. Similar are browser extensions which request the power to read and change data on all pages.These need to come with clear privacy policies, and some kind of audit process to make sure it works.

      The main thing to me is advertising has stopped being advertising: connecting people with products and services they might want - and started being about something else. Since when was "Mad Men" about a wiretap that listens to people in their homes?

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re: Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earlier in the year slashdot carried advers that would popup on mobiles and mimic update screen to trick users to installing apks. Served at least to asia

    5. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Mandrel · · Score: 2

      Advertising is a plague

      Here are you only referring to advertising placed in and around content, or all advertising, for example a company's own website, or some point-of-sale display? All advertising is tricksy, but do you ever find it useful?

    6. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The goal of an advertising company is not to make a profit. It is to maximize profits. They will do everything the law allows and then a little bit further. And then if nobody goes to jail, even further than that.

      Also, please stop with "Mad Men" analogies, that is a fictional TV show that has nothing to do with reality. Might as well try to connect the oil companies to "Mad Max".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      so be ready to pay for the sites you like

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The goal of most advertising companies appears to be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Indeed, the entire industry appears totally committed to this goal.

      The problem started with allowing sites to serve executable code. it seems it will end with users having to block all executable code - short of nuking from high orbit, it is the only way to be safe.

      In the case of Flash, nuking from high orbit is probably essential.

      Disclaimer: My Government sells nukes.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      Advertising is a plague

      Here are you only referring to advertising placed in and around content, or all advertising, for example a company's own website, or some point-of-sale display?

      I took it as read that he meant advertising around other content. If I want to buy a camera I go and look at the "advertising" websites of Canon, Pentax etc to see what they have on offer. Of course I look at review sites as well. Adverts that are put in my face annoy me to hell; they have an entirely negative effect on me and I am suprised that the vast majority of people do not react the same.

    10. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      so be ready to pay for the sites you like

      I have several hobby-type websites with no adverts. It costs me only a very small amount to run them. But then perhaps you would not like them.

    11. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      If media placements are a bad form of advertising, what's a good way to help us buy? There's demand-driven advertising, like company websites, but you still have to deal with spin. And there's the professional purchasing assistance media you mention, but how do you fund it if not by interrupting the facts with spin, or by putting spin into some of the content? Subscriptions & micro-payments — who'll pay? Affiliate sales— turns the media into vendors.

    12. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      If media placements are a bad form of advertising, what's a good way to help us buy?

      The old, trusted word of mouth. The best advertising invented.
      And why would you need someone else help you buy? Are you so stupid that you don't know what you need? Do you need help when deciding what food/clothes/housing/car you buy?

    13. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This sort of crap should not be allowed to by default. If access to your mic and camera are *actually* required (e.g. tech support, online chat etc.) you should have to authorise this access each time and the access should be granted for the current page only. The permission should also remain only until the browser window is closed and be automatically revoked upon page close.

      That should be the default browser behaviour.

    14. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      The old, trusted word of mouth. The best advertising invented.

      WOM is great, but it's (a), limited, though the Internet has greatly expanded our sources of WOM (but usually via ad-supported websites), and (b), anecdotal—professionals have the time and resources to better check products out, as well as to pool, format, and summarise individual consumer opinions to make them more digestible.

      And why would you need someone else help you buy? Are you so stupid that you don't know what you need? Do you need help when deciding what food/clothes/housing/car you buy?

      Yes, no man is an island. Other people know more than me about some things, so I make smarter choices with their help. I don't want my only advice to come from those with a stake in the outcome, which is what advertising is.

    15. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I have some too. All self-hosted on a rather cheap vserver. No ads on it ever. I had flattr on it for some time, but removed it again as nobody seemed to care.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by gweihir · · Score: 1

      For some I already do, for the others I do not care if they vanish.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Very much so. Advertising is a plague and deserves to be eradicated. And don't tell me "it finances content", because so can crime, and apparently the distinction is not entirely clear anymore. There are other ways to finance content, and if you do not qualify, maybe your content was not valuable in the first place.

      Uh, because pay walls are so well received?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    18. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Post a link to slashdot. I'm sure we can help increase the bill for you.

    19. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There are other ways to finance content, and if you do not qualify, maybe your content was not valuable in the first place.

      That invariably leads to tiered and heavily biased content with only the most well funded being widely distributed. Trust me it's not a result you want to see.

    20. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I need someone telling me what to do? Advertisements are commands, and ads are in effect orders to march in line and pay for stuff.

      This is the same tired argument stated over and over again when there is pushback to ever more intrusive ads. Of course, the same argument gets used to squash it every time:

      In the 1990s, the Web did just fine without ads, SEO pages with a piece of a picture on every page, tons of Flash ads, Web fingerprinting, and so on. If advertising went away, not a thing would be lost.

      Well, except malware infections.

    21. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Noscript has been around for a long time, and many of us have been using it for a long time. I used to use Flashblock, back before malicious javascript became a serious thing, but then I switched to using Noscript, which also flashblocks.

      It might be a hassle figuring out which script sources to enable, or to have some sites just never work. It's a bigger hassle to reinstall Windows.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by mlts · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Advertising has morphed from showing a static picture of a product or a few lines of text to trying to be as intrusive as possible. If an advertiser could scan your HDD, encrypt your documents and sell you "protection", they would.

      Realistically, why do advertisers need to fingerprint your browser, add "supercookies", demand a per device/computer identifier, constantly track your location, go through your contacts, pictures, music, and whatever is asked for? All they need to know is that their ad was seen, and perhaps clicked on/responded to. The other stuff is just invasion of privacy. To show a car ad, why the unnecessary trespass on people's machines?

    23. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Keyword is mouth. Not internet. I may be old fashioned, but I still talk (open my mouth, words come out) with relatives and friends, people I can (usually) trust.

    24. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And much would be gained. The companies expending such huge advertising budgets would suddenly no longer be spending that money. That means less cost, so lower prices for their products and more sales; or, more realistically, larger management and CxO bonuses. Either way, everyone wins.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      do you care that a website you don't visit has ads?

      does it make you angry that a store in a strip mall 3 states away from you that you never visit, leaves their christmas tree lights up all year?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    26. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      Keyword is mouth. Not internet. I may be old fashioned, but I still talk (open my mouth, words come out) with relatives and friends, people I can (usually) trust.

      I for one don't have a ready and willing pool of friends and relations who are experts in every category of product and service. And when I help others, it still usually requires research, research that eats time and makes use of ad-supported sources.

    27. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Burz · · Score: 1

      I remember when Are Technica whined about their users' ad-blockers: My suggestion to them in the comment section was to use their fine technical chops to explore alternatives to the current model where the advertiser doesn't trust the content site. If they could resolve that trust issue, they could serve the ads from their own site and exercise some quality control while they're at it.

      But maybe being embedded inside giant Conde Nast doesn't allow for that kind of experimentation.

    28. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      And you actually think paying for a subscription is going to stay ad free??LOL where you been living? Have a magazine subscription? many ads in that?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    29. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Web sites that use advertisers certainly need to become responsible here and vet their advertisers. That's a big chunk of the problem, they small time hobbyist will often let the advertisers do whatever they want as long as some money comes in. The never even look at the ads before they're served up to the site's visitors. That's irresponsible and certainly not the way that most non-internet advertising is done. No bus lets you put any random ad on its side, there's always some transit employee who approves them first. But on the internet the lure of a few bucks to defray the ISP costs causes too many site operators to put their morals aside.

    30. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why does there need to be a way to help us buy? We do pretty well at wasting money without help.

    31. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm ready. I'll probably just not go to any web sites, they add very little value to life. I was around when advertising and doing business on the internet was considered the most egregious breach of manners there was. We got along just fine then.

    32. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think such hobbyists are great. However I am wary of the hobbyist that partners with an advertiser that serves up random ads that take up the bulk of the sites bandwidth. Sure, they say they need to get more money or they can't afford to keep the site open, but it's a fricking hobby not a job, if you can't afford your hobby then stop doing it! Or they want to get a better microphone for the podcast, or bigger ISP pipe, or better proprietary software for their modding, or whatever.

      At the end of the day, one needs to respect the audience or else they don't deserve any of the money they get. No amount of whining about how no one donates voluntarily will generate any of that respect. If someone refuses to contribute to the community without payment then I will not miss them when they stop contributing.

    33. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Nope. But if I do visit that site, even accidentally, I'll still have my ad-block on.

    34. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If they are well received or not, it makes no difference. You seem to have the attitude that the content *must* be financed. Some content should go away, if the public isn't going to voluntarily pay for it, it's a better alternative than keeping the content around at the expense of sucking up the public's bandwidth and serving up malware. Probably less than one percent of the web has any inherent value anyway.

    35. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If we get rid of the junk wannabe journalist bloggers, then why not? Most of the internet is useless drivel, if it vanishes no one will care except those who used to get some money by being an advertising enabler.

    36. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The goal of advertisers these days is to make a ton of money as middle men without ever producing anything of value themselves. So it's no surprise that this has become the number one industry in America because money for nothing is the American dream.

    37. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it bother you that you never finished your fucking stupid film?

    38. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so be ready to pay for the sites you like

      I have several hobby-type websites with no adverts. It costs me only a very small amount to run them. But then perhaps you would not like them.

      And I also have a number of such sites, without any advertising. My fixed line internet is only 100Mbps (symmetric, but no caps), so it would be fruitless to publish a link to them here.

      I also pay for access to a couple of news sites, so you're partly right (in a rather small way).

    39. Re:Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If we get rid of the junk wannabe journalist bloggers, then why not?

      I agree. The internet could do with less junk. The problem is the result will ultimately lead to getting rid of a voice of opposition, and sometimes the voice of opposition is not junk, but rather something that differs from the party line.

      Think of a world where the only source of news if Fox News. I'll happily tolerate filth and junk in my life to be able to access NPR, Al jezeera, etc as well.

    40. Re: Advertisers, worry about security? Get real by gmyuriy · · Score: 1

      That's just laughable. Talk to your mom to decide what car to buy, or ask your bro where to have a house, or your sis for what laptop works best... In my experience I found THAT to be the worst idea for how to make your purchasing decisions.

  2. It's profitable by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's increasing, that means it's profitable. Don't expect things to change until there is an expensive lawsuit.

    Until then, practice safe browsing, use ad block......even if you like to support websites by looking at their ads, it's not worth the risk right now.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:It's profitable by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we really need is to put some pressure on advertising companies to stop allowing anyone to run unvetted, arbitrary Javscript code in served advertisements. How stupidly dangerous is that? It's like using a flamethrower to take down a hornet's nest. Yes, it works, but it's a ridiculous amount of overkill, and can be insanely dangerous if pointed at the wrong target. It's in the advertising agencies own interest to clean up it's act. At some point, most people are going to figure out that it's simply too dangerous to run a web browser without noscript or an ad blocker.

      Honestly, the only way I can think of putting enough pressure on them is for as many people as possible to install ad-blockers. Once they get the hint that they need to back down, they can come up with some more creative solutions. For instance, introduce a specialized tag in HTML that allows the display of a static image, embedded links, and some anonymous token to help count unique visitors, but NO JAVASCRIPT. It's the notion of running arbitrary script that's so insanely dangerous. Plus, a tag like this would help to ensure that ads don't misbehave, like popping up, animating, or playing audio or video.

      Or, ad agencies can be more responsible and run curated ads, with only vetted Javascript in pre-packaged modules, rather than letting anyone execute code from anywhere in the world. There are solutions out there, but no agency wants to be the first to tie their own hands. Honestly, I don't care at this point. It's their fault it's come to this in the first place. Something's got to change.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:It's profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of all that, you could just stop clicking on so many goatse links...

    3. Re:It's profitable by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Until then, practice safe browsing, use ad block......even if you like to support websites by looking at their ads, it's not worth the risk right now.

      Good advice, but I think the flaw (if you can call it that) in the proposal will be convincing people to stop using ad blockers when (ha!) it's safe to do so after they've seenthe difference an ad-free Internet makes to the experience and got used to it. Still, that's going to be a problem for the advertising companies and content providers to solve, and since the longer they wait before fixing the problem with malvertising the harder it will be to fix the effects of that foot dragging it's a classic case of reaping what you sow, so screw 'em. If they want to try and destroy their entire industry, I certainly don't have a problem with that.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:It's profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, introduce a specialized tag in HTML that allows the display of a static image, embedded links, and some anonymous token to help count unique visitors, but NO JAVASCRIPT. It's the notion of running arbitrary script that's so insanely dangerous. Plus, a tag like this would help to ensure that ads don't misbehave, like popping up, animating, or playing audio or video.

      Iframes alredy exists, apparently there's an HTML5 extensions which allows restrictions to be set.

      The sandbox attribute, when specified, enables a set of extra restrictions on any content hosted by the iframe. Its value must be an unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are ASCII case-insensitive. The allowed values are allow-forms, allow-pointer-lock, allow-popups, allow-same-origin, allow-scripts, and allow-top-navigation.

    5. Re:It's profitable by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What we really need is to put some pressure on advertising companies

      No, see that implies we trust them, wish to engage with them, and want to negotiate a future in which they are an integral part of the web.

      That means they've won.

      Yes, installing ad blockers will put pressure on them. But let's make it perfectly clear: we don't see it as their right to track us, collect data about us, and inject themselves into the conversation.

      Cut them out entirely, and leave them cut out. The 7 analytics companies on this page right now, and the dozens I see on every page I visit ... I have no intention of ever giving them access to my machine as long as I have technology to prevent it.

      But not for a minute will I pretend that this is a negotiation with them. Once you install things like HTTP Switchboard, or Request Policy, or Script Safe and realize just how much shit is in the average web page, you realize that trying to find a good solution is a losing prospect.

      Don't pander to corporate greed, and don't act like you will find a solution which is equitable. Because they're not interested in giving it to you, so don't get suckered into giving it to them.

      Most of these ad and analytics companies are just parasites. And there's way too damned many of them to think you'll ever come out well in that conversation.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:It's profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no Javascript is not the right answer.

      Running Javascript to make a page work is really useful.

      The problem is that the www community does can not stop themselves from making useful dangerous.

      A proper sandbox which allows no communications outside the sandbox and forgets shortly after the page closes.
      Also the ability to prevent parts of the page from getting any cycles.
      Also access to the speaker, video, excessive download b/w, the list goes on and on.

      Some might say that this would kill the ads the fund the Internet.
      I don;t think so.
      What it would do is put all the adds on an even, safe playing field.
      If it removes the necessity for widespread adblocker use, it might actually be good for advertizing.

      But like I said, they can't help themselves form doing what they do now.
      So maybe no Javascript is not the right answer, but it is the only answer to change the overall mentality of this community.

    7. Re:It's profitable by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Still, that's going to be a problem for the advertising companies and content providers to solve, and since the longer they wait before fixing the problem with malvertising the harder it will be to fix the effects of that foot dragging it's a classic case of reaping what you sow, so screw 'em. If they want to try and destroy their entire industry, I certainly don't have a problem with that.

      Bill Hicks had it right. He didn't even include any exceptions for people who have landed an advertising job which doesn't include lying to people. He just said kill yourself and the world would be a better place if all the marketers did that. Sadly, only the ones who are closest to having a soul would do so. The rest will continue to exist just to shit up our landscape.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:It's profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something I haven't seen pointed out here is that it is not as simple as vetting the ad content: the ad brokers already do this. The underlying problem that they are too cheap to host the advertisements themselves. Most people seem to think that vetting works like this:

      1. advertiser submits content
      2. broker reviews content
      3. broker distributes content

      But how it actually works is this:

      1. advertiser submits content
      2. broker reviews content
      3. advertiser distributes content

      To police this, some brokers will sample the distributed content to see if it has changed. The malicious advertiser has a few ways around this:

      a. only send a malicious ad 1% of the time. This extends the length of time before the broker catches the substitution
      b. only send a malicious ad to certain IPs/geo-ip locations
      c. only send a malicious ad at certain times
      d. only send a malicious ad in response to certain requests (e.g., browser user-agents, identified OS, etc.)

      By combining the above they make it essentially impossible for the brokers to detect the malicious content. Malvertising is detected by agencies monitoring network traffic (the NSA could be doing a major service here, but choses to reserve the benefits of their spying for themselves and their cronies) who notify the broker and the ad gets pulled.

      How do malvertisers get new ones posted? Easy, you just do it from a different account, through a different sub-broker, whatever.

      The brokers get paid for ad placement so they don't really care that much. Their concern is in convincing everyone that advertisements are:

      1. safe to view
      2. necessary for the survival of the web

      They don't care about the factuality of #1, just that people believe it. As for #2, they depend on it being true (which, naturally, it isn't)

    9. Re:It's profitable by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not my problem. My problem is defending myself, and people I know, from malware.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:It's profitable by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      If you have a gun that kills someone, you are responsible, not the gun maker or the person who sold you a gun. So if I get malware from your web site then you are at least partially responsible and no excuse of "I can't afford the time to look at all the code on my site" will suffice.

  3. Ad Block, It's the Only Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not using an ad blocker these days is just plain stupid.

  4. 2007 ? Nobody remembers the X10 ads ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    The X10 browser hijacks weren't even the first, they were just everywhere.

    1. Re:2007 ? Nobody remembers the X10 ads ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The X10 browser hijacks weren't even the first, they were just everywhere.

      I remember them. I lost my arm and have damage to my right eye because of them.

    2. Re:2007 ? Nobody remembers the X10 ads ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The X10 browser hijacks weren't even the first, they were just everywhere.

      I remember them. I lost my arm and have damage to my right eye because of them.

      Those BASTARDS!

    3. Re:2007 ? Nobody remembers the X10 ads ? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The X10 browser hijacks weren't even the first, they were just everywhere.

      Well, that's because they could hijack your PC through the power lines...

    4. Re:2007 ? Nobody remembers the X10 ads ? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Malvertising dates back to at least 2004, maybe even sooner. I noticed customers at the computer store I worked at started reporting malware infections by just browsing the web on mainstream sites at the time.

  5. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is the reason why browsing the web without adblock is dangerous...
    It sucks for legitimate websites that get their revenue from ads, but as long as a possibly exist, that an ad will contain malicious code, we can't whitelist them.
    I've seen websites claiming they curate the ads that goes up, suddenly get flagged for malware, quite often.

  6. I work in online advertising by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Informative

    But I agree with the general premise. It's just that the picture generally gets complex - let me explain.

    The way an ad gets served is this. Places that show ads (websites, mobile websites, in-app ad spaces) are inventory. Inventory is of varying quality - an ad on the front page of the NYT is costly, whereas an ad on housewiferecipes.com or something is dirt cheap. Small sites sell their inventory to brokers, who pack it up with other sites to sell on advertising exchanges (the firm I work for runs one of these exchanges).

    On the other side of the issue, advertisement costs money. A firm wanting to run ads will contract with an online media agency, which will create an ad and then find inventory to place the ad in. The firm commits to spending X amount of money for Y amount of impressions (hits), so if the agency can find inventory that performs (hits whatever ad metrics required, such as 'time in ad' or 'number of clicks') while being dirt cheap, it pockets the rest. If multiple agencies bid on the same inventory, the price of that inventory goes up (and the website runner makes more money), so it's a game of scooping up cheap inventory on random sites at the times they're cheap.

    Typically, a given source of inventory (a site) will contract out to a large number of brokers in order to guarantee that at least one of them will, upon request, be able to serve an ad in the space. 90% of ad networks vet their ads to run clean, because running a malware ad is essentially a death sentence if you ever want to run any kind of premium ad (the ones that make you a lot of money) or buy premium ad space (lots of premium advertisers will specify they only want premium space, like the front page of the NYT). Above-the-board ad networks will run clean, vet their stuff, and charge a higher exchange fee, whereas unscrupulous networks (many based in eastern europe) will charge a lower fee and let all sorts of shit go through.

    What does this mean? An attacker with a crafted ad that can beat cheapo mal-detection can buy cheap inventory on a shady network, intentionally outbid other people and pay a minor premium for that cheap inventory, and get their ads wherever they want. The ad network will get shut down if it was really egregious (since running a malware ad can theoretically open you to litigation from other advertisers on your network), but for every network that shuts down there's another that can pop up promising minimal overhead and minimal vetting.

    The only real market solution is to whitelist a certain number of ad networks, and have sites commit to only running ads from those ad networks, but this segments the internet into the haves (premium inventory, high quality sites, premium ad networks, premium ads, all expensive) and the have nots (mom and pop sites with mediocre inventory that nobody visits because of the chance of getting cancer from the shit networks they have to run). Beyond that, this problem is unlikely to go away - it's simply too easy to game the system and put whatever you want into many adspaces.

    1. Re:I work in online advertising by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And thus adblockers will become more common, and the whole industry will collapse.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I work in online advertising by FireballX301 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the ads just move out of ad spaces into 'native' space, embedded with content and interspersed into feeds and streams. That's what all those sponsored articles and stuff are, and it's really terrible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly pro-advertising, but I see polite, safe ads that are placed into their own corner of a page as a good compromise in order to avoid the corruption of actual page content. I've seen (and run) enough high quality content sites that can't pay for their own hosting or bandwidth, and it sucks to see them go away.

    3. Re:I work in online advertising by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for this explanation. As nobody in their right mind wants ads, anybody looking for a solution will arrive at complete blocking. The underlying problem is of course that the whole market structure is fundamentally broken, much like the stock market in 2008 with the sub-prime crisis: People brokering things without knowing anything about quality. If enough of that happens, the market collapses.

      I expect that in the not too distant future, complete blocking of all ads will be a security best-practice.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:I work in online advertising by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for the explanation of how the advertising industry works. I really do think that commoditizing things that should really never be commoditized (i.e., home loans, ad placements, etc) creates a perverse incentive to such razor thin margins that cheating or lying becomes the only way to stay profitable.

      In a larger sense, commoditization prevents competition on value. Everything competes on price, and quality isn't quantifiable as easily as price, and so there's a race to the bottom. Even if you build up a good name, a bigger player can undercut you on both price and quality for a while, drive you out of business and then completely drop the ball on quality and still rake in the profits (send a few $$ to reviewers or quality inspectors and buy a higher rating than you deserve).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    5. Re:I work in online advertising by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      No, the ads just move out of ad spaces into 'native' space, embedded with content and interspersed into feeds and streams.

      Or the adverts become articles, with no indication that they are sponsored. One newspaper website that I read has a "monthly limit" (not effective when you use private browsing) of 10 pages. But even after this limit is reached, some articles can still be read. I assume that the the newspaper is receving payment when someone reads the article. However, there is nothing to indicate that the article is an ad, or sponsored.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:I work in online advertising by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The only real market solution is to whitelist a certain number of ad networks, and have sites commit to only running ads from those ad networks

      Which ad networks haven't served malware?

      (Also, the free market solution is for everyone to use ad block).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:I work in online advertising by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If you're in the US, said articles must be clearly labeled as sponsored content. It's big FTC fines if they don't label them as such.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:I work in online advertising by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The only real market solution is to whitelist a certain number of ad networks, and have sites commit to only running ads from those ad networks, but this segments the internet into the haves (premium inventory, high quality sites, premium ad networks, premium ads, all expensive) and the have nots (mom and pop sites with mediocre inventory that nobody visits because of the chance of getting cancer from the shit networks they have to run). Beyond that, this problem is unlikely to go away - it's simply too easy to game the system and put whatever you want into many adspaces.

      Many of us are already doing that, using adblock to blacklist everything by default, and whitelisting ads on a case by case basis.

      I'm glad that someone in the online advertising industry is finally advocating for this strategy. It took you guys a while.

    9. Re:I work in online advertising by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I don't detest ads per se. I held off for using an adblocker for a long time, because there were a few sites I frequented that I knew were unlikely to be able to stay in operation on anything other than the advertising model. Static-image ads or even tastefully animated ones (ie. a selection of items from a product range which changes every 20 seconds or so) don't bother me, provided they don't fill half the screen.

      But I'm on an adblocker now, as of around 9 months ago. Malvertising was a factor in this move, but the biggest factor were auto-playing video-ads with sound. I got bored of clicking through browser tabs playing the game of "spot where the noise is coming from". Oh, and those full-site wrap-around ads that leave almost no room on the screen where you can click-for-focus without clicking the ad are infuriating as well.

      This is an industry that seems set for self-destruction. I've no doubt that there are responsible, legitimate advertising firms out there, as described by the GP (I still see plenty of "inoffensive" ads). There are also, as I said above, a lot of useful resources that would either require subscriptions or shut down without advertising. But it doesn't take many bad apples to sour the public on the whole idea. Adblockers are getting traction even with people who were uncomfortable with them to begin with on ethical grounds (like me) and from what we've seen out of the courts so far, they're not getting banned any time soon (and the growth of malvertising makes this even more of an unlikely prospect).

      I suspect the onus is going to be on the industry to sort this out, through creating a trade association with some real teeth and buy-in from the major customers, plus potentially co-operation with search engines to help identify dodgy sites.

      All of which is probably a recipe for a cartel 10 years down the line. Solve one problem and another replaces it...

    10. Re:I work in online advertising by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "mom and pop" sites point rings amusingly true for me.

      Around a year ago, my dad went through a wave of really nasty malware infections. The ones that block your AV software, redirect your DNS and generally embed themselves right across the OS.

      Now, my dad has historically been a bit of a malware-magnet. He falls into the category of "knows just about enough to think he knows everything", which used to lead him into some really poor security practices. But after a really nasty infection in 2012 which resulted in him losing quite a significant chunk of personal data, I thought he'd finally learned his lesson. He was keeping on top of Windows Update, keeping an updated AVG install, running weekly Malwarebytes scans and had finally, finally, stopped opening dodgy e-mail attachments from his perpetually-malware-infested dickhead golf-buddy friends.

      I'd also put him on an adblocker. I wasn't using one myself at the time (though I am now), but I was sick of making the 4-hour-each-way journey to his place to fix his machine, so I'd held nothing back.

      So a wave of four or five infections in the space of a month came as a bit of a shock. What was surprising was that he was getting re-infected very quickly after each disinfection (including one which involved a full format-reinstall of Windows).

      Eventually, after going through his browser history after two consecutive infections (and half-expecting to find a megaton of pr0n), I track down the source.

      And it's not pr0n, it's his bloody family history club website. Some online forum he participates in for people who are trying to trace their ancestry in a particular area. It has under 50 regular participants. It also has a prominent notice about how much the site depends on advertising income to stay in operation and asking users to disable or make an exception in their adblocker (with instructions on how to do so).

      My dad has, of course, been making an exception for this site, which is then pushing a remarkably concentrated and toxic cocktail of malware-infested ads almost every time it is accessed. We actually ended up on the phone to the guy who ran the site, begging him to switch to another advertising provider. He wasn't exactly enthusiastic, so the adblocker remained in place. Don't know where things have got to since then.

    11. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU this would be illegal. You are obliged to state that an article is sponsored or you will face serious fines.

    12. Re:I work in online advertising by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Hum... A few suggestions for you. The first and most fundamental is to try to prevent your ad can run any script, so even if it is malicious it will not be able to do anything, I do not believe that an ad with animations and sounds to be more effective than a simple link or a still image.

      Second, you know those ads that offer X but clicking on them you are directed to Y? Avoid them as if they were radioactive. No more annoying thing for a user to click on a picture thinking it will for one thing (the download you want) and actually is redirected to something else unrelated.

      Third, do not accept ads of suspicious companies like "CleanMyPC" simply not worth it. It is the main reason I block ads, advertisements that offer really suspicious programs and often try to pretend they are the links to the content I really want to see.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    13. Re:I work in online advertising by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      90% of ad networks vet their ads to run clean

      Are you saying that if I send them an .swf file, they'll say, "no, send us the source, and we'll audit it and then compile it ourselves?"

      Because if they don't do that, then they're not vetting jack shit.

      (Putting aside the fact that Flash ads have mercifully fallen out of fashion in the last few years.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:I work in online advertising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We actually ended up on the phone to the guy who ran the site, begging him to switch to another advertising provider. He wasn't exactly enthusiastic, so the adblocker remained in place. Don't know where things have got to since then.

      Probably nowhere, and fast. Dude is willfully aiding and abetting crime by carrying a known-malicious ad network. What scum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I have said over and over lately, online advertising has become self defeating. I didn't mind ads (much) when they were a static part of a web page. But as the ads have become more and more and more and more obnoxious and headache inducing, I now block all ads, and will probably always continue to do so. From what I have read, I am no different than many others in this respect. The worse the ads get. and as more and more ads are added to each web page, the more people will install ad blockers and script blockers (many ads run scripts).

      So the harder the advertisers try, the less people that they are reaching, and the more ad blocking internet users there will be. Advertising and marketing are now seen by most people as evil, as they have gone from simply letting people know a product or service exists, to trying as hard as they can (including deceptive tactics and outright lying) to sell you the product whether you want or need it.

    16. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paper version of the NYT "hosts" its own ads and accepts responsibility for their content. This is my benchmark for whether or not I let ads into my network.

      Ad networks are just parasites that no one should tolerate.

    17. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is far more profound than you're seeing. I don't block ads, but I use a basic HOSTS file, and I rarely see ads. I also block script most of the time because it simply is not safe, in terms of either security or privacy.

      If I visit a website and that website has an ad that's on that website, I will see it. But nearly all ads are also spyware trackers from the likes of Google/Doubleclick, or other servers that I never chose to visit. Those ads are not on the website visited. People are tricked into visiting 3rd-party sites.

      Somehow, along the way, most people have come to accept and defend this fundamentally dishonest system of "targetted" ads. Targetted ads are by definition part of a large scale spyware system. An ad is an image or text that says, "Hey, take a look at our product!". A targetted ad is the result of online surveillance and is, itself, part of that surveillance system, with each ad doubling as a web beacon, as ad server companies track people from site to site.

        Many people like to say the Internet would die without targetted ads. Yet Google made billions when they first started with merely text-based context ads. And in those days I had much better luck finding what I wanted online, without being returned *only* commercial links. As far as I'm concerned, whatever is going to die without spyware should be killed off. The sooner the better.

    18. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem # 1: Get your parents off of Windows for Internet Surfing. Uninstall Flash support if you haven't already.

      If they're not comfortable using $favoriteflavorofLinux, then it's high time to teach them. If they need to have Windows for something, great. Put Linux in a VM and let them use the VM while out on the net. Big emphasis on this. Do not let them get on the Net with Windows. Adblock of some flavor is mandatory. No-Script is mandatory. Hell, even Ghostery is mandatory imo.

      I do not surf without them. Ever. Whitelist the sites that are essential. ( Banking, etc. No-Script will fubar a lot of sites so make sure you need them )

      Most of the time, I'm surfing via the aforementioned Linux VM with all the adblocking tech installed on top of it.

    19. Re:I work in online advertising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      which resulted in him losing quite a significant chunk of personal data, I thought he'd finally learned his lesson. He was keeping on top of Windows Update, keeping an updated AVG install, running weekly Malwarebytes scans and had finally, finally, stopped opening dodgy e-mail attachments from his perpetually-malware-infested dickhead golf-buddy friends.

      I don't see where you put him on some kind of backup system.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the ads just move out of ad spaces into 'native' space, embedded with content and interspersed into feeds and streams. That's what all those sponsored articles and stuff are, and it's really terrible.

      So what's wrong with it? It would seem to avoid all of the issues with malvertising.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly pro-advertising, but I see polite, safe ads that are placed into their own corner of a page as a good compromise in order to avoid the corruption of actual page content. I've seen (and run) enough high quality content sites that can't pay for their own hosting or bandwidth, and it sucks to see them go away.

      Don't get you wrong??? Everything you said in that paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong. Stop advertising, and the malvertisements will vanish (or are you wedded to your present career). Or use Adblocker or similar to do the same, as most of your high-net-worth targets do.

    21. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (the firm I work for runs one of these exchanges).
      So you're admitting to being a scumbag.

    22. Re:I work in online advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a later day (today) I see that Chrome is blocking all Flash by default, like I have been doing for more than a decade, and now this (reading slashdot backwards in time). It's a problem of quality. Everyone says they don't mind quality advertisement but ads are always going to be low quality compared to what you were watching/reading. It's impossible to look forward to being interrupted by ads when one is watching a Hitchcock or a Kubrik movie, same with web content. Ads are cancer, period. How I miss the 90s Internet, even with guestbooks and animated GIFs, it was way better; a web made by people smart enough to use FTP. Now there is only room for what can be monetized.

  7. When Are They Going To Learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't buy any product or service that invades my space with ads. Phuck em.

  8. Why block "in the interim"? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Advertising companies obviously cannot ensure clean ads or do not care. Users are responsible for protecting their machines. The only sensible thing is to block all ads without distinction and permanently. This industry has nobody but themselves to blame for their inevitable decline.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Why block "in the interim"? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Advertising companies are much more focused on getting rid of click-fraud and improving targeting abilities, because the people who pay them want that. If you visit an ad network, that is all you will hear, "improved targeting!"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Why block "in the interim"? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They seem to have forgotten that they are parasites and must not do any real damage to their hosts or they will be fought and neutralized.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Why block "in the interim"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It is my experience that they do not consider themselves parasites. Virtually everyone in ad tech has comes with some kind of justification for why they are doing good things for the world.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net

    'bout solved all my malware problems.

  10. HTTPS everywhere by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    This is why I am not on board with the idea of https everywhere. Recently, I started seeing obviously malware ads in the middle of Words With Friends (OK, maybe Words with Friends is malware!!). Configuring my squid proxy, I was able to block not only the site that was serving the ads (gaseview.com), but also the ad network that I think was providing the links to the malware ads (mopub.com).

    With https everywhere it is much more difficult to block such ads.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:HTTPS everywhere by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1, Informative

      WWF is a horrible app. After exiting, it's still running...draining your battery, sending annoying notifications 24/7, and reporting back who knows what information. I liked the game itself, but the battery drain and notifications was too much and now it's gone.

    2. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      You can use your own proxy to essentially do a MITM attack on your own connection and remove the ads or do anything else you would like and still have encrypted connecteion over the public internet.

    3. Re:HTTPS everywhere by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How would you break into the encrypted stream?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Set up transparent proxy, redirect all connections to outside server ports 443 to the transparent proxy server. Set the proxy (squid can do this) so it generates a certificate on connection using your own self-signed CA certificate to sign it. Install the CA certificate on your PC.

      Now your proxy server is the man-in-the-middle - having encrypted connection from it to you and from it to the origin server, but also having access to the unencrypted content. This is exactly like a MITM attack, except you are doing it on yourself.

      I have set this up for one client - in that case the proxy is there to 1)log what sites are visited and 2)block some sites (like facebook and youtube). Doing it with the proxy is better than just having a blocked IP list, because those IPs change and sites like youtube or facebook have lots of ips. I can not parse the access log, find what other sites I should block and block them.

    5. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you break into the encrypted stream?

      You "just" need your proxy to terminate the ssl connection instead of your browser.

    6. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      delete(if youre cool) or disable(if you're half as cool) all the SSL cert authorities in the browser and manually accept certs you like after that.
      Also disable oscp validation and shit*

      No SSL connection that uses a third party certificate that you havent manually accepted will work =)

      *has hilarious UNDEFINED consequencies, do not attempt with enterprise apps coded by dwarfs

    7. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have your local systems trust a root CA that your proxy maintains. The proxy then can resign all connections transparently. A bunch of commercial solutions exist from big network vendors. I do it with PaloAlto Networks gear.

    8. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's a mobile application you can just use adaway from f-droid and use the DNS cache viewer to block the domains.
      https://github.com/Free-Software-for-Android/AdAway/wiki/ProblematicApps

    9. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can this be done for other hardware you do not have control over or will it break them ?

      Example, my alarm system is broadband connected and utilizes a lot of encrypted traffic. I've always been curious to take a look at what it's discussing so would the system even use a Self Signed certificate ( unlikely ) or would it just break it ?

    10. Re:HTTPS everywhere by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:HTTPS everywhere by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the system. If you tried to do that on a PC without installing the certificate - you would get a warning every time you tried to visit a HTTPS site. Your alarm system may be set up to only accept the real certificate and not accept your self-signed one, however, there is no real way to find out except to test it.

  11. Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bad players in the advertising game are trading long term sustainability for short term profits. As it gets worse, more people will use adblocking software until online advertising is dead. Hooray for insatiable greed!

    1. Re:Suicide by BVis · · Score: 2

      Most for-profit companies are trading long term sustainability for short term profits.

      FTFY. The phenomenon is not limited to advertising networks.

      Also, anyone that tries to make me feel bad about using an ad blocker is trying to tell me that they have a right to shove ads into my eyeballs. They can go fuck themselves with a chainsaw; my eyes, my rules. I am not obligated to punch your monkey.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that what the kids are calling it these days?

  12. Run the browser in a VM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The obvious solution is to run the browser in a VM. The problem is the exploit, not ONE of the ways the exploit is delivered.

    NSA and GCHQ man-in-the-middles Google and other major services to send its exploits direct to the browser, and you need to fix those too.

  13. is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by rewindustry · · Score: 2

    please forgive my ignorance, if my prejudice is in any way misguided, but i am under the impression that the attack vector, in actual fact, is flash, as i cannot see how a simple image, or even a "normal" video, could possibly compromise a target machine, whereas i understand adobe is full of holes, deliberate or otherwise.

    or, to put it another way, i've never seen a machine compromised, to date, after wiping adobe (hack, spit) from the system.

    while i'm at it - am i correct to believe the company was actually responsible for jailing a man, a foreign national, without charges, for well over a year, in direct response to his having exposed the insecurity of an adobe "security" mechanism?

    1. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is ads containing executable content of any kind, whether Flash or JavaScript.

    2. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just flash. Advertisements can also include hidden iframes, ECMAscript code, DOM manipulations, and the like. If Flash were to die today and all ads moved to HTML5 we would still be at risk.

      The only ads I will accept are static images with a link. Any network serving ads that are moving, flashing, popping up (or under), playing video, obscuring part of the page until dismissed -- goes straight to the block list so I will never see their content again.

    3. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      as i cannot see how a simple image... could possibly compromise a target machine

      It can. I believe libjpeg was the first image parser to have a vulnerability, but LibPNG has had quite a few. Image and Video parsers are complex, and complex code means high chances for vulnerabilities.

      Is your browser complex? You better believe it's full of vulnerabilities. We only hear about Flash vulns because they are the low-hanging fruit.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe Flash is a problem, but is it the root of the problem?

      Of course not, because Adobe Flash being vulnerable does not make people exploit its vulnerabilities.

      Should we remove Flash? That is a valid question, but it's not the final question, there are numerous other things we should consider doing.

    5. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not just that they're complex. The code for decoding them is also not usually with security in mind. Remember that libjpeg was written in an era when a 486 was a high-end machine and all three sites on the web that contained images were pretty trustworthy. It needed to be able to decode and display the image in a limited amount of RAM, on a slow CPU, without the user complaining about the time it took (and it didn't - it was slow, and we complained). Modern CPUs are fast enough that even an interpreted JavaScript PNG or JPEG decoder is fast enough, but video decoding (unless offloaded to an accelerator) is still pretty CPU-intensive, so now video decoders are written with performance as the overriding goal and security a distant second. Doing proper bounds checks costs cycles (and, worse, often breaks autovectorisation), so gets overlooked.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      please forgive my ignorance, if my prejudice is in any way misguided, but i am under the impression that the attack vector, in actual fact, is flash, as i cannot see how a simple image, or even a "normal" video, could possibly compromise a target machine, whereas i understand adobe is full of holes, deliberate or otherwise.

      or, to put it another way, i've never seen a machine compromised, to date, after wiping adobe (hack, spit) from the system.

      while i'm at it - am i correct to believe the company was actually responsible for jailing a man, a foreign national, without charges, for well over a year, in direct response to his having exposed the insecurity of an adobe "security" mechanism?

      You are forgetting a whole class of those malware attempts (not ads, ads are just a subclass of malware) that masquarade as parts of windows, updates, parts of anti-virus programs, nVidia driver updates, etc. You know, the ones that old people can't quite figure out so they click anyway just to be sure.

      You don't need a security hole if you can convince the user the malware is legit and should be installed.

      The thing is, that type of festering garbage comes through the SAME ad network as the ads for the newest iPhone

      It's getting to the point where I am going to have to teach my parents that nothing ever should be clicked on if it happens while they are web browsing. Sitting there looking at MS Word documents, sure, it's probably legit. On a web site somewhere (doesn't matter which one) then no, not legit and is an infection attempt.

    7. Re:is the problem not ADOBE FLASH? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not just that they're complex.

      The complexity definitely matters. I only realized this when I wrote a decoder myself, and saw the many places for bugs to hide (it can seem like everything is working great.......but there are so many corner cases that don't come up with normal testing).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. Here's a domain I control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so let's allow someone on a completely different domain to pop out a frame. What could go wrong?

    Sorry, but when you allocate part of your page as a "put your stuff here" and sell it to the highest bidder...well...sometimes the highest bidder is a guy in a trenchcoat. Sometimes it isn't even you that deals with the trenchcoats but some agency that just takes the money as it rolls in. You're gonna get some bad guys in that bunch. Don't sell out your domain to the highest bidder, it's not hard.

    Otherwise you're selling your customers to communists and socialist scum. You don't want that.

  15. bittorrent client ads by issicus · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried about the ads in vuze. i'm sure other freeware has ads .

    1. Re:bittorrent client ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched to the classic interface just after installing it and i've never seen an AD

  16. Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by Sarusa · · Score: 2

    Well that was mighty TimeCube. I kind of get that you don't like AdBlock+, but I had to engage my geocities -> english translator. Really kind of sad /. won't let you change fonts and colors, because that would have been amazing.

    I'm using Ublock myself.

  17. Doubleclick serve malware by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doubleclick isn't exactly your eastern europe shaddy site : http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...

    You are probably not responsible and involved, and thank you for the informative post, I am sorry but your "we are vetting ad" in view of big network serving malware, sounds more like trying to stem the flow of the blood while pretending one is not wounded.

    "The only real market solution is to whitelist a certain number of ad networks"
    No the real only solution is to blacklist *all* ad network until they accept responsibility and utterly disable any scripting in their advertising, only serving sanitized text and sanitized image. And that is the minimum.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Doubleclick serve malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not particularly care for the tame form of "advertising". Even if they take it all the way down to plain text tucked into an obscure corner, it is still irrelevant, obtrusive, and intrusive. And, certainly not something so valuable that I would go out of my way to find in that obscure corner.

      Advertising should go away entirely.

      If businesses still want to promote their products, then they should learn how do do so correctly - by being visible when someone is actually looking for them or for their products and having something useful and constructive to say, even to people who are not.

    2. Re:Doubleclick serve malware by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      they vet, but they problem is they don't serve. I assume due to bandwidth issues (why pay for it when the advertiser will). In any case, malvertising is very sophisticated and the ads are often *not* malicious. But an approved ad is swapped out with the malicious (even if only 0.1% of the time) so the brokers are not aware.

      The system is broken and advertisers are floundering. It used to be a small minority group who blocked ads (I still have a custom stylesheet in place that marks ads as being "unimportant" based on some simple pattern matching of where it is served from so they are not displayed. (The problem with that old system is that they are still *fetched* and likely *parsed* by the browser so they offer no security advantage.)

  18. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  19. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  20. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  21. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  22. You advertisers cost us users money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We pay for bandwidth your ads steal. Ads infect us too. Your ads are not wanted. The internet functioned fine before you all monetized it. You're failing badly and you know it. So 'scratch and claw' b.s. us all you like but you're full of it. You're going down. You did this to yourselves with your unwanted ads, infecting us, and stealing our monies we pay out monthly to be online in hogging up our bandwidth we pay for AND infecting us. What is it you advertisers do NOT get? I'm sticking by this program of apk's http://start64.com/index.php?o... using hosts it generates since it protects us from you advertisers, malware makers and botnet herders, spam/phish, trackers, and DNS redirect poisoning security issues and being downed too, and for a LOT less resource consumption than your BRIBED browser addons like AdBlock, adblock+,and Ghostery (evidon advertiser owned is a fox guarding a henhouse). Have you no shame? No remorse for your industry's blatant errors in an industry that produces zero but hassles? Apparently not. Go away. Your time's short and you know it. The number of users using adblockers of all kinds (all inferior to hosts on many levels in abilities and inefficiency) is skyrocketing. You can thank yourselves for that you know. Those Open Bid ad networks are a large part of how malware makers take advantage of ads to infect us. Your industry could care less. They don't check the code in those ads, or are the results in ads infecting users not proof of that? Greed is what you are all about and your time is up.

  23. third party by Mirar · · Score: 1

    Interesting.

    A problem I have (and a temporary solution) is that ads come from a third party site. Usually the same few networks. I don't like being tracked by third party sites and I see no reason to view their content, so I simply DNS block common ad networks and third-party-content block them in the browser. This is causing the problem that I don't pay for the sites I visit (the adblock problem) and of course I can't visit sites that demand the third party site content to show (DNS block),
    but there is at least very low risk for tracking and third party malvertising.

    A solution as I see it would be that ads are given as images and reported as statistics, so that the main site can repack them (removing any exploits), display them without tracking me more than usual and report the displays to the advertisement network. (It would also have the benefit that any annoying flash ads and popups would go away, which would benefit the advertisers in the long run - less ad blocking.) (I presume clickthroughs can go to the advertisement network so they can keep track of that part.)

  24. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  25. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  26. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  27. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  28. Do you have to click on the ad? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    I read the article all the way through, and it SEEMS like you have to click on the ad in order for it to infect you. They don't specifically come out and SAY this, though. So, is this the case? Does not clicking on ads keep you safe? I thought just having a flash ad download and execute on your machine was enough, or are we not talking about this? There are references to "hardened landing pages" that infect the users, so WTF is up with that?

    The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines, so the ad networks and/or end clients themselves are the ones being screwed out of money.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Do you have to click on the ad? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      I read the article all the way through, and it SEEMS like you have to click on the ad in order for it to infect you. They don't specifically come out and SAY this, though. So, is this the case? Does not clicking on ads keep you safe? I thought just having a flash ad download and execute on your machine was enough, or are we not talking about this? There are references to "hardened landing pages" that infect the users, so WTF is up with that?

      The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines, so the ad networks and/or end clients themselves are the ones being screwed out of money.

      How do you not-click an ad that takes up the entire screen with a transparent hotspot?

    2. Re:Do you have to click on the ad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash is bad but the delivery method is Javascript, and no you do not need to click anything, you merely need to land on a page that is executing the code, and have the desired browser version (unless of course we're talking a zeroday, then even the newest browser/plugins will probably get you infected).

      It's not 1999 anymore, you don't have to trick users into clicking ANYTHING, it still happens, but it has not been required for some time. Simply landing on the right (wrong) page with the right (wrong) browser can have javascript code execute without user intervention.

      Adblock will block ads. It will not stop javascript. You'll want BOTH adblocker and script blocker. Noscript or even Yesscript, block scripts globally and only allow them on trusted sites and only to restore broken functions.

      Lets say you have adblock, which won't catch all the ads, but you don't have noscript. An ad slips in, executes javascript and loads you with malware.
      Lets say you have adblock AND noscript. You are safe, javascript can not execute
      Lets say you have no adblock but do have noscript. You'll get spammed with ads, and possibly infected via adobe, but not javascript, none of the ads can execute javascript without your consent.

      "The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines"

      The funny part is that the malware installed is used to add the infected hosts to a botnet over a stealth p2p network, doing anything from spamming, DDoS or even bitcoin mining.

      The good malware, meaning the coders had a purpose and knew what they were doing, doesn't give itself away, you'll notice slowdowns but that should be it.

      The bad malware (half assed coding) will install adjackers that spam you with hundreds of ads per ad, injecting them into everything including the OS itself. It will load your computer with toolbars and GARBAGE in an attempt to make you click the wrong thing. The end goal there is what you stated, but you are factually incorrect. The ad server gets paid by ads served and or clicked, and they don't care if these numbers are inflated from their own bots because it makes them MORE money as it shows a larger audience than what is actually being hit.

      It's the same as fake twitter followers, companies got more money to spam based on the number of followers, knowing full well 75% of them are fake, it's about inflating the numbers.

      That said, ads serve no useful purpose, people block them, and a hell of a lot of people are like me, refusing to buy certain products out of spite because of the ads. If you can't afford to host a site without spamming me with ads and putting me at risk of infection, you shouldn't be hosting a site.

    3. Re:Do you have to click on the ad? by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you can't afford to host a site without spamming me with ads and putting me at risk of infection, you shouldn't be hosting a site.

      What would be better? A Wikipedia-style pledge drive for a fourth of the year?

  29. "Malvertising" is a misnomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because there is no euvertising. Advertisements are spam, thus malware. (-ware because the word "malcontent" is taken, and most ads rely on Javascript or Flash, so they are not just content but software.)

  30. Re:Best adblocker (& more) there is? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU => Win a "Cookie" & A FOR EFFORT.

  31. It's getting really bad now by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're getting ever more sophisticated. I got some sort of malware the other day that actually poses as a Windows update, which puts a permanent icon in my system tray with regular (3 or 4 times a day) popups about a "free upgrade to Windows 10". Luckily I don't fall for that kind of thing but I don't know how I got the virus in the first place.

    1. Re:It's getting really bad now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are so clever!

    2. Re:It's getting really bad now by r-diddly · · Score: 1

      Well, I chortled a bit, but yeah I've been making this same joke for 15 years... "My computer's infected with Windows" and so forth.

  32. Fuck internet advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck advertising. Fuck javascript (especially the completely clueless idiots who use javascript in place of hyperlinks)

    Run with an adblocker and disable javascript by default. It's the only sane way to browse.

    Anyone whinging about their ads being prevented by adblockers etc. should fuck off back to TV where they belong. It's time for the internet to purge advertising. People who want ads should build their own damned internet. They're no longer welcome on ours.

  33. WTF??? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Ads as an attack vector was identified in 2007 when security responders began receiving reports of malware hitting user machines as victims viewed online advertisements.

    OK, then I'm afraid these 'security responders' were oblivious to the 7 or so years before that, and are therefore suspect.

    Malware has been in ads since the friggin' .com era, saying they started in 2007 tells me they weren't paying attention.

    Flash has been a vector for security exploits from ads as long as it has existed, as has javascript (popup window hell anybody?).

    Sorry, any security researcher who forgets that ads have always been a vector for malware is a little too clueless.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate your comments on slashdot, but you might want to ease up a bit on this one as you are (perhaps unintentionally) conflating some different things.

      Dodgy advertising has indeed been around a long time. Back around 2000 I had a support job where some poor shmucks where still on NT4 and one system was "misbehaving". To be specific, it was launching popups so fast on login that it couldn't keep up. The system ran out of memory trying to display popups so it froze without being able to display them. Nuke from orbit.

      But to be clear, when IT security folk talk about malvertising we aren't talking about that sort of malicious behavior and 2007 sounds about right for when it started. Malvertising is different in who and how it is funded, but the defining characteristic is I suppose the deception and maliciousness. There are two primary delivery methods: compromised web sites and intermittently malicious ads. The things you talk about from 2000 were predictable: go to a site and be compromised. And you still see that, but delivery mechanism has evolved significantly. Even for spam, a lot of the links go through 3 to 4 redirects (and sometimes more). Javascript is heavily obfuscated (often a mix of techniques such as xor encoding, base64, binary, hexadecimal, wrapped in multiple levels of interleaved decoding). The "legit" advertising uses exactly the same techniques to evade ad blocking.

      But a malvertisement will typically use an exploit kit (blackhole, nuclear, whatever) which will probe the browser and select the exploit to deliver. Persistence and communication methods are often modularized and different from the exploit (though quite possibly part of the same framework). Interestingly, because the needs are similar, the NSAs exploit kits operate in much the same way (as do those used by China, Russia, and other state actors).

      Malvertising will result in a persistence mechanism that is usually unrelated to any visible "malware" such as ad popup, BHO, whatever. In some cases it appears likely that these are even installed without knowledge of their creators to make it look like a garden-variety adware infection rather than a fullblown, persistent, command and control, malware infection.

      I feel that I haven't managed to make it clear so a brief re-try: it is a mistake to conflate adware (especially 15-year old adware) with malware. Adware might do something stupid like inject into the TCP/IP stack in a way that removal breaks networking. Malware is more subtle and cautious than that. It aims for persistence and control.

    2. Re:WTF??? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      hmmm... how about:

      adware (which has been around a long time) focuses on advertising although it displays malicious characteristics.

      malvertising focuses on infecting a system in a persistent fashion that makes it part of a "network". Infected systems are used to steal passwords, send spam, display advertisements, participate in ddos, and in general anything that can be monetized.

  34. Blame Google & Yahoo for malvertising .. by nickweller · · Score: 0

    How about using a 'computer' that can't be compromised by malvertising. And no mention on the Microsoft Register as to the root cause of the online malware menace.

  35. "In the interim"....now and forever by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    People having promiscuous sex should use condoms. Not in the interim while we are working for a cure for HIV, not until there are some better treatments for herpes. If you are engaging in sex with multiple partners, it will ALWAYS BE A GOOD IDEA.

    The web is no different. As long as sites can cause local code execution, I don't care if its in a limited environment. I don't care if its in a restricted VM. These environments always end up having holes, and those holes, once widely distributed, will always create a viable market for attacking it. It will always be too high value of a target to trust.

    I am ok with promiscuity up to a point. But as someone I know once said "just because I am easy, doesn't mean I am not picky"....but when you are engaging in more risky behaviour, the only sensible option is to slip it on, BEFORE you slip it in.....and install an ad blocker, or better yet, I don't like ad blockers per se....requestpolicy and noscript would be my general choice...and never ever use any of the "allow all" or "temporarily disable" buttons....ever. I would rather not browse a site than be hitting some strange raw.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:"In the interim"....now and forever by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People having promiscuous sex should use condoms. Not in the interim while we are working for a cure for HIV, not until there are some better treatments for herpes. If you are engaging in sex with multiple partners, it will ALWAYS BE A GOOD IDEA.

      Well, perhaps someday we will reach the point where phage therapy is more reliable than condoms. At that point, it will be largely irrelevant. Of course, that's assuming our society makes it long enough to develop that far...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:"In the interim"....now and forever by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm guesstimating that we'll have no need for condoms in something like 40-50 years. (You may wish to wash your hands after handling my guesstimates.) I'm interested in how society will evolve when the only reason to not have sex with someone is that you don't want to, but I doubt I'll be around to observe personally.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  36. Advertising is ok, BUT DO IT RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't:

    * Webtrap or mousetrap users preventing
    them from leaving the page or mess with the controls
    of the browsers in any way

    * Use dirty tricks such as opening 5 other windows when the user
    clicks the X at the corner of their browser

    * Suddenly block/overlay the content I am trying to read (this
    seems to be a very big problem using mobiles these days)

    * use fast flashing lights, animations ,etc as this can cause people
    to have seizures and possibly even indirectly lead to serious injury
    or death

    * advertise free $500 gift cards, free iPhone 7s, "congradulations
    you just won..." or other scammy shady stuff.

    *use Javascript or Flash unless absolutly nessecary, especialy with
    unaudited, poorly written and potentialy security breaching code.

    DO:

      Use an unobtrusive, non animating image, and keep the size of the image
    reasonable

      Advertise for reputable companies, big or small, not scammy boiler
    room operations

      Accept feedback from users about the ad so you know if the ad is good, poor, pissing
    people off, inappropriate, on or off target for the site's audience, etc.

      Refrain from Javascript and Flash whenever possible, and if it is
    needed, make sure the code is small, opetimized and make sure
    it has been thoroghly audited and inspected for any security holes.

  37. A faster horse by tepples · · Score: 1

    Are you so stupid that you don't know what you need?

    You might be surprised at how many people are that stupid. Henry Ford sold his Model T automobile to people who thought they needed a faster horse.

    Do you need help when deciding what food/clothes/housing/car you buy?

    Some people do. In some categories, U.S. consumers can rely on Consumer Reports, a product comparison magazine and website funded by subscribers that takes no advertising. But a lot of things are so hyper-local that a nationwide magazine such as CR can't cover them adequately, such as restaurants and housing. And even then, CR somehow needs to learn that a particular product exists and is available to the public, even though it refuses to take product samples.

  38. What other ways? by tepples · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to finance content

    What might these be, other than ads and paywalls? Once I know what other ways you're thinking of, I can analyze their suitability for different

    and if you do not qualify, maybe your content was not valuable in the first place.

    Valuable to readers != valuable to those with money up front.

    1. Re:What other ways? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Valuable to readers != valuable to those with money up front.

      There's the key point. Which side of the equation do the content creators care about the most? Would they rather provide the readers with value and treat them with respect, or suck up to those with the money? The problem with advertising on the internet is that it is leaning very heavily towards the model of screw the customer and get your free money. As in web site owners not having to worry about ads, just sign up with an ad server, sit back, and wait for the checks to arrive, then if the checks aren't big enough start generating lots of fluff stories (like a twitter post pointing to your ten minute video all about the six word bit of news about Fallout 4 from a different tweet).

    2. Re:What other ways? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Which side of the equation do the content creators care about the most? Would they rather provide the readers with value and treat them with respect, or suck up to those with the money?

      If the choice is between trying to respect visiting readers while showing tasteful ads and trying to respect visiting readers while showing no ads, it depends on how much the authors want to keep a roof over their heads. The alternative (a paywall to cover authors' salaries and server costs) disrespects readers who are visiting, as paywalls lead to bounces, and bounces waste not only the reader's time but also server resources.

    3. Re:What other ways? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Roof over their heads" is spurious. Most of these content creators are part time hobbyists with blogs. They have day jobs. If they don't, then they should get one because relying on the fickle whims of viewers on the internet is a sure fire path to failure.

      Paywall is not the only alternative. I'd be willing to pay extra to my ISP if it was shared equally with all sites I visit and never to any site I don't visit, as long as any ads I view will never count towards any bandwidth cap or charges I may have. I donate to some sites and services as well - NPR and PBS survive by getting most of their money from donations, and people who *could* get them for free still voluntarily give them money.

      None of this problem would be here if the content owners had been diligent about pushing back against obnoxious ads, ads with malware, tracking technologies, ads that slow down computers, ads that suck up excessive bandwidth in relation to the actual "content", etc. Instead the content owners simply do not care, they have abdicated their responsibliities because it is easier than vetting the advertisements like old-economy companies do.

    4. Re:What other ways? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The use case I had envisioned involves the operator of a very popular forum and video archive, which ends up getting kicked off inexpensive paid hosting services because of bandwidth use.

  39. Stop using Flash for ads by jonwil · · Score: 1

    If the ad networks stopped using Flash for ads and switched to only using HTML5, the amount of nasty stuff would drop dramatically. Are there exploits in browsers where a dodgy non-Flash ad could get in? Sure there are. But its much harder for malware to exploit those holes, especially if you keep your browser up-to-date (and aren't doing something stupid like connecting a browser that is no longer receiving security updates to the open internet)

    At the very least, a non-Flash malware ad would need a bunch of different exploits for various different browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer at the very least) and different versions of those browsers (an explot that works on IE6 on Windows XP isn't going to work on IE11 on Windows 10 for example). Also, non-Flash ads will (by virtue of their HTML/JS source being visible) be easier for ad networks to vet and examine for dodgy stuff.

  40. Cancel or Allow? by tepples · · Score: 1

    If access to your mic and camera are *actually* required (e.g. tech support, online chat etc.) you should have to authorise this access each time and the access should be granted for the current page only.

    If the user has to re-allow the microphone, re-allow the camera, and re-allow location whenever the user navigates to a different part of a web application, with no way to "always allow" other than by applying a patch to the browser's source code and recompiling the entire browser from source, the user will likely consider it worse than Windows Vista UAC.

    1. Re:Cancel or Allow? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      How many people use their microphone that often? If they don't care about their own privacy over the inconvience of clicking a button then they probably deserve the privacy intrusion they're going to get.

    2. Re:Cancel or Allow? by tepples · · Score: 1

      How many people use their microphone that often? If they don't care about their own privacy over the inconvience of clicking a button then they probably deserve the privacy intrusion they're going to get.

      How many people use their microphone that often?

      I can think of users of Siri, users of OK Google, users of Cortana, users of voice-to-SMS, frequent users of VoIP, and people who use dictation because they have trouble using a standard keyboard. Someone who scans barcodes of products or scans personal checks from friends and family and payroll checks from employers too small for direct deposit might use the camera often.

      I suggest a different privilege model for access to privacy-sensitive sensors:

      • Background access (while this origin or this app is open)
      • Foreground access (while this origin or this app is open and focused)
      • Temporary background access (revoked once all documents from this origin are unloaded, other than in navigation to another same-origin document, or all windows from this app are closed)
      • Temporary foreground access (default)
      • No access (do not ask user again)
    3. Re:Cancel or Allow? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why not just allow for Skype and Ok Google, but disallowed for any other generic website unless a request is popped up and accepted? Then you can swap to Skype all you want without it bugging you each time and without having to globally allow the microphone for every site on the internet.

    4. Re:Cancel or Allow? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Why not just allow for Skype and Ok Google, but disallowed for any other generic website unless a request is popped up and accepted?

      Agreed. The user would place Skype and the like under "Background access", but "any other generic website" would get "Temporary foreground access" with a pop-up to change the policy. The problem comes when users aren't given a way to say "Yes, this site has a legit reason to use my sensors, so quit bugging me," or when each site operator has to register with each browser publisher to enable the "quit bugging me" options.

  41. WWF (disambiguation) by tepples · · Score: 2

    WWF is a horrible app.

    Yeah, but where else can I watch panda wrestling?

  42. Tab closed; didn't read by tepples · · Score: 1

    How do you not-click an ad that takes up the entire screen with a transparent hotspot?

    Ctrl+W. (Source)

  43. When the alternative is paywalls by tepples · · Score: 1

    there is no euvertising. Advertisements are spam, thus malware

    Would you prefer to have to buy a separate $20 per year subscription for each domain that you visit? Or what third option am I missing?

    1. Re:When the alternative is paywalls by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer to have to buy a separate $20 per year subscription for each domain that you visit? Or what third option am I missing?

      More sponsored content with embedded advertisement, of course. Some of this is shit, some of it is entertaining. The world's fastest car show sponsored by battery tender may be stamped battery tender all over it, but it doesn't really detract from the experience. It's almost kind of nostalgic, in a mutual of omaha's wild kingdom kind of way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. The best adblocker (& far more)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  45. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  46. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  47. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  48. identified in 2007? hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quote:
      "Ads as an attack vector was identified in 2007 when ...

    Bullshit, I thought of it in the 1980 while reading neuromancer. And Im sure I was late to the party. Lets assume it was thought of around 3 days after they thought of using ads from a 3rd party to pay for websites

  49. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  50. Yes I do, but do you (or those like you)? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've created a far better tool than addons to block ads (& other threats) - have you?

    Has ANY of you /. "ne'er-do-wells" that downmod my posts?? No!

    See subject above.

    * :)

    (No, most of all you can do is "talk" & that's about it - why? You're unskilled "ne'er-do-wells" that do NOT belong in computing... networking menials @ most/best! Minus coders like myself?? You're helpless - & you KNOW it!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You lousy weasels aren't worth a plugged nickel, you don't belong in computing or acting like you are (since that's all it really is you do, you create nothing + play like you all "know something" when the truth is, you don't & are GOOGLERS @ best)!

    Yes, wish you were me (& you know it) - but lazy wannabes like you never EVER can or will be on my level in the art & science of computing... apk

  51. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  52. LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  53. For the best adblocker (& far more)? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  54. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  55. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  56. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  57. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  58. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK, you don't know when, you don't know where, but you will certainly know why.
    It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.
    And then- SPLAT! A Cyanoacrylate Custard Pie right in the Kisser.

    You will spend the rest of your days being one of the Pie Faced.
    Women won't sleep with you, and well brought up children will kick you in the shins.

    Your only friends will be the other Pie Faces- Advertisers, Flash Developers, and Assholes who left their Cell Phones on during performances of "Carmen".
    "APK" will become a Generic Term, and many cruel memes will ensue: "Man, what did you do to yourself last night?" "I did an APK. Shit is all over the ceiling, and I ran out of toilet paper."

    It's too late for you, but let this be a warning to those who heavily Spam Slashdot articles about Malvertising in the future.
    Do you want to end up like APK?

  59. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  60. self-policing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like ad-blocker usage is really beginning to put a dent in advertising in general. Recommending ad-blocker usage is the ideal solution, as it incentivizes advertisers to police their own industry. If it isn't cleaned up soon, a very large segment of the population is not going to be seeing ads, and those people are not coming back anytime soon. This is somewhat like global warming as in you can only do something immediately to slow its increase; there's no quick way to get back to a previous situation.

  61. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  62. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  63. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  64. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  65. the not so easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop hiring undercover nsa agents...

  66. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    He's gotten so bad lately, I hear Google is talking about changing the file extension for Android apps.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  67. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like everyone else, I just scroll down until the APK lies are gone, thanks for having such a unique format it's easily ignored asshole!

  68. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning, APK is a malware author. You are much better off with Ad block and no script.

  69. Hate to Say It... by r-diddly · · Score: 1

    ...but a day might come when people who want to make money will have to focus on creating something of tangible value to other human beings. Horrors!!!

  70. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK, you are an asshole. Shut the fuck up already!

  71. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    Hypocrite.

    You're spamming right now.

    Why would anybody trust your software when you are doing the very thing you claim to be fighting? -Cluttering up the space with self-promotion and hard-sell noise.

    One post is sufficient. Dozens are offensive and off-putting.

    And seriously: ALL CAPS is the mark of the time-cubed insane. Don't be insane. People avoid the insane.

    Good luck.

  72. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing your hosts program cannot do is stop the windows 10 telemetry.

  73. Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    We have enough ads without your crap as well.

  74. Re: Best adblocker (& more) there is? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please just fuck right off, APK. And take your goddamn meds.

  75. What I say to sites that complain about blocking: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your business model relies on putting my privacy and security at risk (aka online advertising), then your business doesn't deserve to exist, and if you have a problem with me running software on my own machine to mitigate those risks (aka blocking the ads), then you're a prick and don't deserve to exist either.

    As long as your content is publicly accessible in some way, I will be able to view it.

    If you use CSS to trick ad blockers into hiding your content, I will inject my own stylesheet to forcibly display it.

    If you use AJAX to load your content and your script refuses to fire until the ads are loaded, I will inject a script to trick your one.

    If you start requiring authentication on those AJAX requests, with the keys embedded in the ads (by serving them through a proxy or something), I will modify my script to download and the scrape the ads for the keys without displaying them.

    If you start encoding those keys with some random algorithm in a closure in an obfuscated script that changes periodically (like YouTube does for their signatures), I will write an algorithm to extract it.

    I could go on...

    Honestly, if the content is really worth the trouble, I would rather just pay for it, but if that's not an option and you have no intention of ever making it one, I will carry on 'stealing' without mercy and you will have to just sit back and like it.

  76. still don't like adobe by rewindustry · · Score: 1

    can't see inside it, and i can't find an open source interpreter that works, so i'm deaf as well as blind.

    i'm aware windows and macs are vectors also - there is never any security in obscurity, no matter how clever you think you are..

    to date linux, without adobe flash, or any other proprietary driver, has served me perfectly well, without any form of virus 'protection', for decades.

    i'm aware the community gets hit, sometimes, but it hasn't reached me yet.

    perhaps my browsing is somehow more prescient than most?

    or maybe i just got lucky.

    i remain convinced that the sooner flash is replaced, or forced open, the better for all.

    and pdf too, ack thpfft.

  77. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  78. 0.0.0.0's better & you'll like this then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  79. Get on topic, and?... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: At least I have something to promote unlike you & it's better than anything else out there.

    * Prove otherwise...

    (You clearly can't - go away: You're wasting everyone's time, including your own, troll!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Man, these sockpuppets & trolls for inferior 'competitors' (no competition @ all, see above) or advertisers just make me laugh... lol! apk

  80. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an off topic asshole. You can't prove apk wrong validly and technically. Take your own advice. You need it.

  81. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're offtopic and can't validly technically prove apk wrong obviously.

  82. Not as bad as you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Especially after I corrected you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Get on topic, troll... apk

    1. Re:Not as bad as you... apk by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you think that was a correction. I didn't repeat what the article already stated, because the article had already stated it; that doesn't make me wrong or "in need of correction", it makes me "not redundant". Furthermore, you then go on to "invalidate" my mention that there was no patch for XP by stating that XP is no longer supported. Here's a newsflash: XP is still supported on POS platforms, which are widely deployed, so a patch is still necessary there. To top it off, XP was the most prevalent Windows version at the time of the incident, so your claim is really that Microsoft left the majority of their customers vulnerable.

      Brilliant.

      I know I'm not going to win this argument because you've clearly got nothing but time on your hands with which to craft your arguments so as to appear to be correct and on-topic while simply directing the argument away from what you perceive to be your opponent's area of expertise. That's fine, your tactics make you feel like a big man and the whole exchange is highly entertaining for me, because I know why it appears that I am losing.

      Let me ask you this: If your application is so great, why do you have to spam Slashdot to sell it? Your high horse is complaining of back pains. You should get off it.

      P.S.=> Spamming a forum about your "awesome" application and how great you think you are is never on topic.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  83. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get on topic troll. Until you can prove apk wrong validly and technically, which is never going to happen? Go away.

  84. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ghostery, adblock, adblock+, and PrivacyBadger don't either.

  85. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If apk posts lies, prove him wrong. Obviously you can't and are trolling and the liar here.

  86. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His posts all evidence his program's safe from VirusTotal and shows addons don't do as much as hosts too. Learn to read and stop trolling.

  87. Re:LMAO - UBlock fails vs. hosts too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're looking for a date I don't think apk's interested in you.

  88. I have been saying this for 4 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive been screaming this to anyone who will listen for the past 4 years.

    Advertising networks need to properly vet their advertisers and the content from that advertiser. They should not allow the advertiser to change the content without approval while the campaign is running and advertisers who repeatedly violate this policy should be banned from participating in further campaigns.

    Yes, flash ads and auto play are a major problem but I would argue that the inclusion of javascript in ad content poses a major security risk as well.

  89. Correct: You can't ever win vs. myself troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I know I'm not going to win this argument" - by BronsCon (927697) on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:20PM (#50423253)

    See subject: The article cited something already long patched.

    (You're right for once - you CAN'T win. Especially vs. myself, you off-topic troll).

    ---

    "Spamming a forum about your "awesome" application and how great you think you are is never on topic." - by BronsCon (927697) on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:20PM (#50423253)

    How's it 'spam'? It's on topic. I'm not selling anything either - oh, I see - it's "spam" if it makes you look like the off topic trolling ass you clearly are!

    I post where my program applies on topics regarding malware, spam, phishing, botnets, & dns - & at least I HAVE A DECENT PROGRAM, do you?

    HELL NO!

    (You're just a "big talker", a "ne'er-do-well" with NOTHING TO SHOW FOR HIMSELF - prove otherwise (you never can or will)).

    APK

    P.S.=> This takes the cake from you:

    "time on your hands with which to craft your arguments so as to appear to be correct and on-topic" - by BronsCon (927697) on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:20PM (#50423253)

    See above - I am on topic, & AS ALWAYS, correct - You're not... & that is that/fact.

    You're, as always/usual, welcome to validly technically prove me wrong on my points in favor of hosts files - you never EVER do though, lol... none of my 'trolling detractors/naysayers' EVER do. Fact.

    ---

    "while simply directing the argument away from what you perceive to be your opponent's area of expertise" - by BronsCon (927697) on Sunday August 30, 2015 @08:20PM (#50423253)

    You have no demonstratable technical computing expertise. I ask you to show us some, a better program than I've written (which knocks the shit out of browser addons, by doing more for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity than they do BY FAR, yet doing so with FAR LESS resource consumption) - now, how about you?

    ... apk

    1. Re:Correct: You can't ever win vs. myself troll by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Where's your Mac version?

      And my achievements stand quite well on their own, people who need to know have copies of my resume. I sure do quite well in the technical field in which I consult for someone with "no demonstratable technical computing expertise", so I'll let you have that one as long as my bills are paid and there is food on my table and a roof over my head. And a comfortable lifestyle. Very comfortable. So much so, in fact, that I don't feel the need to trumpet all of my accomplishments to the world in some ego-maniacal tantrum.

      You wrote a small application that pulls other peoples' domain block lists from the internet and assembles them into a hosts file. The hosts file, of course, being a throwback to ARPANET and not something you created. Now, that would be impressive.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  90. Advertising itself is Malicious.. by Druegan · · Score: 1

    .. and has been for a long time now.

    I was fairly early to the whole "World Wide Web" thing. I remember when AOL opened for business and the collective IQ of the web dropped by 80 points overnight. You know, back in the days when you could have an actual intelligent conversation with a total stranger in an unmoderated public chat room.

    I remember when most websites were run by just ordinary people who had interests in things and wanted to share information about those interests. The computer hobbyists still wrote their reviews of whatever new widget they had gotten their hands on, people still swapped recipes and stupid cat pictures.. there were blogs (even though they weren't called that yet..)

    Companies had their websites too. Granted, they didn't have much functionality.. but if a company had a website, you could often times look up information about their products, or find contact information to get ahold of someone.

    And maybe, just maybe.. there would be a text link, or a banner at the top of the page as advertising. Usually just to another website, but occasionally an image promoting some sale at a brick and mortar place somewhere.. Then came the "banner exchange" programs.. rotating sets of banners that'd swap out..

    And then the professional marketing companies jumped aboard, smelling profits.. and there was an explosion of commercial filth that no amount of eye-bleach could get rid of. First it was more and more ads being packed into pages... then it was pages that were almost content-free, but crammed with horrible ads.. blinking, flashing, retina-searing color contrasts..

    Then the ad-men hired some unscrupulous nerds to code up ads that launched new windows full of ads.. sometimes so many that it would crash your system... and it became a game of how fast you could click the mouse to close windows before the script driven popups killed your box and forced a reboot..

    All because one parasitic industry decided it had a right to make vast sums of money hawking products and services nobody actually wanted, and damn you for denying them that opportunity.

    Ad-blockers came into existence not because people inherently object to respectful, reasonable, non-intrustive advertising. They were invented precisely because the advertising industry itself is predatory and abusive and knows no bounds when it comes to forcing shit you don't want onto you.

    You pay $2.50 for a bottle of asprin. $0.25 of that $2.50 is the cost of the actual asprin. Perhaps a penny is the cost of the bottle and label. Another penny for the box. Another $0.25 to deliver it and stock it. And then $1.98 for all the advertising to convince you that you want to buy it.. When all that really motivated you to buy that asprin was the hangover you had this morning from too many beers last night.

    The vast majority of advertising is simply a giant scam in the first place. False claims repeated ad-nauseum till people don't bother to challenge them anymore. Coke spends over half a billion dollars each year on advertising in the US alone. Does anyone honestly believe that there's a single human being in the US that doesn't know Coke and thus needs informed? Are people really so stupid as to think that a commercial is why someone buys Coke over Pepsi? If I want a Coke, I buy a Coke. If I feel like a Pepsi, I buy a Pepsi. And it doesn't have a bloody blessed thing to do with the millions spent at the Super Bowl or the logo feces that is smeared over the entire environment. And yet that bottle of Coke probably costs twice as much for me to buy because an industry has been pushing that lie.

    I eat at McDonalds because they're cheap, quick and everywhere, not because of some irritating bullsh*t commerical that tries to be "hip" or "trendy".

    If you offer a good product or service, one that really fills a need, you don't particularly *need* much advertising. Some, sure, to get the word out. But 99% of what is advertised is either redundant or duplicitous BS that's just trying to sell s

  91. Where's yours is a better question... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll put it out when I'm ready (Delphi ports easily to OSX & Android), but, as is, I'm for (& using) what controls 95% (roughly) of the PC Desktop userbase I cater to - taking the outputs from the Win32/64 version for hosts itself does the job for now.

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm sure you make a living & all that (I hear you there), but, you guys constantly "harass" me (which I am not worried about, unless you prove me technically wrong, never has, or will I suspect, happen) - I'm on topic, usually always (unless I am throwing it back in the face of those who "f'd" w/ me 1st that is, then, I rightfully gloat as payback) - you're not (& weren't earlier, that's certain)... apk

    1. Re:Where's yours is a better question... apk by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      but, you guys constantly "harass" me

      Which is funny to me, considering that our first interaction was you harassing me. As for whether or not I was on topic with my post earlier in this thread (in reply to the AC who first mentioned your name); the topic of the post I was replying to was how unwelcome your posts are and I was exactly on that topic. The AC may have been off-tpoic with his post, but my post was definitely in line with the topic he opened up.

      Either way, I think the whole thing is rather amusing. Honestly, your constant posts about the hosts file are hilarious. Other than the repetitive and rambling nature of your posts, I don't see why people take such issue. Had you not attacked me in that other thread (unprovoked, at that) I'd have nothing against you; but you did, and I do. Mind you, I'd still have posted the same thing in this thread, but would have done so in a joking manner; now, I'm dead serious, you've really gotten that bad.

      And yes, dozens of similar posts in a single thread is spam, I don't care how on-topic it may or may not be. To be clear, I'm referring to the following wording from that page: "Forum spam is the creation of advertising messages on Internet forums" and, as Slashdot (like other forums) is modeled after Usenet, "Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages)".

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  92. Prove it... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove that. I never USUALLY startup w/ others, but I will rub it in their faces continually after I smoke them for starting with me.

    * My posts on hosts are fact. Fact you CANNOT get the best of... now, that is fact as well.

    (Lastly - I can post on hosts WHENEVER, & WHERE I wish... you can't stop me. You can *TRY* to effetely call it 'spam' but I only usually post after OTHERS POST on inferior competing solutions like adblock, ghostery, privacybadger, ublock & even dns locally installed OR WHEN THE TOPIC FITS IT - but that bs of yours NOT CUTTING IT when you can't prove me validly technically wrong on hosts doing far more for more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than those competitors of mine do, & hosts do all that (far more than those competitors do) FOR LESS too!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Go on, prove what you said (that I started w/ you) & I nearly guarantee I can come up with where it came from & YOU started it with me first... apk

    1. Re:Prove it... apk by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The very post you referenced where you were "correcting" me. I had never so much as uttered your name prior to that.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  93. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    Shut up, apk. It's bad enough that you spam every single discussion of ad blockers on Slashdot, now you have to prop up your own posts by acting as your own fanclub?

    You're a sad little man with a horrible delusion. Every single post you write reeks of conspiracy theory and tinfoil-hattery. It's blatantly obvious by the way you write, with SPURIOUS CAPITALIZATION, &s instead of 'and', and ellipses all over the place. It's a sure sign of someone I would never trust to write a safe piece of software.

    And what's more, all your little script does is pull blocklists from various sites, blocklists that have been made by other people. All you did was write a simple shellscript. It's a worthless piece of shit, no-effort junk.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  94. No, I merely tell the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Hosts do far more than inferior browser addons & for less resources consumed.

    * That's NO delusion - it's fact!

    (You're the delusional one if you think otherwise... & since all you have/best ya got = illogical ad hominem attacks? I win again, as usual, vs. effete trolls like yourself...)

    APK

    P.S.=> You little weasels can *try* to call it "spam" but since you adblock/ghostery/privacybadger/ublock SHILLS can't prove me wrong & post ALL YOU LIKE (doubtless under tons of alternate fake account sockpuppets)?

    THEN, that "all said & aside"?

    THEN I can too... when, where & HOW OFTEN as I like!

    You can't stop me, & I truly ALWAYS KICK YOUR ASSES FOR IT by simply posting facts about the inferiority+ inefficiency of what your dumb asses choose to use, showing you're stupid!

    FACT - THAT is what you can't stand, since you can't prove me wrong & continually prove yourselves illogical & stupid in your choices of tools to use... lol!

    ... apk

  95. KozmoStevnNaut: This is a lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regarding 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 per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    (They have a copy of my sourcecode & verified it as SAFE/CLEAN as well!)

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject, & answer that - you little fuckweasel... apk

  96. It's no mere shellscript, scriptkiddie... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All you did was write a simple shellscript. It's a worthless piece of shit, no-effort junk." - by KozmoStevnNaut (630146) on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @04:24AM (#50442147)

    See subject: It's MORE than "ne'er-do-wells" like YOU did, and?

    It's FAR from a mere shellscript (the province of scriptkiddies like you) -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    * YOU IDIOTIC LITTLE LIMITED DUMBFUCK!

    ("EAT YOUR WORDS", chump... & I just love how you projected YOUR OWN LIMITED SKILLSET too, scriptkiddie!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I just LOVE limited little DOLTS like you - you always, ALWAYS "Open Mouth & INSERT FOOT" vs. myself... every single time! apk

  97. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  98. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  99. For the best adblocker & far more? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "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

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  100. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  101. PrivacyBadger = ABP code & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can PrivacyBadger do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on PrivacyBadger doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> PrivacyBadger does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    PrivacyBadger's Adblock+ codebase 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    PrivacyBadger adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  102. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's better?

    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...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  103. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ghostery do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Addons do FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    Addons add complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better than ghostery by FAR?

    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...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  104. Re:Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. host by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    See APK's delusional responses to my post.

    I rest my case.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  105. What's delusional about what I wrote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Let's hear it. You screwed up on the scriptkiddie crap ALONE for Pete's sake - it's a FULL-BLOWN application, not a mere script.

    APK

    P.S.=> Funniest part is, a FEW "scriptkiddies" TRIED to do something like my program, & BLEW IT hugely!

    E.G. #1 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    E.G. #2 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    E.G. #3 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    E.G. #4 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    E.G. #5 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Why? The did scripts!

    (... Nobody really wants that except MAYBE network admins/techs @ best/most - folks today want an EASY TO USE GUI, & that's what I give them for this task!)

    Man - & they screwed up, SO BADLY, I had to point out much of what their 'work' (they didn't write the functions that do the job by hand, I did - they merely used already built programs to TRY to do it, & they failed badly too, lol)

  106. Let's quote your sarcasm then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Oh, wow, I got a response from the famed APK. I feel like I should be honored and, yet, I'm not." - by BronsCon (927697) on Wednesday April 15, 2015 @09:18PM (#49482607)

    * Please - Don't try tell me you weren't TRYING to 'give me crap' when you said this in the post parent to that one which is QUOTED in Black & White above now, from your mouth!

    ---

    All I did was point out the article was erroneous since a patch was out the day before correcting the issue - I was actually WITH YOU on that much!

    ---

    Later?

    Yes, YOU DID TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I NEVER SAID AFTER THAT THOUGH:http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7262857&cid=49492689

    I never said XP wasn't important. Not once.

    APK

    P.S.=> I merely corrected you on that much, rightfully, since it's fact it WAS patched already & your sarcasm wasn't needed - I was actually WITH YOU on the article being "off" since a patch was already issued... apk

  107. Let quote your sarcasm here too! apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was this here too BronsCon? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> I don't get it - I really don't. I'm giving people an easy to use GUI with a tool that gives you more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity - for free, that does all that with FAR LESS than browser addons use in resources (& doing FAR MORE too) - why do you people give me guff for?

    All the "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" fanboys & shills + sockpuppets do it - you telling me I can't post about my program, where & when it applies to the topic, & to those using those BLATANTLY INFERIOR tools?

    Hate to tell you this - YOU don't own /., & have NO POWER over me... none! I'll do as I see fit... apk