Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome Will Whack Website Bait-and-Switch Tactics (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the fixing-things dept.

Starting next year, Google's Chrome browser will stamp out some shenanigans that send you to a website you didn't expect. From a report: You probably don't like it when you navigate to a particular web page and then your browser unexpectedly jumps to another page -- an action called a redirect and something the website publisher didn't even want to happen. With Chrome 64, in testing now and due to ship early next year, Chrome will block that kind of bait and switch, Google said. "We've found that this redirect often comes from third-party content embedded in the page, and the page author didn't intend the redirect to happen at all," Google product manager Ryan Schoen said in a blog post. Chrome 64 will block the redirect action and instead show an information bar telling you what happened. That's not all. Chrome 65, due a few weeks later, will squelch another unwelcome action that can happen when you click a link and the website opens in a new tab while switching the existing tab to a page you didn't request.

76 comments

  1. fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how about instead fix your fucking ads that are rife with this shit so it isn't necessary to have this kind of feature or better yet auto block ad providers.

    1. Re:fix your ads by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck that. Just block the ads. The internet is a cesspool, and I'm not talking about the smut.

    2. Re:fix your ads by desdinova+216 · · Score: 5, Funny

      incoming remark about hosts files in 3...2...1...

    3. Re:fix your ads by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I think I just figured out why Google is making this change to Chrome.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    4. Re:fix your ads by sit1963nz · · Score: 2

      Yep, Ghostery plus a big hosts file seems to fix a LOT of things.

      Any pages that I get redirected to are manually added to the hosts file. I only ever get redirected to a site once.

      And any site that detects I am using an ad blocker and stops me from entering is more than welcome to do so, I am FAR MORE willing to go elsewhere than whitelist your site.

    5. Re:fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it's not the ads, it's the browser.

      To give you an idea, If I have a website, and I have an iframe, I expect that everything that appears in that damn iframe to stay in the iframe. Yet time and time again script inside the iframe is able to do shit to document, window and top DOM's. This is a defect in the browser's own sandboxing and overflow clipping.

      If the developer console is open, it shouldn't even redirect at all. So good luck trying to stop a redirect when you don't know where it is fucking coming from because the browser won't sandbox the fucking thing.

    6. Re:fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your site - you decide what ads can or cannot do. You may have a "no redirects" policy. Of course, you may filter the ads on the server side. If the ad contains a redirect (policy violation) then your server skips over it. You don't even need to "loose money", just pick the next paid ad queued up immediately. You won't take money from the bad ad pusher, but you'll get more from the ok ad pushers.

      Get several servers doing this, and bad ads gets stamped out fast.

    7. Re:fix your ads by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      I remember when Firefox would be introducing this kind of thing, looking out for the user and giving them a better experience. Instead the just keep making their own UI worse.

      Ads will always be malicious, that will never change.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:fix your ads by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Really? That's cool. Thanks for sharing that with us, it helps a lot!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re:fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so it isn't necessary to have this kind of feature

      Better yet, how about not implementing redirection in web browsers in the first place, so it isn't a "feature" to remove it?

      The web of 15-20 years ago could really have benefited from some standards folks carefully thinking "How might this be abused?" ... and then, having thought, not implementing it as a bloody standard.

    10. Re:fix your ads by danomac · · Score: 1

      I use NoRedirect on FIrefox, and it's surprising how many sites do redirections. Ads are blocked, I'm talking about actual site redirections that want to send me to a different domain.

    11. Re:fix your ads by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      What redirections are actually being blocked though? Lots of web servers actually use HTTP redirection messages legitimately for forcing HTTPS for example. This is typically done with HTTP 301 and 302 messages which I hope would not be blocked.

    12. Re:fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who doesn't know jack about how ads work.

      1) There are 100,000 ads in Adsense alone. You can only review the things 2-10 at a time. Never mind the hoops Google makes you jump through to select things. You're lucky if you could review every ad in the system in 70 days.

      2) My site only has two options: Display ads from networks that I think are safe, or Display house ads that pay nothing but help readers visit content that is related to the page. Your shitty ad blockers block both.

      The amount of bad ads that creep through, is very low, like 0.001%. But when they happen, people complain and threaten to block all ads. That one shitty advertiser results in people suggesting blocking the ads as a solution rather than just hitting the DOM inspector and sending a screen shot.

      There is no way to analyze the script at the time of sale, because the advertisers code is on their server, not mine. If someone changes that code, I will not know, and this is a known problem some SSP's changing things that have already been approved.

      And the entire OpenRTB thing is done as fast as wall street trades stocks. You're not going to get anyone to review an ad a second time, it's up to people who see them to report them.

      People are conflating the kind of shit they see on porn and piracy sites with the rare piece of shit ad that looks like it came from Facebook, but was really appended to an approved ad after-the-fact.

    13. Re:fix your ads by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      One of worst offenders: google.com. Hover over a link, see where it leads. Click. Or even, left-click hold drag and cancel (esc) or right-click.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    14. Re:fix your ads by danomac · · Score: 1

      I don't recall ever seeing a redirect prompting for a redirection to the same domain. The ones it stops are when it redirects to a different domain.

    15. Re:fix your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question:
          I used to edit my host file with great success. But now I thought Win8-10 disallowed Host file editing. Am I missing something? I'm ready to start again!

  2. URL shorteners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that means an end to URL shorteners like bitly?

    1. Re:URL shorteners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only URL shorteners, but also https redirect from http.

    2. Re:URL shorteners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      This is (presumably) going to prevent non-transparant redirects, eg ones invoked by window.top.location without user interaction. You know, the kind that the website doesn't get more than a few seconds to be seen before being sent off to shitty phishing ads.

    3. Re: URL shorteners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If assume that if it's a http redirect that will allow it.

      If it's a redirect by high enough level in the page they will allow it.

      If it's redirect by some piece of crap JavaScript loaded deep down from a different domain, then instead of redirect it will show a little indicator and let the user code if they want to be redirected.

    4. Re: URL shorteners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical crap ads on shady sites work like this: When you go to example.com they open a new window to example.com and redirect the old tab to shittyads.net.

  3. Why cant we by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    Why can't we just remove the ability of JavaScript to open new windows/tabs. Is doesnt seem like this feature is use all that much except for popping up ads.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:Why cant we by subanark · · Score: 1

      They do, but javascript can move a fully transparent link that fills the page which sends you to another page. This is why popups only appear when you click on the page, and you can tell it is there as the cursor doesn't change as you hover real links on the page.

    2. Re: Why cant we by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem in question isn't a new window or tab... it's redirecting the current page.

    3. Re: Why cant we by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      Lets get of the redirects while we are at it.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
  4. Better idea... by green1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe google could quit giving top rank in it's search engine to sites that do this. I don't care if someone wants to make a site like this, I care that when I search for a useful site I get one of these instead.

    1. Re:Better idea... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Giving iframes any access to the parent window is bad, except maybe passing messages via JavaScript. However, in the parent window itself, JavaScript tends to have most of the same "rights" as the user - it can embed a link in the page and then click on it - what's the practical difference between that and a redirect?

    2. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No redirects? Now this really will break the web. No more shortlinks, no more moving a site to a new domain. No more forcing https...

      This is such a bad idea it is unbelievable. We need to stop allowing google to control our content.

      Just say no to google with their asshattery.

      We need to kill Google to save the web.

    3. Re:Better idea... by green1 · · Score: 1

      Redirect all you want. But if all the content that brought the search engine there is hidden by said re-direct, the search engine should stop sending people there (as they can't see what they came to see). Alternatively if all the content is after the redirect, that's the page the search engine should take people to, not the first page that does nothing but redirect the user.

      Having the search engine look for this would eliminate the bs spamvertising sites without affecting a single legitimate use.

    4. Re:Better idea... by green1 · · Score: 1

      And how is that in any way related to my comment?

      If a page is written with lots of content so as to get users to click on the link in the search engine, but the user can't actually see the content because they'll be redirected away instead, the search engine shouldn't send users to the site, it's not like they can get at what they came to see anyway. That's what "bait and switch" is.

      Google can obviously detect the practice, as Chrome is going to do so, so why not implement it as part of their search engine instead, that would provide far more value than in the browser. I'd much rather avoid clicking on the link in the first place than click on it and then get a message explaining what happened when I couldn't find the content I came for.

    5. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search Engines (Google) are the root cause of spam. Without Google we would not have this problem.

      I don't give a flying fuck what Google thinks of what is on any site I create. The content is for the users. Not some content nazi american advertising company. I don't need Google to reach my audiences.

      Your attitude of cowing to google is exactly the problem here.

      Fuck google. Fuck them with a rusty two foot long triangle file. Hard.

    6. Re:Better idea... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's not the issue, and the main point is this: If it's not in the iframe, then it's the sites own fault rather than a rogue advertiser.

      Rogue redirects don't necessarily happen right on page load - and iframes could be advertisers that are different on every single page load. This could be triggered at any point via JavaScript. I don't know if Google runs a full JavaScript engine on their indexing spider, but it's asking an awful lot to expect that. While the browser actually always runs the code and can interrupt this just before it happens.

      There are legitimate needs for redirects besides bait and switch, so blocking everything is just going to cause more problems than it solves.

    7. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice that you personally only visit sites that are top-ranked by Google, but there is a whole web of sites out there that people need to visit that aren't. And the browser should not allow nefarious behavior by any of those sites whether or not they are top ranked.

  5. Nope, bad idea. by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

    This is how websites know when you leave. It takes more cpu power to figure out from logs when you left, with no clue where to or via what link, than if they use an "exit server." I read Fark every day. All their links are to Fark Redirects. I am happy to let them know which links I followed to leave their site. No cpu eating javascript needed on my side; nice, clean standard html tells them what links are worthy of my attention.
          Bait and switch as described in the upcoming "fix" where the new tab or window has what you want while the original goes elsewhere DOES suck, I welcome blocking it, but plain redirects are a worthwhile part of the spec. Leave it alone & fix the ads instead.

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    1. Re:Nope, bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think google is going to block all redirects.

      Go to site -> redirect -> OK
      Go to site -> ad on site does redirect -> Block

    2. Re:Nope, bad idea. by Northdot · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me more like chrome will be blocking redirects that occur via javascript (ie. the "3rd party content" they talk about). So this shouldn't affect the HTTP header redirects that are produced by the originating server (which is how most exit link redirects are implemented).

    3. Re:Nope, bad idea. by fermion · · Score: 1
      Also, if they fully implement this, it will kill gmail. Every time I accidentally hit my gmail bookmark, i can't just go back to my original page. Gmail is one of the many websites where the ridiculous use of redirects kills the back button. That way there is no easy way for the user to leave the page.

      Probably if google would stop pioneering such malicious techniques, other websites would not consider them so acceptable.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re: Nope, bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you click a link and trigger redirect, that will be fine

      If you go to site and it redirects, that will be fine.

      If you go to site and it loads js from a different domain and that js tries to redirect, then they will block.

      My guess is that they will focus on the block being user action based.

      For example chrome already block auto play on mobile browsers. They make you trigger a touch event to play. Even JavaScript that tries to start a video won't be honoured until the user has done a tough event.

    5. Re:Nope, bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely it works this way:
      Go to site -> ad on site does redirect is bought from Google -> OK

  6. Too bad. by sootman · · Score: 1

    When I first saw the headline, I read 'Chrome' but thought 'Google' and my thought was "Oh great, Google is going to start penalizing sites where you do a Google search but the page does not contain the text that was shown in the Google result."

    As for the issue actually being discussed, I've never even seen that happen.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing you can do at that point is go back to google and re-run the exact same search. this will show google that because the time you spent on that site was (zero) very low, it should be dropped in pagerank.

      The other thing you could do, if you are an air force bomber pilot is to locate the website owners and drop 1 ton bombs on their homes.

    2. Re:Too bad. by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      Not enough bombs in the world for this.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    3. Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As for the issue actually being discussed, I've never even seen that happen.

      Hey guys, this guy doesn't watch porn. Get him!

    4. Re:Too bad. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      As for the issue actually being discussed, I've never even seen that happen.

      I had it on my phone a few times, where I'd follow a link, see it for a second, and then get shuttled off to an advertising page. Usually with no back button functionality. I got it to stop by installing an ad blocker. I haven't seen it on my laptop, but I'm always running an ad blocker there, so that's probably why.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    5. Re:Too bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Google' and my thought was "Oh great, Google is going to start penalizing sites where you do a Google search but the page does not contain the text that was shown in the Google result."

      Why would you penalize the SITE for Google Search being completely moronic nowadays?

      Sometimes I think "maybe the site changed". Then I click the "cached" link, which shows how the page looked when GoogleBot fetched it.

      10 times out of 10, the cached version doesn't have the search words either. It's not the page that has changed, it's Google Search being crap nowadays.

  7. Oh look, msmash copies and pastes juveline vocab by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    in the headline. Color me surprised.

  8. Re:Ghostery = advertiser owned... apk by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    What about https://pi-hole.net/ ?

    I'd rather have one device block everything via host names than having to configure every single device I own, some of them without that ability (ex: iPhone).

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. use Ghostery if you prefer Firefox by swell · · Score: 1

    The Ghostery add-on has been doing this for a long time.

    In fact redirects happen most often for me in Google search results.
    Click on an ad and Google re-routs the resulting links so that they get credit for their ad.
    I'd guess that Chrome will NOT block that kind of bait and switch.
    But Ghostery pops up a little window that says:

    "Ghostery prevented a redirect from
    www.google.com to www.googleadservices.com,
    which is part of Google Adsense. " ...

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  10. Hero Chrome when Google is spy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.wired.com/2016/03/ex-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-head-pentagon-innovation-board/

    Short memories.

  11. pi-hole = complexity & costs vs. hosts... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pi-Hole = nothing more than dnsmasq w/ TONS of moving parts scripts consuming more power to power the raspberry Pi board which itself costs "$".

    Hosts are EASILY MIGRATED by a central admin w/ sufficient rights via batchfiles, shellscripts etc. & NOT A SINGLE POINT OF EXPLOIT/ATTACK (which complexity tends to create).

    * You can thank Tepples for this - he got me to look over Pi-Hole & afterwards it was EASY to SHOOT IT DOWN vs. hosts...

    APK

    P.S.=> Only "exception" you HAVE in your "loaded question" is a STUPIDLY locked down iPhone (unless you're apple dev etc. who have GodMode phones YET YOU DON'T they SSH into the put in hosts files if THEY wish (not you) & Android are easy to do via ADB 'pull' command & a rooted droid - an actual SUPERIORITY of droids imo)... apk

  12. Lol, so Chrome didn't have this yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox has done that for as long as I can remember (Options->Advanced->Warn me when pages redirect).

    But then I stopped updating FF when they started fucking it up, so maybe that's gone now.

    1. Re:Lol, so Chrome didn't have this yet? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Firefox has done that for as long as I can remember (Options->Advanced->Warn me when pages redirect).

      But then I stopped updating FF when they started fucking it up, so maybe that's gone now.

      Can't find the option now, and I've never set it, but FF .. whatever the latest version is right now.. 56.0.2.. it warned me the other day about a re-direct. Default behavior.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    2. Re:Lol, so Chrome didn't have this yet? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      What about a redirect within a web site? If "page.html" moves to "Bozo-The-Clown.html" on the same web site, and "page.html" gets edited to redirect you, should there be any blocking?

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:Lol, so Chrome didn't have this yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should use HTTP redirects, not javascript redirects. Or even better, serverside redirects.

      (For MSFT users, that's Response.Redirect or Server.Transfer).

  13. sourceforge is one of the worst offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try going to browse files of some project. 1/3 times you get directed to malicious sites.

    - Posting as AC, because slashdot is also owned by same co. and they are dicks about posting the truth about their cash cows.

  14. What sites would that be? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    Chrome 65, due a few weeks later, will squelch another unwelcome action that can happen when you click a link and the website opens in a new tab while switching the existing tab to a page you didn't request.

    Somebody's been viewing porn.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  15. Re:Ghostery = advertiser owned... apk by tepples · · Score: 1

    How well does Pi-hole work when you are browsing through a public Wi-Fi hotspot or over cellular Internet? How well would it work for someone whose home ISP blocks connections to devices on his LAN from the Internet? A local DNS blacklist doesn't require running a server

  16. Re:pi-hole = complexity & costs vs. hosts... a by tepples · · Score: 1

    Unless one of the following is the case:

    A. The model of Android device that you own has no root exploit.
    B. You depend on applications that incidentally detect whether a particular Android device is rooted and refuse to run if it is, "for your security."
    C. It's a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) situation, where the network administrator lacks "sufficient rights" over visitors' devices.
    D. An adtech server rotates among millions of wildcard subdomains. (Unlike DGAs used by malware, wildcard subdomains incur no extra cost to register a domain.)

  17. Re:Ghostery = advertiser owned... apk by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

    What about https://pi-hole.net/ ?

    I'd rather have one device block everything via host names than having to configure every single device I own, some of them without that ability (ex: iPhone).

    There are adblockers for iOS that don't need jailbreaking, just as there are adblockers for Android that don't need root. They work by setting up an on-device VPN and routing all traffic through that.

    ...or at least there were at one time. I had one on my wife's iPad 2. A quick search just now for them, though, indicates that Apple is weeding them out of the App Store in favor of something called a "Safari Content Blocker," which isn't likely to be systemwide. (I've not kept up with iOS and the devices it runs on much since switching my phone over to Android. I have an iPad 3 that I keep around as a PDF reader, but it no longer receives updates.)

    In any case, I'm about to take you up on that Pi-Hole idea as soon as the parts for it arrive. You can't install an adblocker on a Roku, so the block needs to go somewhere outside the device.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  18. LOL, knew YOU'd show up... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A.) You're DUMB if you don't use a rooted "dumbphone" (shit is just TOYS man, weak toys)

    B.) See A

    C.) That's NOT a TRUE administrator then (hell, as an enterprise class building dev for 24++ yrs. here, I even had that (unless it was cross-platform to mainframes, then I was provided 'playgrounds' (like VM's today or DB views)).

    D.) So what - as I showed you before on DGA botnets? THERE WILL BE TRACKERS OF THOSE...

    APK

    P.S.=> Tepples listen: IF I was the controller of the IP stack itself? I'd do a 'wildcard' @ considerably LESS expense in hosts (vs. what addon OR Pi-Hole INEFFICIENTLY uses (yes, I looked @ regex there too)) in, oh, 10 lines of code (give or take a few and/or logical shifts) e.g.:

      for X:= Length(Msg) + Length(SearchStr1) - 1 downto Length(Msg) do
        begin
          Msg:= Copy(Msg, X, Length(Msg));
          if Pos(SearchStr1, Msg) > 0 then
          begin
            Msg:= '';
            break;
          end;
          if Msg = '' then exit
        end;

    AND

    function NamePart(FileName: PWideChar): PWideChar; register;
    var
            E : Exception;
            P : PWideChar;
    begin
      Screen.Cursor:=crHourGlass;
      try
        P:='';
        try
          P:= StrRScan(FileName, '\');
        finally
          Result:= P;
        end;
      except
        begin
          Screen.Cursor:=crDefault;
          APKStdErrHandler('NamePart Function ', E.Message);
          ShowMessage('Fatal Error in NamePart function: Write for help to program author @ apk4776239@hotmail.com with: Abend/Err Info = ' + E.Message);
        end;
      end;
    end;

    1. Re:LOL, knew YOU'd show up... apk by tepples · · Score: 1

      You're DUMB if you don't use a rooted "dumbphone"

      Selling your unrootable device probably won't provide enough revenue to buy a rootable one.

      the network administrator lacks "sufficient rights" over visitors' devices

      That's NOT a TRUE administrator then

      I detect a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. So for purposes of this comment, I'll define "true administrator" to mean "administrator of all devices connected to a particular IP LAN", and "guest network" as a LAN operated by someone other than a true administrator.

      Hosts is fine for a true administrator. But not everyone has the luxury of being a true administrator; some people have a reason to operate a guest network. For these, a DNS filter component can run on the gateway appliance that already manages the guest network. And many of these can take list files generated using your app.

      IF I was the controller of the IP stack itself? I'd do a 'wildcard' @ considerably LESS expense in hosts

      On this, I wholeheartedly agree. Have you considered writing a patch for the resolvers in the Linux and FreeBSD kernels?

  19. Tepples, read... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Tepples I don't put out THAT kind of effort for ANYONE anymore (other than myself typically, other than my hosts program (like Trump, I got sick of what I was seeing, addons 'souled-out' OR inefficiencies + illogic logic design & I'm NOT in the habit of dealing with egotistic fools (devs CAN get that way, it's an effort for ME to NOT act thus in fact, sometimes I am sure I don't, unfortunately) - I'm retired man - get it?).

    Tepples for a DOMAIN WIDE admin? A migration script of hosts = CAKE (hell, that IS what scripting is - easier coding for the less skilled, period). There's no arguing that fact you tried handing me some bs of some "not admin" (what else do I call it, lol?)

    APK

    P.S.=> Your "gracious host" is DELETING my posts again https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11332773&cid=55516581/ 1 of 4 deleted in THIS very exchange (not a 1st) & to quote Capt. Kirk from StarTrek TOS "Where no man has gone before"? "DO YOU LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? Absolute power, corrupting absolutely??" except his 'power' over me? FAR from "absolute" (nobody speaks OR acts to ME, in 'absolutes' but like YOU now? You try "edge cases" which I'll BLOW away too) - but YOU? Are an 'interesting case' - I'll give you that... apk

  20. How about an absolute popup block? by satsuke · · Score: 2

    How about Chrome implement an absolute popup block, or at least a notification before opening one.

    Even to this day, with the "block popups" option ticked, there are sites that do a trick to launch additional windows.

    1. Re:How about an absolute popup block? by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's like, decades pass and all "popup blockers" still do is watch for popups and try to quickly close them again. Why in hell can not a browser's code, specifically that which creates a new window and fills it with the specified contents, be flatly disabled? It's such a specific action. Hell, why not compile a browser which simply cannot open new windows? Fuxing simple!

  21. require HTTPS for ads! by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    It seems that most scummy ad links are http. So just blocking links to ads that are not https would solve this real quick.

  22. Re:"Ask & ye DID receive" (deleting this too?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK

    Fuck off, APK.

    Sincerely, almost everyone.

  23. Re:"Ask & ye DID receive" (deleting this too?) by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

    Can't we add this APK guy to our hosts file or something?

    --
    I am not really here right now.
  24. How does Chrome know... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    ...what is a desired redirect and what not? Redirects are a common practice and ideally inform the user that they will be redirected. Often times this is not done, for example, when using an identity provider. The users hits the targeted page, lacks authentication, gets redirected to the identity provider, once authenticated a redirect is made to the originally requested site with authentication and claims stuffed inside a cookie. For the user this looks like a seamless transition although two redirects are involved.

  25. So Chrome has just re-invented the status bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So 1990's of them!

  26. Slashdot served ads like this a few months ago by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    A few months ago, Slashdot had ads that were intermittently doing this. Web site operators need to ditch ad companies that do this stuff.

    How about a Chome plug-in that detects sites that do this, and begins an automatic DDOS against the site? Everyone installing the plug-in would become a participant.

  27. It's (& more) done more efficiently via hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking code vs. infection built-in)

  28. "Ask & ye DID receive" (deleting this too?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11332773&cid=55515809/ by sit1963nz https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11332773&cid=55519985/ & the latter by "yours truly"...

    * Funny mod eh? It's not so funny when I list all browser addon shortcomings vs. hosts WHERE NOBODY VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVES ME WRONG getting the better of me, eh?

    (Now THAT? Is funny... ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING YOU DELETED THIS VERY POST WhipSlash, yet again last time I posted this here https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11332773&cid=55515877/ + downmodded it on repost https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11332773&cid=55516581/ - DID YOU THINK I'd ALLOW THAT boy? Hell no - but I WILL point it out!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You trolls are hilarious - tactics STRAIGHT outta the "Saul Alinsky RULES FOR RADICALS" attempting to use mockery on me - too bad I always get the LAST laugh though, lol... apk

  29. Ghostery = advertiser owned... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):

    Bad sites (past ads)
    Botnet C&Cs
    DNS down/poisoned
    Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
    Dns blocks
    Spam/phish payload
    Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
    Hosts = Ez edit.

    AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

    UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

    Hosts~6mb

    Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

    NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!

    No 1 addon does as much.

    Stacked addons slowup.

    ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/

    APK

    P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/