Google Working on Blocking Back Button Hijacking in Chrome (zdnet.com)

Google engineers are currently working on a Chrome browser update that will block malicious websites from hijacking the browser's history and, indirectly, the Back button. From a report: The issue at hand is a well-known tactic often seen employed by many shady sites across the Internet. A user would visit a website, then he'd accidentally click or tap on an ad, and be taken to a new page. But when the user presses the Back button to go back to the previous page, the browser just reloads the same page over and over again, keeping the user trapped on the ad page. [...] Recent source code updates to the Chromium project, the open-source browser engine behind the Chrome browser, reveal that Google engineers are planning to crack down on this type of abusive behavior. These code updates will allow Chrome to detect when browser history entries have been generated by user interaction, or by an automated method.

Comments

Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm sure there will be some of this
https://xkcd.com/1172/

Re: Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Mobile users don't bother to file bug reports. Ain't got time for that! Maybe enough time to leave a one star review. Who am I kidding, not even that. Just enough to uninstall app.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Store date and url.
Remove all urls displayed less than 3s.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck.

just hold down the back button until the last-10 or whatever appears, then click the page before the hijacking one.

it's not magic. its knowing the features of the program you're using. having recent history show up on a back arrow button hold (or an adjacent down arrow) has been in browsers for two fucking decades

Re: Easy

[c6gunner]

The mobile chrome browser does not have a back button. You can use the back button at the bottom of the screen, but holding that one either does nothing, or (on some roms) it kills the current foreground app.

Re: Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we just not allow fucked up evil behavior in the first place instead of stupid 2004 era shitty work arounds?

You must work in the online ad industry. No one else would advocate something and inconveniently stupid instead of just fixing the root cause: advertiser scumbags like you. Find a new business model that provides value to browser users instead of being a cock sucker.

Re: Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! Bravo!

Re: Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconvinced . I held the Stories back button for 30 minutes so far and I'm still not seeing a list of /. stories I read.

Not sure whether the feature is entirely new

[RuiFRibeiro]

I suspect the notice fails to mention this feature is not entirely new.
I remember that in a few shadier sites I used in the past for watching movies, the redirects did not go into the history, I had to monitor DNS when I was trying to blacklisting them, however they changed them every day, and then I resorted to whitelisting.
Maybe some shadier sites found out strategies to get around it, but then the newspiece is not entirely clear on that feature not being entirely new.

Re:Not sure whether the feature is entirely new

[GrumpySteen]

Hitting the back button in the browser takes you to the previous site in the history. If the redirects from your shady site weren't going into the history, hitting the back button would go to what was in your history, not a redirect page that would keep you trapped on the site.

Here's tip: When you're trying to sound super intelligent, make sure that you haven't gotten the logic in your post ass-backwards.

Re:Not sure whether the feature is entirely new

[PPH]

Shady sites get opened in their own tab. Or window. And then get closed when I'm tired of fighting with them.

Re: Not sure whether the feature is entirely new

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no clue how any of this works.

A UX which deliberately overrides user's wishes?

[bill.pev]

OMG.. that is very clever! I wonder if it would work at the polling booth? Better still, make it the homepage and block all navigation entirely! Oh wait.. Oh wait.. and then publish stats that say 100% of users choose the forced product on the page. Its brilliant. The opportunities are limitless. Call starkist!

I don't like to do it.

[Qbertino]

Disclaimer: Web developer here.

Whenever I need to fix a broken or out of control sequence on a bloated POS website, catching the Backbutton is one of the quick and dirty hacks that sort of solve the problem. It doesn't feel right though.

PWAs are borderline, IMHO, because they interfere with the network and Adress bar. However there seems to be sort of a standard on how to do it and you can expect a good site to follow suit. Service Worker is to cool a concept to leave out, it's a good hack that makes the web offline capable - on of the huge missing things of the web.

However, messing with the Backbutton should be a last resort. Or it should be so well integrated into an SPA That it makes no difference to the user.

I for one never feel quite ok with doing it when circumstances demand it.

My 2 cents.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you people are trying to turn a web page into some kind of app. That's your problem. If I wanted an app, I would have downloaded an app. A web page should never have this kind of access because it shouldn't need this kind of functionality. It was never meant for that.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[DontBeAMoran]

Website = One platform. All users are always up-to-date.

Application = A minimum of five platforms: Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android. All users need to update the application themselves.

Guess which one is cheaper to develop for? And before you say "cross-platform compiler", remember that these make crap UIs for each platform.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say again: It's your problem.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

PSA: identify your acronyms, not everyone has any clue whatsoever about "out of control" topics of web development or associated technologies.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[DontBeAMoran]

You're the one who visited the application website.

Re: I don't like to do it.

[Lije Baley]

And the websites don't have a crappy UI?

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I can tell who the lazy fucker is whom can't be bothered to learn multiple programming languages.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Hentes]

But isn't the back button breaking web apps a good argument to allow it to go back to the previous page? Then your web app wouldn't have to worry about it.

Re: I don't like to do it.

[TuballoyThunder]

I can appreciate the logic if you developing an web-based application like Gmail. An advertisement hijacking the webpage is not an application, it's scammy and evil. I don't know what is worse scammy hijack advertisers or sites that allow them and offer a paid ad-free subscription. I have nothing against paid subscriptions (I even have some), but making your ad-supported version user hostile is also evil.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a PSA?

Re: I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only once. Websites generally have horrible UIs that don't play well with some browsers and don't act like native apps.

Re:I don't like to do it.

[DontBeAMoran]

Do you work for free? Your boss only allowed X hours to do the job. And your apps would need to be compatible with older devices no longer supported by the companies so what the fuck would you do?

Re:I don't like to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sound irony makes as it flies over your head.

Re:A UX which deliberately overrides user's wishes

[Ksevio]

WTF are you talking about? It sounds like Google is solving a problem with navigation that a lot of sites are creating. Even facebook has the problem that when you click "back" you don't go back to the previous page you were on, you stay on facebook.

Long press

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hold the back button down then select the page before the awful ad page (although that hasn't happened to me in years!).

the error of our ways:

[Gravis Zero]

The embrace of "use javascript to do whatever the fuck you want" has really come back to bite users. It makes people money, so it's not going anywhere until someone gets fed up with all the cat and mouse games and makes a legit system that doesn't rely on it.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Merk42]

The embrace of "use javascript to do whatever the fuck you want" has really come back to bite users. It makes people money, so it's not going anywhere until someone gets fed up with all the cat and mouse games and makes a legit system that doesn't rely on it.

Which would either be:

Full page refreshes for every action:
Sites are free to do this now (even you or any of the armchair developers in here could build a site doing this!), but they probably wouldn't because users are used to instant response in their actions

Use some other language:
Which would then evolve to be able to do the same things as JavaScript anyway.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask which alternative the parent would prefer:

- Full page refreshes for every action ...
- Use some other language ... [which will evolve to do the same as JS].

If you genuinely think that those two are the only alternatives then your dev horizons are very narrow, or you're not a developer in the first place.

But the more likely explanation is that you are personally invested in people using Javascript, probably because you profit from abusing their browsers and their privacy like so many other people do, and hence you give that false information knowingly.

Re:the error of our ways:

[kurkosdr]

Exactly. I hate JavaScript. Everyone disliked Flash but Javascript is much worse because it spreads all over the page DOM. At least Flash was confined to a single DOM node (aka a single box in the page). The only benefit of Javascript is the client implementations are better, but the concept is much worse. Even if browsers prevent back-button hijacking, there is still the problem of pop-ups having come back in force by using javascript overlays. And pages that load ads dynamically when you just want to read the text.

Re:the error of our ways:

[lgw]

I'm perfectly happy with web sites that do nothing until I click on a link. Everything I've seen that relies on JS tricks is just bad UX and we're better off without it. From the evidence before me, JS is used entirely to make the UX suck.

But, still, the average Web UX is vastly better than the average mobile app UX, so it's go that going for it. Sadly, mobile app UX brain damage is starting to leak into web design, so all hope will eventually be lost.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Gravis Zero]

Which would either be:
  Full page refreshes for every action:
Use some other language:

Only two options and nothing else? hmm...

Re:the error of our ways:

[Merk42]

First off, it's not a dichotomy since there is the 3rd option of Status Quo. Second, if you can provide a third (fourth?) situation, I'm all ears.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Kyr Arvin]

I'm perfectly happy with web sites that do nothing until I click on a link. Everything I've seen that relies on JS tricks is just bad UX and we're better off without it. From the evidence before me, JS is used entirely to make the UX suck.

But, still, the average Web UX is vastly better than the average mobile app UX, so it's go that going for it. Sadly, mobile app UX brain damage is starting to leak into web design, so all hope will eventually be lost.

Meh, I don't have a problem with, say, Slashdot's UX, where comments aren't loaded until you click on them (except for the first few lines, and any comments that meet the threshold for inlining). That sort of JS UX is fine with me.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Gravis Zero]

There are so many options.

* expand HTML/CSS so that javascript isn't needed
** "onVisible" which loads contents into a div from a provided URL
** expand CSS to have (non-chainable) animation events that can be activated by "onClick"/"onHover"/etc...

* restrict javascript's communication/loading/computational capability
** only allow a single domain to load javascript from
** limit javascript to being able to interact a specified (in the html document) list of domains
** remove lots of the "features" that enable bullshit like this
** make javascript computation a resource which will halt after so instructions are executed

Sure, your web apps will need special whitelisting to work but nobody gives a shit.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Merk42]

* expand HTML/CSS so that javascript isn't needed ** "onVisible" which loads contents into a div from a provided URL ** expand CSS to have (non-chainable) animation events that can be activated by "onClick"/"onHover"/etc...

Not sure how much of that belongs in CSS, though that's really semantics. Even still, it falls under "use a different language that would evolve to do the same stuff anyway."

restrict javascript's communication/loading/computational capability ** only allow a single domain to load javascript from ** limit javascript to being able to interact a specified (in the html document) list of domains ** remove lots of the "features" that enable bullshit like this ** make javascript computation a resource which will halt after so instructions are executed

Sure, your web apps will need special whitelisting to work but nobody gives a shit.

Okay so something that is restricted in functionality by design? Sounds great

Re:the error of our ways:

[lgw]

I hate it. Thankfully, there's still the classic UI.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Gravis Zero]

Not sure how much of that belongs in CSS, though that's really semantics. Even still, it falls under "use a different language that would evolve to do the same stuff anyway."

Incorrect. The purpose is that it would be limited to user interaction based animations, incapable of chaining events and thus no longer be Turing complete. Turing completeness is really what's enabling bad behavior. Remove the capability and remove the threat.

Okay so something that is restricted in functionality by design? Sounds great

AMP modifies pages and there is no mandate compliance. The idea is to stop bad behavior rather than just avoid it's consequences.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Merk42]

Right, you just want reduced functionality and think that users as a whole would be fine with that.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Gravis Zero]

Not at all. I'm sure plenty of idiots will bemoan the loss of javascript games. Likewise people who build their business models on selling information will be upset.

The truth is that scripting isn't needed for building web pages but it sure is profitable.

Re:the error of our ways:

[Merk42]

Ah yes, literally the only two purposes for JavaScript are games or harvesting information.

Now who's using a dichotomy?

What I do

[Locke2005]

Teach your idiot friends and family how to use Task Manager to kill the Chrome process, instead of calling the "Microsoft Support" number and giving them your credit card number!

Re: What I do

[Anonymous Coward]

I only call MS support when task manager fails to operate. At that point you need professional help like - hmmm - guess who - Microsoft

Re:What I do

[samwichse]

That's great... except of course you've now closed the page (that had the ad you accidentally clicked) you were trying to view, as well. So now you have to re-navigate to it.

Google's seems like a perfectly fine solution to an irritating problem that bites me occasionally.

Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitimate

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm curious if they are going to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate forms of updating the browse history. On some of my single-page apps I change where the back-button takes them. Not to trap them, but to provide functionality. I wonder if this is going to be blocked for everyone, or just the people who set up an infinite loop of back buttons leading to the same page.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

On some of my single-page apps I change where the back-button takes them.

Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.

Re: A UX which deliberately overrides user's wishe

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking all navigation? You must mean using service workers.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[reanjr]

Most likely, they will track the source of the history update and ignore it if isn't a click. Additionally, they will likely squash multiple history updates from a single click into one.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[reanjr]

That's fine when every click loads a new page, but If a click simply loads new content into the same page, it makes sense to tweak the history in those cases to make the back button work as expected.

It's not just shady web sites

[biggaijin]

I have encountered several fairly well-known news sites that fool with the back button, making it difficult to back up past their home page.

Even more than this, I would love to see the browser people find a way to absolutely, positively block auto-play videos. The one at the top of a news story is irritating, but when you scroll past it and a little clone of the window pops up in the right margin and starts playing it really gets on my nerves.

Re:It's not just shady web sites

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I love Firefox.

You can set media.autoplay.default to "1" and there will be no autoplaying videos whatsoever. You have to click on the video for it to play.

That and Privacy Badger (I use it as an ad blocker because it uses heuristics instead of white/blacklists) make it more user friendly than Chrome. Autoplaying videos and advertisements are the biggest plagues on the internet.

Re:It's not just shady web sites

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Under Chrome/Centbrowser there is an extension called "AutoplayStopper" I have tested out and it works 100% of the time. Also "flash control" to catch flash stuff.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[DontBeAMoran]

If you came from a different domain name, then the back button has probably been hijacked.
Also, all they have to do is add a property to the history log: user click vs script modification.

Like half the ads on Slashdot do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, tapping the title of this story ended up launching a new browser tab and loading some garbage website into the history of the new tab a bunch of times.

Happens a lot on /. to me, using Mobile Safari (no ad blocking :(

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Oswald McWeany]

Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.

If you're using AJAX within a webpage though, sometimes you expect the back button to take you to what you were previously viewing NOT make you leave the site altogether. If a single page is dynamically updating content based upon what you click on, you probably want script manipulation of the back button.

Example, I have a table of widgets- I click on a widget and it loads details (you haven't changed website or been forwarded to a new address)... if you click the back button you probably want it to return you to the table; not have it exit the webpage completely. There are times you don't want the back button to actually take you back to the real actual previous webpage.

I hate that shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate when they do that. And I hate them.

Re:I hate that shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a trap. You re just scrolling through a bunch of APKs posts.

Re:I hate that shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entertaining seeing APK burn you UNIDENTFIABLE anonymous malwaremakers/advertisers look like fools https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

Re:I hate that shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is fond of saying his software has been downloaded over 100,000 times. NoScript for Firefox has been downloaded over 1.4 million times. And uBlock Origin for Firefox has been downloaded over 4.8 million times. Then there's Adblock Plus for Firefox, which has been downloaded over 11.1 million times. If we're being honest here, APK's impact on malware makers and advertisers is negligible.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Dan East]

They usually flood the navigation history with many bogus entries, so you'd have to click Back a hundred times to actually go back. That would be easy to detect.
If they are more intelligent and just use a single bogus history entry, and when it is navigated to always create another, well that is easy to detect too.

Another way to solve this is to only allow as many navigation history events to be added as there are user interactions. So if the user doesn't interact at all, no navigation history events can be added, thus hitting the back button gets you straight out of there.

I can't think of any legitimate reasons to be adding anything to the back history as soon as you visit a web page.

Slowly we are catching up to the year 2013

[Kohlrabi82]

Presto Opera (e.g. =12.x) had this feature years ago. Glad that we are slowly catching up to Opera's feature set...

Re:Slowly we are catching up to the year 2013

[cascadingstylesheet]

Presto Opera (e.g. =12.x) had this feature years ago. Glad that we are slowly catching up to Opera's feature set...

Opera seriously was the best browser ever.

It was a crying shame when they decided to become a Chrome skin.

Re:Slowly we are catching up to the year 2013

[toddestan]

I started using Opera after giving up on Netscape 4.0 and stuck with Opera 12 until sometime in 2015 when sadly it became pretty obvious that Presto-based Opera was past it's sell-by date and was truly dead. Actually one of the pain points with Opera 12 towards the end was just how bad slashcode starting making the browser choke.

Not liking Chrome and not particularly excited with Firefox I started looking for alternatives. I initially dismissed the Chromium-based Opera, but after doing some research it seemed to actually be the best of the Chromium-based browsers, though now that it's owned by the Chinese I'm not so sure about that anymore. I never actually really used it much though, instead moving to Palemoon and Waterfox.

Security pros etc. QUOTED on hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

"classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&amp.cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

Spybot S&D uses hosts.

APK

P.S.=> Malwarebytes' hpHosts hosts & RECOMMENDS my program forum.hosts-file.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4290

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[MobyDisk]

This isn't talkong about an Angular app with routing that uses back properly. It is talking about automatic redirects like HTTP 301 or meta refresh tags. For those the sokution is easy, Firefox has done this for years. If you hit back, and the page then auto-redirects you immediately, ignore the redirect. The user then just has to hit back a few times, but at least they aren't stuck. Even better would be if hitting back went back to the most recent page that did not have an automatic redirect in it.

Registered /.ers reviews #3/5

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa on Saturday May 16, 2015

APK solution STILL relevant Thud457 June 11 2015

In a footnote, I would like to note that I find your hosts file admirable - by vel-ex-tech (4337079) on Tuesday November 24, 2015

APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment - by Culture20 on Thursday November 17

you're right about hosts files - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26

APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop - by nasredin (958927) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:34PM

* For the Win32/64 model.

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature - More coming... apk

Registered /.ers reviews #4/5

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works. - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015

get around to 'installing' a hosts file list, not sure which one, likely the one from someonewhocares.org. If it works as well as what I used for a while about ten years ago, I'll be happy. And grateful to APK for the lesson and the reminder. - by kermidge (2221646) on Wednesday March 27

I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster. - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17

dammit MS, you proved APK right about something by lgw

* For the Win32/64 model.

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature - More coming... apk

Registered /.ers reviews #5/5

[Anonymous Coward]

(APK) is still right a hosts file really does work. It even blocked a some of the video ads that were inserted into a stream OrangeTide February 10 2016

the Host File Engine performs exactly as promised - by mmell (832646) on Thursday February 16, 2017

I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

(Toss on 100,000++ users worldwide too!)

* For the Win32/64 model.

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature... apk

"This is the weapon of a jediknight"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not as clumsy/random as a blaster - An elegant weapon 4 a more civilized age" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

* "For over a 1,000 generations Jedi Knights were guardians of peace & justice in the old Republic. Before the dark times. Before the EMPIRE"

(Hosts = light sabres & wildcard tools = blasters above)

APK

P.S.=> Many here know https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & enjoy greater speed/security/reliability & anonymity hosts yield natively speeding you up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes that protect vs. DNS security issues in redirect poisoning + request tracking logs & RESOLVE FASTER locally from RAM driven by KERNELMODE speed vs. slow usermode in "solutions" packed w/ security issues (DNS/Antivirus) OR not working fully by default (adblock) in usermode addons easily detected by webmasters & blocked doing less but using more) ... apk

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[TFlan91]

^ This.

If all I need to do is send a XHR request for a few to hundreds of KB to render what is required, why reload the page and all the dependencies and images (let's ignore caching for argument sake). Sure, the front-load of a few MB for the whole application is a few seconds, but the rest of your experience is immediate and responsive.

Don't you wait for Photoshop, Word, Outlook, whatever-game-you-play etc to finish loading before you start using it?

This idea works well for pages where I will be visiting for hours on end, Inbox (stb gmail...), work websites, music, calendars, forums, whatever. The catch being the developers need to know how garbage collection works.

And then in that case, you take control of the back button so it doesn't break the experience.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Sumus Semper Una]

I can see what you're getting at. In some cases, when a user navigates through a web page that is built and displayed dynamically through javascript without reloading its parent page, a user might expect that hitting "back" would take them to the previous frame of whatever content they last navigated through. They could become annoyed when "back" actually takes them wherever they were before arriving at the site initially and losing all their progress.

But I don't agree that selectively modifying "back" button functionality is a good solution to the problem. Either browsers should agree that "back" means go back to the previously viewed content and allow pages to easily add actions taken on the page to the browser history or "back" should mean "always load the last parent page I went to." Right now it means the latter. I wouldn't be opposed to the former, but until that becomes a standard I feel the onus is on the developer to expect the "back" button to always have the same effect and not try to modify around it.

I also understand that the browser allows you to modify how things like the back button work. I just personally wouldn't build important functionality in my site around something the browser normally controls, and wouldn't be terribly surprised if it stopped working the way I'd originally intended after a browser update.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure, but stop building single page apps; those things are hideous.

Best feature Opera 12.x & below had... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Best feature Opera 12.x & below had was "By Site Preferences" where you could turn on/off scripting on selected sites as you wished: Where you NEEDED it, you had it going (say ecommerce or banking etc.) & WHERE YOU DID NOT (I set this GLOBALLY by default 1st & made 'exception sites' types e.g. I noted) you were SAFE vs. SCRIPTED THREATS (& could "zero-in" on UNSAFE sites on ones you DID setup to use it easily due to narrowing the "possible culprits").

* MODERN "BROWSERS" ought to be called "ADVERTISING MACHINES" & "INFECTION MACHINES" & don't seem to ALLOW for this ("gosh, I wonder why?" - NOT, & not when Google & other advertisers "pull the SILVER STRINGS" financing browser makers etc.).

For SECURITY it was great but it also worked for more SPEED (not running scripts referred to from WHO KNOWS WHERE outside the site you went to itself).

APK

P.S,=> Of them all, I wish FIREFOX would re-institute that feature (it's a GREAT one & works vs. threats as I noted above)... apk

Re:Best feature Opera 12.x & below had... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern browser which has good add-ons infrastructure (Chrome/Chromium, Firefox) offers the feature as an add-on, e.g. uMatrix. So either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're a liar.

Advertisers would use force

[WCMI92]

If they could get away with it. They'd make you listen to their "copy" and buy whatever it is they are selling. And they'd have no moral objection to it.

Gmail does this!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The issue at hand is a well-known tactic often seen employed by many shady sites across the Internet."

Like Gmail?

No more Free iPads and Walmart gift cards?!?!

[ripvlan]

Users accidentally tap/click an ad? Sorry to report but some ads hijack the website and auto-redirect to these scam ads. Then I'm stuck with a popup "you've won a free XYZ" and the back-button doesn't work. And the only way out is to close the tab.

Re:No more Free iPads and Walmart gift cards?!?!

[hwolfe]

Accidentally? There are sites that do the redirect without having to click on anything.

Can't get 2 script/site doing it, can't get u

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p

Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploit!

* ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux/BSD (soon 4 MacOS)!

(Better vs. Windows model)

APK

P.S.=> Protects vs. scripts/trackers (kernelmode faster vs. usermode slow NoScript vs. 3rd party script)/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware download/malcript/email malicious payload

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.

That's fine when every click loads a new page, but If a click simply loads new content into the same page, it makes sense to tweak the history in those cases to make the back button work as expected.

Apparently not everyone expects the same thing.

Web annoyances

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see the browser people find a way to absolutely, positively block auto-play videos.

Amen - for both audio and video. This ranks right up there with blocking you from closing a tab - there is no excuse for allowing a site to override a close tab command as executed by the "Your computer has a virus and you must call..." scams forcing you to do a three-finger salute. This includes even the less-malignant "Do you really want to leave? Y/N" annoyance.

Damn it, I should run the browser, not have a site decide where i want to be "took."

Even CHINA copied me (vs. DNS down/redirected)

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did it 1st: China or me? I did - dates are my proof https://theregister.co.uk/2017... w/ the FACT China rampantly STEALS U.S. Intellectual properties & military secrets!

* IMITATION truly IS the SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY!!!

(... & proves hosts work vs. DNS faults in tracking you via dns request logs (since you avoid it & resolve FASTER locally using hosts) + DNS being downed OR Kaminsky REDIRECT security flaw misdirected poisoned (or vs. DNSChanger))

ESPECIALLY AS I DISCOVERED MODEMS CHINA MAKES EVEN YOUR ISP CAN'T GET INTO FOR DNS CHANGE (but China can) https://slashdot.org/comments....

APK

P.S.=> Folks, It's NOT EASY being "World-Class" like me (lol - 100,000++ users prove it for me) - enjoy the fruits of my labors for FREE + going FASTER/SAFER/MORE RELIABLY online (w/ a bit more anonymity too via my program)... apk

Hosts efficacy recently vs. threats

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & results in https://linux.slashdot.org/com... https://news.slashdot.org/comm... https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://search.slashdot.org/co... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

* That's only recently while I've been on Linux (July 2018) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof). ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)

APK

P.S.=> "It's working: Neville... it's working!" - "I AM LEGEND" ... apk

Security pros etc. QUOTED on hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

"classic Windows hosts trick to block the Coinhive or Crypto-Loot domains" - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/a-new-player-joins-coinhive-on-the-browser-cryptojacking-scene/ - BLEEPING COMPUTER

ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"

SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&amp.cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/

Spybot S&D uses hosts!

APK

P.S.=> Malwarebytes' hpHosts hosts & RECOMMENDS my program forum.hosts-file.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4290

Registered /.ers reviews #1/5

[Anonymous Coward]

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

* For the Win32/64 model

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient/better MERGE feature too - More coming... apk

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

MobyDisk confided"

This isn't talkong about an Angular app with routing that uses back properly. It is talking about automatic redirects like HTTP 301 or meta refresh tags. For those the sokution is easy, Firefox has done this for years. If you hit back, and the page then auto-redirects you immediately, ignore the redirect. The user then just has to hit back a few times, but at least they aren't stuck. Even better would be if hitting back went back to the most recent page that did not have an automatic redirect in it.

I ran into this back-button-hijacking dick move on dilbert.com, just a few minutes ago (Thanks, Scott! You really are an asshole!), using Firefox 56.1 - and it completely blocked me from leaving the page via the back button, despite clicking it a half-dozen times or more inside of a few seconds.

So, no, you're incorrect about Firefox having "done this" for years. It's just as vulnerable to this exploit as is any other browser.

And your typing is atrocious. Try proofreading your posts before you submit them ...

(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

Registered /.ers reviews #2/5

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk has the answer for that - really... kill automatic updates by adding a hosts file entry setting updates.steam.com or whatever to 127.0.0.1. You have to find the right hostname for each software you want to block updates on by raymorris (2726007) on Friday July 06, 2018

APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat (756137) on Wednesday June 21, 2017

I support APK's stand on the hosts file and can't see why it's not used more than it is. My hosts file is 144247 lines long (4,332 Kb) it & a firewall serves me very well - by Trax3001BBS (2368736)

ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything APK reminds us about fast turtle September 17 2013

You need APK's hosts file - by Teun (17872) on Wednesday August 06, 2014

* For the Win32/64 model

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature - More coming... apk

Registered /.ers reviews #3/5

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa on Saturday May 16, 2015

APK solution STILL relevant Thud457 June 11 2015

In a footnote, I would like to note that I find your hosts file admirable - by vel-ex-tech (4337079) on Tuesday November 24, 2015

APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment - by Culture20 on Thursday November 17

you're right about hosts files - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26

APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop - by nasredin (958927) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:34PM

* For the Win32/64 model

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature - More coming... apk

Registered /.ers reviews #4/5

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works. - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015

get around to 'installing' a hosts file list, not sure which one, likely the one from someonewhocares.org. If it works as well as what I used for a while about ten years ago, I'll be happy. And grateful to APK for the lesson and the reminder. - by kermidge (2221646) on Wednesday March 27

I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster. - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17

dammit MS, you proved APK right about something by lgw

* For the Win32/64 model

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature - More coming... apk

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Oswald McWeany]

I also understand that the browser allows you to modify how things like the back button work. I just personally wouldn't build important functionality in my site around something the browser normally controls, and wouldn't be terribly surprised if it stopped working the way I'd originally intended after a browser update.

Well, the answer is you don't build important functionality into the back-button, you give other options and try to get the user to use those other options for navigating; HOWEVER, you can't control a user and can't prevent them clicking the back-button if they really want to (all you can do is try to handle it gracefully if they do). In an ideal world the end-user wouldn't use the back button from navigating in a web-application; but you can't easily prevent them.

Registered /.ers reviews #5/5

[Anonymous Coward]

(APK) is still right a hosts file really does work. It even blocked a some of the video ads that were inserted into a stream OrangeTide February 10 2016

the Host File Engine performs exactly as promised - by mmell (832646) on Thursday February 16, 2017

I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

(Toss on 100,000++ users worldwide too!)

* For the Win32/64 model

APK

P.S.=> Linux model's faster/more efficient + BETTER merge feature... apk

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

time spent? if 5 seconds not legitimate?

"This is the weapon of a jediknight"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not as clumsy/random as a blaster - An elegant weapon 4 a more civilized age" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

* "For over a 1,000 generations Jedi Knights were guardians of peace & justice in the old Republic. Before the dark times. Before the EMPIRE"

(Hosts = light sabres & wildcard tools = blasters above!)

APK

P.S.=> Many here know https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & enjoy greater speed/security/reliability & anonymity hosts yield natively speeding you up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes that protect vs. DNS security issues in redirect poisoning + request tracking logs & RESOLVE FASTER locally from RAM driven by KERNELMODE speed vs. slow usermode in "solutions" packed w/ security issues (DNS/Antivirus) OR not working fully by default (adblock) in usermode addons easily detected by webmasters & blocked doing less but using more) ... apk

Re:Can't get 2 script/site doing it, can't get u

[Anonymous Coward]

why do you keep posting as AC?

This still happens?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Dang but I love script blockers.

Open LinkIn New Tab. Close Tab.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck That was so hard!

Re:Open LinkIn New Tab. Close Tab.

[fibonacci8]

So the next move is exploits that hijack opening a new tab. Several sites already interfere with ctrl-left mouse clicks that should open in a new tab. Bets on the availability to interfere with right click, open in new window/tab?

High tech news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up, screen savers with flying toasters to avoid screen burn.

While they are at it

[Anonymous Coward]

They should provide a config setting so users can disable that ridiculous automatic clicking of the back button when the user hits backspace.

That feature was NEVER liked by ANYONE. Safari nuked it. Firefox gives a way to turn it off in configuration. But Chrome requires you to download a third-party plugin to turn that crap off.

THAT IS NOT A SOLUTION!

Fix it right.

Re:While they are at it

[hackwrench]

They have turned it off for quite some time now and if they made sure it never happened when you were in a textbox I wouldn't have minded it. But CTRL Left arrow doesn't work and I don't know if it ever worked on Chrome, but it has on some browser.

Re:While they are at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Alt left, not control left.

Better question Mr. Hypocrite... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Better question Mr. Hypocrite: WHY DO YOU? Oh, I know why - so you can keep your abused downmods you issued on 5 of my posts already!

* As you can see, as always? I simply REPOST (unlimited post ability here lol) when you DO & easily RUN YOU DRY of your abused "downmodpoints", lol!

Accept 1 thing - I can't be stopped - least of ALL by whimps like you.

(I truly ENJOY making "your kind", JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" mere "ne'er-do-well" DO-NOTHINGS look like the POWERLESS FOOLS you are against me... & you KNOW it).

YOU DON'T LEARN DO YOU https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... ?

APK

P.S.=> That answer your question? Don't bother replying - I answered MINE to YOU above quite adequately & correctly, lmao... apk

Re:Better question Mr. Hypocrite... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

By "I can't be stopped", you mean that you resist all efforts to use logic and reason to explain to you why your behavior is so disruptive and toxic. You are obsessed with winning arguments against anonymous and pseudonymous internet users, which is why you brag about being able to make "unlimited" anonymous posts. That also means you have far too much time on your hands. You say that idle hands are the devil's workshop, and those words fit you perfectly.

If your work was as great as you think it is, you wouldn't need to post massive numbers of spam comments about it. Yet you feel the need to do that, and to circumvent every effort to curtail your spam. A large portion of the users you quote in support of your work were doing so as a polite way to frame their criticism of your software or of you. They weren't praising your work for the sake of praising it. They were trying to say a nice thing about your work so you'd be receptive to their criticisms that followed. This is more evidence that you do, indeed, resist any efforts to use logic and reason to explain to you why your behavior is so unacceptable.

Your obsession with winning arguments on the internet at all costs is unhealthy. Is it really something to brag about that you can make unlimited posts and spam your comments almost endlessly? You haven't won. Instead, you've wasted a lot of time that you could have spent doing something productive. You are a mentally disturbed individual, and you should seek professional help. Everyone, including you, will be better off if you get professional help for your mental health issues. I'm posting this out of sincere concern for your mental health.

Your usual response is to demand that any of your critics prove they've written better hosts file software than you. It's a highly illogical way to deflect any criticism, no matter how warranted. It projects that you're insecure about your work and what you've accomplished.

Instead of spamming Slashdot and attacking people, go make a difference and try to have a positive impact in people's lives. I'm not going to debate you about hosts file software, but here's one of the things I do. I'll be teaching a class of 100+ students in the spring. I want to make sure they get a class worthy of the money they're paying for it. I want to help them develop critical thinking skills, and the class will take on the issue of climate change as a way to do this. I want to share with them the awe and mystique of science and the world around them, so that they're more interested in science when the class is over than when it started. I've chased storms for about 15 years and seen many supercells and tornadoes. While I don't like the damage those storms do, No matter how many storms I've chased, I always feel a sense of wonder and amazement when I'm looking at the business end of a supercell thunderstorm. I hope to share that with my students. I want the students to leave the class with the ability to make informed decisions about issues like climate change.

I'll be spending some of my time today preparing teaching materials for the spring. Will you be spending your day spamming Slashdot, or do you have something better to do?

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[MobyDisk]

Sorry, I was typing it on my phone, LOL!

With Firefox, hold down the back button (well, on the desktop versions) and it displays a history of pages. So you can go back two pages, or 3, or more with one click. That helps to get around the nasty ones.

Slashdot does this too when accessing the site from Chrome on Android. Clicking the number of comments on a story attempts to open multiple popups, then directs you to sites full of redirects. The real problem is web site operators allowing advertising companies to put scripts onto the page. It wasn't so bad when the ads were square images with a single around them.

LOL! U don't LEARN & look @ ur "ReAcTioN"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! U don't LEARN & look @ ur "ReAcTioN" vs. FACT/TRUTH I level "your kind" (powerless vs. me) w/ https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

* LMAO - I love it!

(Sure "got a rise" outta you JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" Do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" you are... lmao!)

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making ME "RoTfLmAo" @ U publicly @ YOUR expense... apk

Re:LOL! U don't LEARN & look @ ur "ReAcTioN"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you consider me a Do-NOTHING "ne'er-do'well" because I'm preparing teaching materials for the spring and because I care about having a positive impact on my students, then I suppose I'll just have to be a Do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well". It's unfortunate that you feel that way. That you view what I do as lacking value says more about you than it does about me.

I'm not powerless against you, not at all. As you said, your goal is to "get a rise" out of me, to make me angry. My power is in that I'm not angry, not at all. My power is that I choose to show you civility and decency when you only show contempt for me. You believe you've won and that you've somehow made a fool of me. Your victory is hollow because I choose not to play your game. Rather, I sincerely hope you seek out and receive the treatment for the mental health issues that you clearly are suffering from. When I tell you to seek professional help, I'm not saying that to ridicule you, but rather out of genuine concern because you seem to be a very disturbed individual. I hope you receive the help you clearly need, and soon.

Re:LOL! U don't LEARN & look @ ur "ReAcTioN"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cybernetically preserved consciousnesses of Seymour Cray and Dennis Ritchie created a thread to explain why APK's hosts file is the most beautiful piece of software they've ever seen.....
  The emotional impact of losing an argument to APK would be as devastating as when my shoe comes untied when I'm walking and I have to re-tie it.
Your hilarious emotional investment in your hosts manager vs how little anyone else cares makes you a loser by default. Maybe your thing is great, I'll never use it because the APK brand is a toxic joke. If it's as good as you say it is then you are it's biggest flaw.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.

If you're using AJAX within a webpage though, sometimes you expect the back button to take you to what you were previously viewing NOT make you leave the site altogether.

That's what I call back. Not to a previous site altogether, but to what I was looking at before I clicked the link, even if it is in the same site. I don't want to have to hit the back button ten times to get there.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegit

[reanjr]

Or those who aren't web developers don't know the internals well enough to make an informed opinion.

Re:Better question Mr. Hypocrite... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent post sir!
I LOVE arguing on the internet. Probably more than is good for me but sometimes you just have to step back and ask yourself if you're doing yourself any favors.

So APK let's say you have the best ad / script/ annoyance blocking solution on the planet and let's say that I believe you when you say it.

I'll care about " that much because this is Slashdot and I know that even today it's full of computer legends quietly hiding behind their handles. Also most of are, or at least work with the best face to face every day so think of how pointless it is to toot your own horn. It just makes people not like you.,

Meanwhile Firefox the "privacy browser"

[Anonymous Coward]

Still allows unclosable javascript popups nevermind the damn back button!

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[jenningsthecat]

And then in that case, you take control of the back button so it doesn't break the experience.

No, in that case you provide a clearly marked Back button or link as part of YOUR interface. If necessary, you add a brief explanation as to why YOUR back button is better in the current context than the browser's Back button. Don't be messing with MY interface - Home, Forward, Back, and Stop buttons. When you screw with those, you've 'broken the experience' by definition, you've created non-standard behaviour, and you've pissed me off to the extent that your site is on my shitlist and I won't be visiting it again.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegit

[jenningsthecat]

Or those who aren't web developers don't know the internals well enough to make an informed opinion.

Car analogy here. If automakers suddenly swapped the brake and the gas, or made the power switch on your radio change the station instead, (but only sometimes), 'because internals' - would you just accept that, or would you tell them to sod off and restore them to the behaviour you've come to expect? I use the Web a lot - I'm technical, but I don't 'know the internals' of the Web or of browsers. I don't need to, because I've used them for long enough that I know the conventions and understand the behaviour. And I'm pretty confident that there is NO good reason to be dicking with the Back button's traditional functionality. If you need custom Back button functionality, add a button to your UI - don't make the one in my browser do unexpected things.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[jenningsthecat]

In an ideal world the end-user wouldn't use the back button from navigating in a web-application; but you can't easily prevent them.

Sure you can - just not the first time. Put your own nav buttons in your UI, and warn about using the browser's Back button. If they hit the latter and lose a half-hour's worth of whatever they're doing, then the next time they'll heed the directions. Don't break my experience because some people won't follow instructions.

BTW, over the years I've experienced MANY warnings about not using the Back button, so it's not as though I just pulled the idea out of my ass.

But it might break many sites

[SurenEnfiajyan]

YouTube uses a similar technique, when a new video is opened it actually doesn't reload the page despite that the URL changes. The user might want to go back to continue watching the previous video. So how will Chrome know whether this technique is malicious or not? Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Oswald McWeany]

BTW, over the years I've experienced MANY warnings about not using the Back button, so it's not as though I just pulled the idea out of my ass.

Yeah... and it doesn't work. People still click the back button.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

In an ideal world the end-user wouldn't use the back button from navigating in a web-application; but you can't easily prevent them.

Fuck you. It's my browser, it's my back button. I trust my standard controls way more than your shitty roll-your-own interface that craps out half the time.

Here's an idea. How about you learn to respect the user's choices and standard interfaces, and build a web app that works with the back button instead of fighting it.

Fucking developers. Always telling users how to use their machine. Authoritarian tossers.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google fix an issue thatâ(TM)s been around for over 10 years? Un heard of!!!

They must be running out of bull shit features they can shove down our throats.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegit

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly you actually provided the exact reason FOR "dicking with the Back button's fictionality".

Time was all navigation buttons were links to separate pages, so you could retrace your steps on a site via the back button.
Then with the change to single page sites (for efficiency and better user experience) the back button suddenly stopped being useful for retracing your steps within a site. To fix this and avoid "swapping the gas and the break" as you put it, developers began altering the history directly so that even if clicking "next" didn't send you to a new page, immediately clicking "back" afterwards took you to the content you juts left.

like most things, this ability can be abused and it can be fucked up leading to a lot of instances where the malicious use it to con people and the incompetent use it stupidly and both archive the opposite of the original intent.

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[thegarbz]

Not to trap them, but to provide functionality.

Nope. You've broken the concept of the back button as well as the usability guidelines for some operating systems. If you want to provide functionality you should do it via the appropriate means. Changing the defined functionality of something is not appropriate.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[thegarbz]

but If a click simply loads new content into the same page

Then you should make it clear to the user that the context of your page has a different interface than the standard one they expect, and not change the defined behaviour of an existing system which has a different functionality.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[skids]

Yeah, that seems like the most reasonable approach. You only get one per click (or kb enter outside a textbox)

Making the "back" button go "back"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a novel idea. Make something that works like it is supposed to work.

Prove it (all you say)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it (all you say) - that's all you have to do Mr. UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous bullshit artist (good luck that). Who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself (UNLESS you PROVE otherwise).

APK

P.S.=> I know "your kind" - you NEVER do, lots of TALK, never any proof... apk

Says UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous nobody

[Anonymous Coward]

Says UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous nobody - says it ALL about "your kind" (all talk, no action & NOTHING of value produced by you).

How dare a DO-NOTHING all TALK "ne'er-do-well" like YOU even DARE mention those 2 guys? LMAO, no shit. You're FAR from them (I may be too but NOT anywhere NEAR as REMOVED AS YOU & "your kind" are).

* I'm FAR from that way WITH PROOF of it in others using my wares by the 100's of 1,000's over time & even registered /.ers (not UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous weezils like you) liking/using/praising MY WORK (not your "notthereware" & bullshit talk).

APK

P.S.=> You lose & I don't even have to TRY win when "your kind" always DEFEATS YOURSELVES for me, lol... apk

I'm not here to win a "popularity contest"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not here to win a "popularity contest" - I'm here to WIN & it's pretty clearly obvious I am (w/ UNIDENTIFIABLE anon nobodies STALKING me spouting bullshit & all talk CRAP no action from them of equal OR BETTER value than my wares represent).

* PERIOD/FACT... popularity contests for for shitheads & politicians - doers DO & do well for themself & OTHERS (which I clearly do - talkers & BULLSHITTERS, don't).

(Unassailable fact)

APK

P.S.=> Again - highschool popularity contests DO NOT HELP SPEED UP & SECURE folks but my WORK does - not mere talk from others... apk

You lacks imagination

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that.
And what hijackers do ?
They fill history with hundreds of fake url you didn't visit.
So you can not step back before the hijack occured.
This is why the browser should discard all fake urls.

RoTfLmAo... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & tell me another one (I've written a native kernelmode & FASTER/BETTER solution that does more for less vs. ANY single addon)!

See this https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

* It's for any browser (OR WEBBOUND PROGRAM PERIOD) & multiplatform too (soon for MacOS as well).

APK

P.S.=> EAT YOUR WORDS you UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous WEEZIL shitbrain, lol... apk

Re:Curious how they tell legitimate from illegitim

[Anonymous Coward]

Display time ?
What's the point in storing a page that was dislayed less than 1s?

You've done BETTER than I yourself? apk

[Anonymous Coward]

You've done BETTER than I yourself? Ok - PROVE IT you UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "ne'er-do-well" bs artist - that's all you have to do now after that bullshit from you.

* Never will happen - you produce BLOWHARD "hotairware"/'notthereware'

No single addon does as much as hosts do AS EFFICIENTLY in kernelmode speed vs. slower usermode LAYERING IN overheads into browsers in memory use & messagepass overhead (stack a few addons & see).

FACT - unassailable FACT!

APK

P.S.=> As far as malware being affected by hosts - hosts do well & so do I - FAR BETTER THAN A TALKER do nothing like you (partial proof only/fraction of what I can put out to my credit) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... you stupid chatterbox JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" DO-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" that you are, lol... apk

Great! Maybe they'll fix it on YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I go to YouTube, it is at *least* two back arrows to get out of a video.

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegit

[reanjr]

The reality is you are probably experiencing this history rewriting on tons of sites without even realizing it, but you don't have a problem with it because it works "as expected".

Re: Curious how they tell legitimate from illegiti

[toddestan]

The standard behavior is to let websites screw around with the browser's history. If it's done properly it's practically invisible - sure if you're watching for it you'll see the manipulation going on, but to most users the browser's back button does actually do what they expect it too and they are completely oblivious as to what actually happened and the technical details of how the website really works. However, like a lot of things on the web that were created to make things more user-friendly, this can also be abused by malicious and shitty websites that are up to no good or like being annoying.

However, if you really don't like it, why don't you take control of your browser and not allow websites to rewrite your browser's history? The source code behind the most popular browsers is available, so have at it. Or there may even be an extension available. Then you can go party like it's 1996 all over again.