Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

standard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 445 posts

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#51

Post by Workaccount2 »

jmclnx wrote: post #13
westcort wrote: post #3

Any recommendations for a good ad blocker and other precautions to take?

I use noscript https://noscript.net/ But I sort of think this may be more of an issue with Cell Phones.

No script is excellent, but it is certainly not for the faint of heart. It basically breaks the (modern) internet and then you have to go in yourself an unfuck each website.

The upside though is big, stops all the insane bloat that runs on most pages. Many websites run fine with all their scripts blocked too.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#52

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

krackers wrote: post #14
bogwog wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use adnauseam ( https://adnauseam.io/ ), which is built on top of ublock origin, and it works pretty well. The generic nuclear option to hide terrible web design, bypass (some) paywalls, and improve performance 1000x is to disable javascript. ublock and adnauseam both have a button to disable all javascript on a page, which is handy when reading articles on sites filled with garbage.

>both have a button to disable all javascript on a page Be slightly careful, there's a known issue (limitation of Chrome really) where requests and javascript are not blocked in the first few seconds of launching a browser or an incognito window (you can test this yourself). And this is true even with "Suspend network activity until all filter lists are loaded" enabled, because I think it's some limitation on Chrome…

Just switch to a browser that respects user privacy. With NoScript you can fine tune which domains you'll accept scripts from when the zero-JS experience isn't usable.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#53

Post by staringback »

Zizizizz wrote: post #41
lakomen wrote: post #32

Well too bad Google won't let you on the phone, Firefox at least allows you to install ublock.

Brave, Firefox, Bromite all do, or you can use nextdns or adguard as a private DNS in your network settings. I think the last option is a little wireguard set up to route traffic to a server or small pc that has unbound and pinhole on it

DNS adblocking isn't even remotely comparable to ublock origin

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#54

Post by cudgy »

shadowgovt wrote: post #43
halfjoking wrote: post #17

FBI must have infiltrated ad blocker servers containing malicious url lists. Never using an adblocker again.

Using an adblocker based on Manifest v3 would avoid this, as those blockers can't phone home to update their malware datasets. ;)

Is this not also the case when using iOS content blockers?

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#55

Post by WirelessGigabit »

rmason wrote: post #47

Is it time for an open source adblocker that only blocks bad actors? I am perfectly fine with ads, I've previously run sites where it was a small source of income myself. I know it would be in a cat and mouse game with the bad guys but if it blocked most of them it would certainly help a lot of people.

Let's build that company that serves ads and blocks bad actors. We can then offer the blocklist to other blockers.

Problems: * vetting ads costs a lot of time (= money). So you're getting less money per impression * requires a massive amount of infrastructure if you want to ensure that the ad doesn't change in between you vetting it and you serving it to your clients (= money).

Meaning the consumers of our company will get less money per ad they show to their visitors.

So they'll go to one that offers more. Simple as that.

In order to fix the bad actors we need to start making the websites serving the ads (like Reddit) and/or the networks (DoubleClick) responsible for what they offer up.

As long as that doesn't happen it'll remain a cesspool.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#56

Post by cld8483 »

drusepth wrote: post #37

Does anyone have any adblockers they recommend that still show "safe" ads (e.g. non-malware) by default, without having to whitelist every site? I'd be open to the security benefits of an adblocker if I could still passively support all the sites I visit. Edit: changed "good" to "safe" for clarity

The only "good" ads are those you have to specifically go out of your way to view because you want to view them; such as product catalogues.

All other ads are physiological assault and should be made illegal. Particularly those ads which exist "IRL" and can't otherwise be blocked, such as billboards.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#57

Post by SahAssar »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #36

Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites: - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound" DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver, preventing my browser to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if I want, from unbound) - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules - (I came up with this one): use a little…

The last one is very anglo-centric (or at least centric to fully latinized languages). Do you not find the rules[0] in for example chrome working?

[0]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#58

Post by eurticket »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #36

Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites: - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound" DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver, preventing my browser to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if I want, from unbound) - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules - (I came up with this one): use a little…

Steven Black runs a hosts file on GitHub with regular updates. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts

There are a bunch of file variants to weed out specific bad actors.

It's well currated though I will disclaimer it has broken a few websites in the past for me. Maybe that's a good thing.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#59

Post by junon »

VFIT7CTO77TOC wrote: post #39

It is infuriating that Google seems to be doing nothing about scam ads. For years I have been seeing "Click to install iPhone update!!!" ads on YouTube mobile. Easy to have huge profit margins when your company hires no humans to do things like customer support and ad vetting.

I still get ads for Slovenian brides on YouTube. Not only is it incredibly gross and objective to me, Google clearly knows nothing about my demographic.

Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web

#60

Post by cgb223 »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #36

Here are a few things I do to combat nasty websites: - blacklists entire domains using wildcards (using an "unbound" DNS resolver and forcing all traffic to my DNS resolver, preventing my browser to use DoH -- I can still then use DoH if I want, from unbound) - reject or drop a huge number of known bad actors, regularly updated: they go into gigantic "ip sets" firewall rules - (I came up with this one): use a little…

What’s an IDN and what does blocking them help with?
Post reply on HN