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

151–160 of 445 posts

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

#151

Post by JohnFen »

giobox wrote: post #62
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…

While these are all good practices, killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem, as ultimately all you can really do is use domain blacklists at your firewall. It's no longer as straight forward as just control port 53 traffic, not like you can realistically shut down 443... Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole and I think is only going to get worse as this and similar tec…

> killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem

True.

I had to install a system to MITM all my https traffic in order to block DoH requests.

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

#152

Post by finnthehuman »

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.

The big "DOWNLOAD NOW" ads placed on webpages for software downloads are pretty bad too. Whenever I'm setting up a fresh windows machine I haven't grabbed an adblocker yet and am not used to seeing ads so they get me every now and then.

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

#153

Post by skhr0680 »

madars wrote: post #71

Or, in other words, FBI now recommends using Android :-) It's baffling how much better uBlock Origin + Firefox experience on Android is compared to any iOS ad blocker I have tried. They kind-of work but let half of the ads through.

AdGuard is free and has never let me down. Sometimes preroll YouTube ads will get through on my phone, but it’s not a big deal.

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

#154

Post by JohnFen »

noizejoy wrote: post #141
denkmoon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why DoH is a trojan horse. You can't control it as a network administrator, all it takes is a piece of software to simply remove the controls for users to configure their own DoH and bam, end user has little to no control over how their applications perform name resolution. Little pro-tip for anyone who tries to run their own private DoH infrastructure too, Firefox doesn't like RFC1918 addresses for t…

> You can't control it as a network administrator That’s the design intent. Because not all network administration is benign. DoH is a tool like any other. Good or bad entirely on why and how it’s used. And your own perspective on that use case.

But when the network is mine, and I'm the administrator, anything that prevents me from seeing what's happening is a Bad Thing.

DoH opens me up to security problems that I wouldn't otherwise have, and the extent I have to go to in order to stop it is crazy.

> DoH is a tool like any other. Good or bad entirely on why and how it’s used.

Except that it's a tool I have little control over, and no control over how and why it's used. That's the problem.

DoH is a plague.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

panny wrote: post #136

I am puzzled here. Why is the FBI expecting the free market to solve the problem created by the free market? Are these scams somehow legal? If the scam is illegal, and search engines are promoting the scams at the top of search rankings, doesn't that make the search engine an accomplice in the scam? If I invited crack dealers to deal out of my house for a small cut of the proceeds, I'm pretty sure I go to jail when t…

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by int_19h »

sircastor wrote: post #142
63 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have the data to back this up, but I've been operating under the assumption that the majority of people access the internet through their smart phones more than any other devices. Maybe it's my age, but a lot of people I know don't own traditional computers and if they do it's a single laptop they occasionally use for office tasks.

I’m sometimes shocked at how much my wife relies on and accomplishes through her Pixel 3. She uses a computer only when she wants a bigger screen - photo editing or watching a show. Everything else she uses her phone. Is very surprising to me. I feel like I can barely do anything on my phone.

It depends a lot on how much typing you do. If it's mostly reading, phone is tolerable. For HN or Reddit, I want my damn keyboard.

But, conversely, the way we interact online also changes to accommodate these trends. Twitter was an early example of that, and so is the focus on audiovisual content over text for the more recent social networks.

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

#157

Post by JohnFen »

LinuxBender wrote: post #91
giobox wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While these are all good practices, killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem, as ultimately all you can really do is use domain blacklists at your firewall. It's no longer as straight forward as just control port 53 traffic, not like you can realistically shut down 443... Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole and I think is only going to get worse as this and similar tec…

Blocking DoH is largely whack-a-mole Maybe this is so but I have yet to see it. AFAIK all the DoT/DoH are on known dedicated IP addresses. I know they don't have to be. They could be on generic Akamai/CF/BunnyCDN/etc... end points but I have yet to come across one utilized in the wild. Have you found any? What are their IP addresses? I would like to add them to my DNS timing/monitoring scripts. I null route about 24…

> I have yet to come across one utilized in the wild

How would you be able to tell?

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

#158

Post by int_19h »

buildbot wrote: post #68
cgb223 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s an IDN and what does blocking them help with?

International domain name - blocking them prevents look alike URLs from working. But also, IMO, this is bad advice for anyone who uses not English as a language...

If there's any non-English-speaking culture that embraced IDNs, I'd love to hear it. E.g. in my experience as a Russian speaker, Cyrillic very rarely shows up in domain names for legitimate websites, and correlates strongly with malware.

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

#159

Post by grupthink »

skhr0680 wrote: post #153
madars wrote: post #71

Or, in other words, FBI now recommends using Android :-) It's baffling how much better uBlock Origin + Firefox experience on Android is compared to any iOS ad blocker I have tried. They kind-of work but let half of the ads through.

AdGuard is free and has never let me down. Sometimes preroll YouTube ads will get through on my phone, but it’s not a big deal.

Is there an ad blocker for Safari on iOS that can deal with Youtube ads? AdGuard requires you to do a dance every time you reload the page.

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

#160

Post by NikolaNovak »

happybuy wrote: post #101
madars wrote: post #71

Or, in other words, FBI now recommends using Android :-) It's baffling how much better uBlock Origin + Firefox experience on Android is compared to any iOS ad blocker I have tried. They kind-of work but let half of the ads through.

I develop a popular iOS and macOS ad blocker that block almost all ads[1] including all YouTube ads. Will be interested to hear if you've tried it out and what may have been missing? The only things we don't block at the moment is some non-English content and Adult sites. With a small team these haven't been the primary focus for the time being. Other than those though we should stop pretty much everything else. [1]…

Lol - I installed and paid... And then realized I havent opened safari since I got the phone. I assume it only works in safari and not chrome?

I clearly need more sleep...

Post reply on HN