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

291–300 of 445 posts

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

#291

Post by tsimionescu »

josephcsible wrote: post #194
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 You can't control it as a malicious censor who's trying to control what Web sites other people's computers can access just because they're on your Wi-Fi. You can absolutely control it on computers that are actually yours.

If a malicious app on your system is using DoH, how can you control it? This is what GP was complaining about.

Of course, this is not the fault of DoH providers themselves - at worst, they have just made it easier to perform this.

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

#292

Post by tsimionescu »

JohnFen wrote: post #168
labcomputer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But: 1. couldn’t you “just” (yea yea I know) install a cert on all your devices and force all 443 traffic though a proxy (like some corporate networks do)? 2. (Something I’ve been meaning to get around to trying for a while) default-block outgoing connections unless unless the external host was recently resolved for the corresponding internal host via your internal resolver? That seems like it would kill anything tha…

> force all 443 traffic though a proxy That's insufficient. There's nothing stopping a web site (or ad on a website) from forming its own DoH request that bypasses the browser and the port. It can be done entirely within the HTTPS stream.

If you're monitoring the HTTPS stream, you'll see it. The point of the proxy is exactly to inspect the content of HTTPS requests (that's why you need to install your own certificate).

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

#293

Post by tsimionescu »

srcreigh wrote: post #166
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 the advantage of DoH? I personally use Timescale magicDNS on all my devices, with pihole DNS running on a home server. The magicDNS can make my home server the 1st responder for DNS queries and it'll block a lot of ad domains.

DoH was designed to prevent the network operators from interfering with or snooping on DNS. The stated purpose was to prevent your carrier or country from seeing which domains you access, and/or blocking you from accessing them. However, it also prevents devices like piHole from passively blocking ad requests as easily.

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

#294

Post by tsimionescu »

SahAssar wrote: post #57
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...

Very few countries, even outside the anglosphere, use IDNs.

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

#295

Post by emsixteen »

emacdona wrote: post #203

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

I currently use an add-on to block search engine results (Highlight or Hide Search Engine Results[1]) so Kagi sounded interesting, but the free tier having a limit of 50 searches puts it out of the realm of even giving it a trial period for me.

I really like the idea about a sort of global blacklist for your permissions.

[1] https://github.com/pistom/hohser

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

#296

Post by hilbert42 »

bdlowery wrote: post #260
hilbert42 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, Android trades ads for system wide tracking and that's rotten for the user. Moreover, Android's tacking mechanism is brilliantly effective—one has to admire Google's ingenuity for its receiver/signalling system. It's so integral to Android that one can view the O/S as built around it rather than it as an addition/add-on to the O/S. Essentially, Android is an O/S built around an ingenious spying system. It's ju…

Man, some people are just crazy. You’re so hell bent on using android you limit the functionality of your phone to it essentially just being a brick. Buy an iPhone, install an ad blocker, disable all the tracking, and be done with it while still being able to use the features of the phone you bought.

1. I've owned iPhones and Apple is hell bent in locking me out of its tech. If you want to live in a straightjacketed tech world then that's fine. In my world that's a truely bricked environment.

2. When I make phone calls I use a feature phone, it's incapable of doing anything else. That is, it has no Internet access—not even Bluetooth.

3. I wouldn't be seen dead on social media or using a Gmail account, and I've no need of Apple's store or Netflix, etc. so the functionality you refer to isn't an issue.

4. My Android phones are for limited internet use only and or portable computer use. Similarly, the functionality you speak of just doesn't apply. They are hacked and tailored specifically for my requirement and they do exactly what I want. Right, I'm in control (unlike iPhone users).

5. Even then, as a rule, my Android phones don't use SIM cards, they connect to the internet wirelessly via separate pocket routers which further isolates them from internet gumpf and garbage.

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

#297

Post by lrem »

emacdona wrote: post #227
emacdona wrote: post #203

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

For anyone curious as to how I solve the problem right now, I just have two separate Firefox profiles. One has a ton of plugins; I use it to browse the web. The other has no plugins; I use it to visit my bank's website.

Firefox and Chrome here. Just easier overall.

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

#298

Post by deafpolygon »

emacdona wrote: post #203

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Bas…

This is basically the route I'm taking. It's unfortunate, but the web looks godawful without.

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

#299

Post by SargeDebian »

emacdona wrote: post #238
mmgutz wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is no plugins different than private browsing, assuming you don't allow plugins in private browsing. Is private browsing too strict?

That's a good question. I don't know -- I never considered private browsing. If I close a private browsing session, are all traces (ie: cookies, history, etc.) of it erased? If so, I don't think that's what I want. I'm okay with my bank (and websites I trust) setting cookies, for example.

Sure, but my bank and (like most other highly trusted sites) doesn’t set any useful cookies anyway. I think there is an option to autofill my username, but why bother if my password manager does that anyway?

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

#300

Post by worldsavior »

Removing ads only makes you more unique. As most users don't block ads, by using an ad blocker sites can identify you more by knowing you use an ad blocker.

It is more comfortable, but it's preferred using a wide DNS ad blocker as sites can only know that for some reason the DNS server can't resolve their domains. DNS ad blocker can also increase uniqueness.

Using an ad blocker extension can also cause security issues, as the extension has full control on network traffic and has potential to be exploited.

Post reply on HN