Live data from Hacker News

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

standard.co.uk

391–400 of 445 posts

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

#391
post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give any more detail on how you did this? Is squid the proxy? How does it know which traffic is doh? What do you do with those requests?

Yes, I've installed my own cert to negotiate HTTPS connections, then proxy through software to check the contents being sent. Basically the same process that some companies use for similar purposes.

This response is just handwaving and avoids the question. Why even bother?

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

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waiting for the day when augmented reality glasses let you block irl ads. Realistically it'll be the opposite first of course.

I think the technology is actually more or less there already. We just need a few enterprising individuals to come up with a polished device for that.

The device is the hard part. AR hardware that occludes the real word is a difficult challenge.

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

#393
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Waiting for the day when augmented reality glasses let you block irl ads. Realistically it'll be the opposite first of course.

Obligatory: https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs?t=3

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

#394
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The numbers agree. Only 69 Cyrillic domains (second-level) registered last year. Chinese is the most popular, but only 760 for 2022 and the aggregate trend is down: 2016: 2378 2018: 2252 2020: 1675 2022: 1518 Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Annual Report 2022 [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-annual-repor...

Oh wow, that is super interesting data!!! Thanks for sharing

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

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you bother to register your phone then? I've used many smartphones and never registered any of them. I wouldn't give the time of day to Google or Apple let alone my personal details. Similarly, I use Firefox on Linux but I also regularly browse the web or post to HN on a phone that's been heavily deloused of Google using Firefox and other browsers—but never Chrome.

I've used many smartphones and never registered any of them. When I say register, I meant sign up for the wireless service. I did not already have an account. I was on my wifi and browsed to the wireless provider to activate my sim card and get a phone number. I could have done this on my PC but doing that on my cell verified with the vendor that my phone was supported since I am using an off-brand device. It was eas…

Fine, that all makes sense. As I posted elsewhere here, the problem of getting replacement ROMs is considerably harder than it was a few years back. I now go to considerable lengths to check if a suitable ROM is available before I buy a phone. I also don't buy one when first released, I want to see how a ROM market develops or if it's well supported. It's also a reason for keeping old phones or getting friends and relatives to give me their old ones, chances are they're easier to root/re-ROM.

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

#396

There are a lot of great addons that improve browsing immensely. I'll dump mine: * ublock origin: block ads * uBlacklist: block domains from Google search results * SponsorBlock: skip sponsored segments in youtube videos * Thumbnail Rating Bar for YouTube™: show a rating bar along the bottom of each YouTube search result * Firefox Multi-Account containers: Site storage segmentation * Bypass Paywalls Clean: bypass sit…

Bypass Paywalls Clean is no longer on the Firefox add-ons website.

You have to get updates here: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...

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

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that it does not block first party ads by default (and also makes money by serving their own first party ads to users).

I don't see any ads. You can turn them off.

You can not say a browser is built to block ads when showing ads is literally how it makes money. You maybe turned it off, but most people didn't. If everybody turned it off, it would not have a revenue stream.

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use uBlock Origin's element picker and element blocker features to just make the popup notices disappear, without accepting them. But that's mostly just a habit of mine that I know is pretty useless, as websites don't need cookies to track you, and I really don't know why they even bother anymore.

Try using the extension "I don't care about cookies" It's excellent. I have needed to disable it occasionally to make basic site functionality work on some sites that I absolutely need to use, though I'm forgetting which ones.

ICYMI: That extension was bought up by Avast.

https://www.androidpolice.com/i-dont-care-about-cookies-acqu...

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

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use uBlock Origin's element picker and element blocker features to just make the popup notices disappear, without accepting them. But that's mostly just a habit of mine that I know is pretty useless, as websites don't need cookies to track you, and I really don't know why they even bother anymore.

Try using the extension "I don't care about cookies" It's excellent. I have needed to disable it occasionally to make basic site functionality work on some sites that I absolutely need to use, though I'm forgetting which ones.

I've used Cookie AutoDelete. It was good. Is "I don't care about cookies better"? If so, how?

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

#400
post #169
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…

DoH uses UDP, not TCP. Unless you're using HTTP3/QUIC, you can block port 443/UDP. And hey, maybe one day advertisements will be served directly via IP addresses, not domains:)

There's nothing stopping you just making your own REST API and responding over HTTPS that returns hostname records for any service you build or run - it doesn't even need to use an existing DoH standard. These are exactly the sort of tricks stuff like IoT devices are already using to ensure they can phone home regardless of your network's DNS settings.

DoH is literally just "DNS over HTTPS" (hence the TCP a lot of the time) and you can build this a ton of different ways, including as a basic RESTful API. Local javascript on the page could literally just call any old HTTPS web API to get hostnames resolved, and thanks to HTTPS is much harder to detect, inspect and interfere with than traditional DNS. Fundamentally, a DNS request is a really basic API to implement.

This is why DoH is so hard to conclusively block - its by design to look like "normal" web traffic so bad actors are prevented from manipulating your DNS responses, and the implementation can be done pretty much anyway you want - there are a million different ways to pass a message over HTTPS, and to a firewall they all look like the exact same normal HTTPS traffic if you don't explicitly block the IP or domain serving the DoH.

Post reply on HN