11–20 of 133 posts
Is chrome going to block uBO im never up to date on the latest. I do know theyre allowing 3rd party cookies now... so maybe theres a chance
uBlock Origin is what makes Firefox even greater and definitely one big reason I use Firefox over Chrome etc. It make the Internet browsable.
Plus I personally consider ads a cancer of modern society. White and not so white lies, manipulation... nothing respectable regardless (or because ) of tremendous money circulating in it.
As an example of what CNAME cloaking is, let's say that a SAAS provider A wants to provide you, company Q, with fancy ad tracking software. In the olden days, they'd tell you to embed a script at e.g. https://A-ads-tracking.example into your website at address https://q-company.example To block those ads, blocklists that uBlock Origin use have rules then that say "block requests being made to the domain name A-ads-tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Ads and analytics providers have started doing this to get around third-party cookie protections.
I always find this development curious. About a decade ago I worked in this space. When someone brought up ad blockers I just said "put the analytics on our main domain. No one is going to block the entire website". The answer I got was "no one would ever do that because of the implications of serving advertising from your main domain". Yet, here we are.
Now that thanks to EU laws and browser imposing restrictions about third-party cookies it's more difficult, the whole "serve ads from other domain" may not be that relevant anyway.
If you use a random wildcard subdomain... just serve them from the main website, what is the difference? On the other side with a proxy just route the AD requests to another server if it needs to be, of course you have to find a way to distinguish which requests are for AD and which are not, something you can do with some sort of signature in the filename, so that only the server can know which requests shall be handled locally and which one forwarded to the AD provider server.
CNAME cloaking? Does this mean an ad site may use a randomly generated subdomain pointing to a wildcard record?
Normally when you visit contentsite.com which serves ads from adsite.com. Adblocker rules can just block adsite.com and the ads won't be shown. CNAME cloaking would have the main site have a subdomain like adsite.contentsite.com point to adsite.com, now the adblockers have the impossible task of blocking millions of subdomains that seemingly belong to legit sites, this also allows the legit sites to keep changing the subdomain since the adblocker will have no idea which subdomains serve legit content vs ads. As a bonus since the content is being served from the same domain, they can bypass certain cookie browser policies and track users even better.
This update allows you to set rules so that you can filter by resolved ip.
CNAME cloaking? Does this mean an ad site may use a randomly generated subdomain pointing to a wildcard record?
Yes. Ads and analytics providers have started doing this to get around third-party cookie protections.
That said, the average person's conception of what acceptable needs to change. I did briefly think that they need suffer through more ad-infestation first, but I realized that the answer is more in line with what my wife seemed to have gone through. The low exposure to ads made her less willing to deal with them. This might be the way forward.
It is hard for a person used to existing ecosystem to even imagine, there could be something better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Ads and analytics providers have started doing this to get around third-party cookie protections.
I always find this development curious. About a decade ago I worked in this space. When someone brought up ad blockers I just said "put the analytics on our main domain. No one is going to block the entire website". The answer I got was "no one would ever do that because of the implications of serving advertising from your main domain". Yet, here we are.
Is chrome going to block uBO im never up to date on the latest. I do know theyre allowing 3rd party cookies now... so maybe theres a chance
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-w...
CNAME cloaking? Does this mean an ad site may use a randomly generated subdomain pointing to a wildcard record?
That's part of it. Normally when you visit contentsite.com which serves ads from adsite.com. Adblocker rules can just block adsite.com and the ads won't be shown. CNAME cloaking would have the main site have a subdomain like adsite.contentsite.com point to adsite.com, now the adblockers have the impossible task of blocking millions of subdomains that seemingly belong to legit sites, this also allows the legit sites t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Ads and analytics providers have started doing this to get around third-party cookie protections.
This is such an intrusion of privacy. I wish I could just disable cookies entirely but the usability of many webpages just goes down. I should not be punished for not wanting 3rd party trackers.
(I guess ad providers have gotten good enough to not need cookies? Like they know my browser window size, installed fonts, GPU vendor and model, IP address, geolocation, header order, etc. so they don't even need cookies anymore to track my activity across the web? I suppose it was only a matter of time.)