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

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#471

Post by maineagetter »

sneak wrote: post #441
djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that definition, all politics is "hate". Passing a law will always take away the rights of a group in some way or other, and politics is the debate of whether or not that's a good or bad thing. Personally I'm 100% for letting everyone express their gender or sexual identities. But I'm not going to demonize someone for having a different opinion and making a small donation to support their political views.

Perhaps you should. Some opinions and political views (such as those against human rights) are abhorrent. Deciding that you will turn your head the other way and ignore those who act against human rights speaks to your character.

[dead]

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#472

Post by deryilz »

userbinator wrote: post #427
deryilz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here, sorry. I don't think any open-source extension (especially large adblockers with millions of users) could actually get away with using this bug, because Google is paying close attention to them. It would've been patched immediately either way.

[flagged]

Hi, I appreciate your opinion, but really disagree. First of all, this is one bug, and most of the ones I find don't "act against user's interests" (not that this one could have been used effectively without being patched anyway). Doing bug finding is how I make a difference and a skill I feel proud of.

I USED to keep bugs (read: exploits) for myself without sharing them, but after a while I realized it was not worth it and my skills were basically going to waste. You can say philosophical stuff about ads if you want but bug finding for me is a fun challenge with a good community. I'm not pretending Google is my best friend.

Plus, doing this gets me a bit of money. It's either this or I work summers at a grocery store, and I prefer this.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#473

Post by chmod775 »

whatshisface wrote: post #462
mrcsharp wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" .... Because that's what it means to be a hacker. Yes, installing Firefox is simpler (and I'm a Firefox user) but I respect the effort to overcome Google's measures in disallowing certain addons.

> But I don't know how to make an adblocker, so I decided to report the issue to Google in August 2023. It was patched in Chrome 118 by checking whether extensions using opt_webViewInstanceId actually had WebView permissions. For the report, I netted a massive reward of $0. They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. The ef…

It was never going to last long enough anyways, being sure to get patched as soon as any adblocker uses it.

It's however still interesting in the sense that it might be fairly trivial to change, so chances are the next adblockers are going to ship executable that wrap chrome, modifying something like that at launch, allowing their extension to make use of it.

Obviously Google is going to hate it when random popular extensions start nagging users to download and install "companion" software in order to work, since that will train users to not think twice about these things and bypasses legitimate security efforts.

But Google made their own bed - and that of their users. Now they all get to lie in it together.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#474

Post by ozim »

fooker wrote: post #413
zulban wrote: post #361

I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…

Great, except firefox is pretty bad nowadays. Not their fault of course, with people not testing websites on non chrome derived browsers.

FF is my daily driver and I don’t see any issues. Do you have examples?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#475

Post by bowsamic »

perching_aix wrote: post #160
kentm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think they need to for there to be value. Sure, maybe there’s spyware in free software that they haven’t found. But we know that these advertising companies are putting e-stalking code into all their products right now. Trading that certainty for an unknown is a net benefit.

Tracking typically works through fingerprinting. Using free software alone won't magically protect you against this, every website's a program with JavaScript on. Lots of free software is also multiplatform. You'll want to apply additional defensive measures, but you can apply those even on Windows, running Firefox or Chrome. Mind you, you'll then stand out for using those defensive measures. I generally appreciate s…

> "Just install Linux bro, it's better than pussy bro. What, u still got dat spyin machine goin on?? [links a 30 minute Mutahar video with him faffing about with some technologically trivial bollocks he visibly barely understands]" Please. I think it's pretty agreeable at least that this about as far removed from well supported decision making as one can casually get to be.

Such a person may exist but why do you insist that that person is here in the room with us? Let us talk and find out what the other people are like. You’ve already shown what you really are like: someone who will assert that the others are a certain way even before they talk

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#476

Post by scotty79 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #294
irrational wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the author reported it. Personally I would have told the ublock origin developers instead of google.

To what end? So Google can see how it works and still patch it?

At least it would make them work for it.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#477

Post by eviks »

raincole wrote: post #59
labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

Youtube premium has been ad-free for 10 years. What kind of track record do you need? 20 years? 100 years?

It has never been ad-free, sponsored segments have always existed

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#479

Post by eviks »

raincole wrote: post #119
vinyl7 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix and other streaming sites have ads on some paid subscriptions. First they start with ad free subs, then introduce ads and introduce a higher priced tier to get rid of ads

So if one supermarket sold expired food, we should avoid another supermarket that has not been doing that for 10 years? Google/Youtube doesn't own Netflix. If anything, the reasonable response would be to unsub Netflix and sub its competitors, like, uh, Youtube.

No, if all the big supermarkets sell expired food from time to time to meet profitability expectations, there is no reason to believe one will be so unique as to be able to resist using the same industry standard, especially when it already has a much bigger expired food business

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#480

Post by bravesoul2 »

arcfour wrote: post #369
zulban wrote: post #361

I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypa…

You should read the article before commenting; your comment is a non-sequitur.

It's a oui-sequitur for sure.
Post reply on HN