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.
The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
71–80 of 445 posts
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#72It 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.
There's been a series of malware distribution ads pretending to be blender.org popping up at the top of Google results on and off for months.
1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/109yjxm/dont_click...
2 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zewem3/beware_of_p...
4 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/xxkx5s/warning_som...
7 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/vuqu1r/hey_so_what...
Pretty sad state of affairs that Google can't or won't stop this, especially since they gradually redesigned the ads spots to look practically identical to the search results. Be very careful clicking anything on Google's search results.
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#73Here 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...
I'm not even a native english speaker and my native language does have accentuated characters so there's that...
I don't like to have to set rules in browsers: I'll do it when mandatory but I prefer things that the browser won't change during it's next update and, also, I use several browsers.
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#74[deleted]
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#75They don't like the competition.
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#76Make ad brokers share responsibility for losses due to scam ads. If the ad broker is unable to clearly identify the advertiser for lawsuit purposes, the ad broker should face consequences. They're assisting the criminal by helping them hide.
I like this
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#77Here 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…
> While these are all good practices, killing DoH conclusively on your home network is more difficult than you've made it seem
Oh I know but so far you can still ask both Firefox and Chromium to not use DoH and hence force them to use port 53 and from what I've seen they really honor that. For the moment.
I don't doubt that in a not so distant future we may see companies hardcoding DoH into apps without any possibility of removing that setting!
What I do is no panacea but it gets rid of a lot of things.
> There are so many sneaky ways to resolve a hostname an app or device can choose to use now.
But I whitelist apps that can connect to the net. Browsers, apt (for Debian/Devuan package update), the one that update the NTP/time, SSH out and that's basically it.
I know it's a game of whack-a-mole, but I'm still playing it : )
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#78Or, 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.
Not comparable but NextDNS has been working well for me on iOS.
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave, Firefox, Bromite all do, or you can use nextdns or adguard as a private DNS in your network settings. I think the last option is a little wireguard set up to route traffic to a server or small pc that has unbound and pinhole on it
DNS adblocking isn't even remotely comparable to ublock origin
Can you please elaborate on this? thanks
Re: The FBI now recommends using an ad blocker when searching the web
#80Or, 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.
Brave browser on iOS has good blocking, but the browser experience itself is a bit of a mixed bag.