"Compilation Of Tutorials, Guides, Tips & Updates"

[Undertaker]

2 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

BTW, why don't you file a bug report with Alex mentioning that Windows Firewall Control (WFC) fails to block the IDM IP, 169.55.0.224 and 185.80.221.18 consistently.

But this is not a WFC bug, it's a Windows Firewall bug and I have seen him rejecting requests which asks him to do something extra which Windows firewall can't do.

[dcs18]

27 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

36 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Undertaker,

 

You might also want to include a little sentence on your tutorial stating that, "Adguard is one of the superior ad. blockers."

Don't want to get a war started out lol

When folks decide to finally change a major component of their security, it's a really huge leap of faith — for example, the number of folks that contacted me, via PM just to understand about the process involved in switching from Windows Firewall Control (WFC) to COMODO.

 

They were all fence-sitting — but, when they realized that COMODO replaces not only their firewall but also their anti-executable, they decided to take the leap.

 

IMO, not many would switch over to Adguard merely for the sake of retaining IDM activation — however, the reality that Adguard would be also replacing their ad. blocker could make a difference to most.

[Undertaker]

14 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

When folks decide to finally change a major component of their security, it's a really huge leap of faith

That's very true.

 

14 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

IMO, not many would switch over to Adguard merely for the sake of retaining IDM activation

I am also not expecting them to switch to an almost 60$ product for retaining activation of a 25$ product. But those who have the license(are users) or know how to *cough cough* do Adguard magic would certainly love the idea.

 

14 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

however, the reality that Adguard would be also replacing their ad. blocker could make a difference to most.

This IMO is the biggest factor. I will not lie, I have had the tendency to move away from Adguard at times but within a day of switching to the competition, I am back to it. The advantages the program offer (over the extension, not just adguard extension) is very beneficial for the not so tech-savvy or newbie users or the set once and forget it type.

[dcs18]

30 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

37 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

BTW, why don't you file a bug report with Alex mentioning that Windows Firewall Control (WFC) fails to block the IDM IP, 169.55.0.224 and 185.80.221.18 consistently.

But this is not a WFC bug, it's a Windows Firewall bug and I have seen him rejecting requests which asks him to do something extra which Windows firewall can't do.

That's precisely the reason why I switched immediately to COMODO, without even waiting to file the report myself.

 

Depending on Microsoft to resolve this bug is hopeless — however, while Alex may reject it, there's no harm in broaching the subject (just refrain from treating it as a bug — introduce the subject as a mere observation.)

 

One never knows — it could kick-up a huge storm.

[dcs18]

22 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

But those who have the license(are users) or know how to *cough cough* do Adguard magic would certainly love the idea.

This is just another tutorial you could take on — nothing convinces better than demonstrating.

[Undertaker]

37 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

introduce the subject as a mere observation.

This is the problem, I would have to use a demo, which would lead a whole wilders rage against me(probably a potential ban also).

 

21 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

This is just another tutorial you could take on — nothing convinces better than demonstrating.

The way I use it, although clean, is not suitable for an average user.Not that they can't use it but they would find it bothersome to follow and the problem is not everyone would use/prefer Adguard in the same way as me. It's perfect for client deployment though where the System Administrator has the control and all the clients follow him/her.

Nonetheless, I see @sledge101 and @knowledge have since then not only amply demonstrated the Lifetime trial thing but other premium methods too in the Adguard ToolBox.

[Undertaker]

4 minutes ago, 0bin said:

There was or still there is also the useragent method to "cough-cough" for 15$ 3+3 lifetimes.

There was and there still is the @Undertaker method to *cough cough* for ...well see it yourself

 

[dcs18]

I see that the Tonec decision to tighten-up their IDM activation has cost them dearly — hoping for folks to continue finding some more devious new fixing methods.

[straycat19]

2 hours ago, dcs18 said:

That's precisely the reason why I switched immediately to COMODO, without even waiting to file the report myself.

 

Depending on Microsoft to resolve this bug is hopeless — however, while Alex may reject it, there's no harm in broaching the subject (just refrain from treating it as a bug — introduce the subject as a mere observation.)

 

 

In a previous post you stated Comodo was bloated, I didn't realize how bloated.  It's not really a firewall anymore.  According to EricJH at Comodo they removed IDS from the firewall some time back.  The bloat is caused by all the AV and other crap they put in it.  What the world needs is a great standalone firewall without any of the other junk and one that works without over taxing the system.  Still trying to find one since they all seem bloated or inept.

[A.lemane]

2 hours ago, straycat19 said:

 

In a previous post you stated Comodo was bloated, I didn't realize how bloated.  It's not really a firewall anymore.  According to EricJH at Comodo they removed IDS from the firewall some time back.  The bloat is caused by all the AV and other crap they put in it.  What the world needs is a great standalone firewall without any of the other junk and one that works without over taxing the system.  Still trying to find one since they all seem bloated or inept.

i just came by after uninstalling it ^^ & i agree  

(was testing it but its definitely not the same)

[hamanokaito]

Can I update my fix here?

[dcs18]

1 hour ago, hamanokaito said:

Can I update my fix here?

Please feel welcome to use this thread as your very own — I'm here only to facilitate.

[hamanokaito]

Currently my computer has sector errors. So i just can update for some sv windows.

Update for windows enter 64b, pro 64b, tlbs 64b.

Site: https://mega.nz
Sharecode^[?]: /#!QJUTWDAL!A0US8ZSzJUTmV6PVmem5aKt8bDuJEJfouNsHhhfN7M8

Pass: hamanokaito

 

P/s: To use option 2 you need uninstall, If you used option 3.

If you fist install idm you can use option 2 don't need uninstall.

[dcs18]

Links at the OP and credits duly updated to reflect and point to the new update for hamanokaito's Registry Permission fix.

[Dukun Cabul]

22 hours ago, Undertaker said:

 

://*internetdownloadmanager.com^$important,app=IDMan.exe
://*registeridm.com^$important,app=IDMan.exe
://*tonec.com^$important,app=IDMan.exe

 

 

 

I'm using a little bit different strings

 

Spoiler

 

||internetdownloadmanager.com
||registeridm.com
||tonec.com

 

 

My AdGuard Rules

[Undertaker]

2 hours ago, Dukun Cabul said:

I'm using a little bit different strings

@Dukun Cabul Hi, nice to see you using Adguard and trying out this method.

 

As for your little diversion, here are my observations:-

• Those rules you mentioned work well and can be used. However, personally I won't be using them in this form.
• The addition of modifier $app in my rule($app=IDMan.exe) limits the rule to just IDM, the program and not the system as a whole. For e.g. the rule which you have mentioned is active even in the browser and distorts the IDM site formatting without serving any purpose.
• The addition of modifier $important in my rule is to provide for future uncertainities. It is very much possible for IDM or Tonec as whole to get itself whitelisted in filter lists or even adblockers. The addition of $important modifier would make sure that even if they get themselves whitelisted, my rule would still overpower it(they leave that scope to the end user).
• Making the rule in this form - ://*internetdownloadmanager.com^ as against something like this ||internetdownloadmanager.com, also has a purpose. The former responds faster. You can try it out yourself, add both the rules(you can even put your rule at the top of User FIlter and mine at the bottom)  and when you will see the filtering log, you will observe ://*internetdownloadmanager.com responds and blocks faster than ||internetdownloadmanager.com .

But it all comes down to personal choices. As said earlier, those rules work fine but are not to my taste.

 

@dcs18 The more we are trying to stay away from adblocker discussion, the more we're getting entangled into the nuances of the discussion.

[Dukun Cabul]

9 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

@Dukun Cabul Hi, nice to see you using Adguard and trying out this method.

 

As for your little diversion, here are my observations:-

• Those rules you mentioned work well and can be used. However, personally I won't be using them in this form.
• The addition of modifier $app in my rule($app=IDMan.exe) limits the rule to just IDM, the program and not the system as a whole. For e.g. the rule which you have mentioned is active even in the browser and distorts the IDM site formatting without serving any purpose.
• The addition of modifier $important in my rule is to provide for future uncertainities. It is very much possible for IDM or Tonec as whole to get itself whitelisted in filter lists or even adblockers. The addition of $important modifier would make sure that even if they get themselves whitelisted, my rule would still overpower it(they leave that scope to the end user).
• Making the rule in this form - ://*internetdownloadmanager.com^ as against something like this ||internetdownloadmanager.com, also has a purpose. The former responds faster. You can try it out yourself, add both the rules(you can even put your rule at the top of User FIlter and mine at the bottom)  and when you will see the filtering log, you will observe ://*internetdownloadmanager.com responds and blocks faster than ||internetdownloadmanager.com .

But it all comes down to personal choices. As said earlier, those rules work fine but are not to my taste.

 

@dcs18 The more we are trying to stay away from adblocker discussion, the more we're getting entangled into the nuances of the discussion.

 

Good explanation ...... crystal clear !

[Ice Frog]

On 6/15/2017 at 8:04 PM, Undertaker said:

uBlock has also come a long way since then but even now it's not to my taste. If (that's a big if)for the extensions/addons, I would prefer ABP(with EHH) for FF and uBlock for Chrome.

 

Somewhere here, I made a post about the style modifier tag. uBlock supports it fully, Adguard(even the full program) only partially supports it. By using this tag, you can basically modify the elements of a page like changing square avatars into circular ones, apply different background colors to nsane themes, change the pixel size for a frame and much more.

 

For e.g

nsaneforums.com###ipsLayout_header header:style(background-color:#323232 !important)

The above rules provide a dark color to nsane header.

 

@Ice Frog  Has been using these types of rules but I quit uBlock(was testing something) in between and he only has half the rules

 

Now this rule is also possible to execute with Adguard(since it deals with only a single element). But if there are more than one element, that's where Adguard takes a step back. uBlock though successfully creates a rule with even multiple elements within a single rule.

 

There are other things that are peculiar to each of the adblockers but it would take more of discussion and posts.

but u not give me full rules, it blue at places.

[Undertaker]

9 hours ago, Ice Frog said:

but u not give me full rules, it blue at places.

As I told in that post, I'm no longer using uBlock, maybe one day if I try it again.

Until then, you either be satisfied with what you have or use the default provided themes.

[dcs18]

On 6/14/2017 at 1:20 PM, dcs18 said:

Windows Firewall (as most other popular firewalls) has a bug which cannot possibly block the present Tonec implementation of DNS cache poisoning, riding piggyback on svchost.exe packets — the bad news, Tonec has even been successful in bypassing the reverse DNS protection.

 

On 6/13/2017 at 11:43 PM, dcs18 said:

COMODO is the only firewall that has (so far) been able to retain my activation without any assistance from any other tool such as DNS, hosts or PLP — it just blocks each and every one of those 31 IDM IPs.

 

The reason why COMODO is able to offer protection against ARP spoofing & cache poisoning is that it encrypts the DNS — it accomplishes this by routing all the traffic through it's own Network Adapter created during installation, known as COMODO Internet Security Firewall Driver.

[Undertaker]

@dcs18 Where/How do I change the Member Title?

[dcs18]

Profile >>----> Edit Profile >>----> Member Title.

[Undertaker]

1 minute ago, dcs18 said:

Profile >>----> Edit Profile >>----> Member Title.

Can't find it.

Seems like it requires some extra privileges(posts count) to do that now.

Thanx anyways

[dcs18]

Which one of those three, are you not able to find?

[Undertaker]

Just now, dcs18 said:

Which one of those three, are you not able to find?

Member Title.