Jump to content

Welcome to nsane.forums

Welcome to nsane.forums, like most online communities you need to register to view parts of our community or to make contributions, but don't worry: this is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of nsane.forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Access special members only forums
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates

Batu69

Ad blocking is under attack

55 posts in this topic

Quote

The domain in question hosts an image describing its work as "used by digital publishers to control access to copyrighted content in accordance with the DMCA and understand how visitors are accessing their copyrighted content".

 

However, further research showed that this domain hosts the code of an anti-adblocking startup Admiral, so we can assume that it is the company we should blame for this. Where did they get this glorious idea? The wording of the original comment from 23 days ago awfully reminds me of this post claiming that DMCA can be applied to ad blockers.

Why should I care?

This might set a very important precedent of an advertising company exploiting DMCA to force people to see their ads, and can lead to ridiculous consequences if left unnoticed.

This affects only those Users who rely solely on subscription to filter lists — it fails to affect Users like me who are free to include to their custom filter lists, any such rule which is otherwise prohibited. B)

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

This affects only those Users who rely solely on subscription to filter lists — it fails to affect Users like me who are free to include to their custom filter lists, any such rule which is otherwise prohibited. B)

You gotta be loving the feature of disabling invidual filter rules, which was not possible in your earlier adblocker.

So any sneaky exception that they might have added can easily disabled in one simple click.

And ofcourse, the option to create a robust filter rule, overpowering($important-modifier) the ones contained is always there

Edited by Undertaker
3 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adguard must have borrowed inspiration for the individual filter rules from Adblock Plus — wish they had flicked the following 2 features as well:—

  • sorting feature, and
  • number of hits
1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dcs18 said:

Adguard must have borrowed inspiration for the individual filter rules from Adblock Plus — wish they had flicked the following 2 features as well:—

  • sorting feature, and
  • number of hits

If you can explain why you need those two, I think I have the solution.

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you've decided to implement the a default block-all-allow-select policy, it grows exceedingly difficult with the present Adguard structure to determine priority whitelist rules on a singularity basis.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Once you've decided to implement the a default block-all-allow-select policy, it grows exceedingly difficult with the present Adguard structure to determine priority whitelist rules on a singularity basis.

You mean to create whitelist rules on a per site basis?

Is the search option and then typing the site not helping you?

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The search option is indeed helpful but not as much as those 2 missing features — they are also the one of the reasons why Users of Adblock Plus refuse to switch to any other blocker.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dcs18 said:

The search option is indeed helpful but not as much as those 2 missing features — they are also the one of the reasons why Users of Adblock Plus refuse to switch to any other blocker.

I'm failing to understand the utility of those two in what you want to achieve.

The search, filtering log and others were able to provide me ample support.

 

Maybe an example can help.

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Undertaker said:

The search, filtering log and others were able to provide me ample support.

Which are the elements that you allow on a default basis?

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Which are the elements that you allow on a default basis?

You are speaking of adguard or uB0 -uMatrix combo?

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@dcs18

When I was using Adguard, I didn't follow any particular policy, I was just depending on filter lists.

 

Now when I have started using uBo-uMatrix combo, I have my adblocker  enabled for all the sites whereas the uMatrix is only enabled for selected sites which I visit on a daily basis.

This has ensured that sites which are not visited often are not broken by uMatrix or requires time to be fixed and that too just for one instance of visiting it. At the same time, since uBo is there, there are no ads on those sites.

 

On sites, I visit daily/regular basis, I have uMtrix set up as:default block-all; & css, image and first party scripts allowed - that is the only common element.

Other entries in the matrix are fixed/allowed on the site basis.

 

This fits my needs well.

Edited by Undertaker
2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

On sites, I visit daily/regular basis, I have uMtrix set up as:default block-all; & css, image and first party scripts allowed - that is the only common element.

uMatrix has the most user-friendly UI with a single click implementation which is extremely conducive to the block-all-allow-select policy — besides in your particular case, you had the complete backup of my filters as also my configuration (uMatrix + uBlock) which would have certainly helped as a starting point.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

@dcs18

When I was using Adguard, I didn't follow any particular policy, I was just depending on filter lists.

When I started-off with Adguard, the slate was wiped clean — each filter and rule is being crafted from scratch.

 

It doesn't help either that Adguard has a very unintuitive logging system.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

uMatrix has the most user-friendly UI with a single click implementation which is extremely conducive to the block-all-allow-select policy — besides in your particular case, you had the complete backup of my filters as also my configuration (uMatrix + uBlock) which would have certainly helped as a starting point.

I took what I needed from your config.

But if you remember from our convo, I also said that I can't follow the strict block principle. I understand why you require such a setup but that is not me.

For e.g.  If I had blocked it all on a site, and the site had a twitter frame and instagram post, I would spend too much time fixing it. and that too just for one visit of that site.

Now you could say that I could have globally allowed them but again that is also not what I want.

 

6 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

It doesn't help either that Adguard has a very unintuitive logging system.

Have you tried the AG integration mode? Would recommend this on sys admin system only and not the customer PC.

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Adguard integration add-on does not work on the Nightlies — another bug which I wanted to report at their forums.

 

On client machines I allow neither visibility of Adguard nor the Assistant.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dcs18 said:

The Adguard integration add-on does not work on the Nightlies — another bug which I wanted to report at their forums.

 

On client machines I allow neither visibility of Adguard nor the Assistant.

Doesn't work with or without e10s?

Now that you mention it, I think someone reported it.

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't tried without the e10s.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

Haven't tried without the e10s.

If it helps just create a new profile, and create rules using that new profile, and otherwise use just the normally configured one.

Edited by Undertaker
2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is easier accomplished on e10s with the Adguard Assistant — it works (not on 100% of the pages, though — another bug.)

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Example of site and what you wanna accomplish,plz?

 

14 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

That is easier accomplished on e10s with the Adguard Assistant — it works (not on 100% of the pages, though — another bug.)

Also, it's possible that on sites with assistant missing, they maybe on HTTPS exclusion list, provided you have created rules for showing assistant on each site since you are using a closed down config.

Edited by Undertaker
2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

The Adguard integration add-on does not work on the Nightlies — another bug which I wanted to report at their forums.

Workaround:-

Set the following entry

extensions.webextensions.remote;false
Spoiler

 

http://i.imgur.com/CLQeI6y.png

 

 

2 people liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

Also, it's possible that on sites with assistant missing, they maybe on HTTPS exclusion list, provided you have created rules for showing assistant on each site since you are using a closed down config.

I hear what you're saying but once the User has enabled the option to Filter HTTPS protocol, the Adguard Assistant needs to be made available regardless of whether the said site is on the HTTPS exclusion list or not (IMHO, this is a bug.)

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a deep discussion but it help us, not so experts in this subject, to begin to understand it. Thanks.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Undertaker said:
  Hide contents

 

http://i.imgur.com/CLQeI6y.png

 

 

Is your version of Firefox allowing you the capability of promoting your add-ons to your pseudo status bar (instead of the Navigation Bar?)

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Batu69 said:

The "functionalclam.com" domain was removed with a comment "Removed due to DMCA takedown request".

 

That isn't a problem.  Their IP, 104.198.107.72, was added to my firewall.  As long as the lists inform us of what they were forced to remove then we can manually add them to uBlock, our firewalls, or to personal lists that some users maintain.

1 person liked / thanked this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

×