Use of Ad-Blocking Software Rises by 30% Worldwide - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;51773746]Quite useful: [url]http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/[/url][/QUOTE] Used this for a long time now Combined with paid malwarebytes, scriptblock, and ublock (Hosts file can't get 100% of all ads) it's pretty fucking amazing [editline]5th February 2017[/editline] hell with how effective MB is paying for it was 100% worth it

Sites like kisscartoon and kissanime like to make intrusive ads which probably carry viruses. Adblock is no longer a convenience, it is a protection.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;51775071][t]http://i.imgur.com/Xxv3cK3.jpg[/t] Don't ever use TV youtube. It once gave me an ad that was just somebodies playthrough of a Destiny level. A whole 3 minute video that wasn't even an Ad. If I quit the app, it would just restart it from the beginning. I don't even /OWN/ Destiny. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A61e6MeUIKo[/url] That was the video it forced me to sit through.[/QUOTE] I once got one that was somebodies "hacking a CS skins website" video. I was like "Wut"

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51778513]What are bugs and exploits? You clearly have no idea what you're actually talking about. A lot of work may go into security but it's impossible to always catch all security bugs and exploits. Software is kinda extremely complicated and sometimes acts in unexpected ways.[/QUOTE] Yes I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about despite the fact that I'm a programmer and know a lot about security. Yes, it's impossible to catch everything, but it's pretty damn secure. I don't think I've ever had a website exploit Chrome, even with adblock off. Again like I said, it's very unlikely, I never said it was impossible. But thanks for being a condescending prick by assuming my intelligence.

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51781223]Yes I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about despite the fact that I'm a programmer and know a lot about security. Yes, it's impossible to catch everything, but it's pretty damn secure. I don't think I've ever had a website exploit Chrome, even with adblock off. Again like I said, it's very unlikely, I never said it was impossible. But thanks for being a condescending prick by assuming my intelligence.[/QUOTE] Well when you act as if it's impossible it's pretty easy to judge you that way. The last piece of malware I caught was because of a Google ad. And not only did it come from an ad on a fully up-to-date browser but it was overlooked by both Malwarebytes as well as Comodo Antivirus until it had already done its damage. So if you're pretending it's a nonissue then yes, you can't be particularly smart regardless of whether you're a programmer. (In fact I'd say being a programmer and having that opinion says a lot more about your intelligence than if you weren't a programmer where it could at least be blamed on ignorance.)

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51776514]WebKit (layout engine for Safari and Chrome) has so many security vulnerabilities it isn't even funny. As a side note, though, that makes it useful for gaining homebrew access on the 3DS and even kernel-level access on the Wii U :v:[/QUOTE] Chrome doesn't use WebKit anymore, it uses [url=http://www.chromium.org/blink]Blink[/url]. While it's a fork of WebKit, it isn't WebKit, and is being developed likely at a faster pace than WebKit. Is The Wii U using WebKit 2? I thought it was WebKit 1?

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51781223]Yes I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about despite the fact that I'm a programmer and know a lot about security. Yes, it's impossible to catch everything, but it's pretty damn secure. I don't think I've ever had a website exploit Chrome, even with adblock off. Again like I said, it's very unlikely, I never said it was impossible. But thanks for being a condescending prick by assuming my intelligence.[/QUOTE] And my dad works for Nintendo etc. etc. What kind of programmer? How long have you been a programmer? I mean just because you're a programmer doesn't mean you know how browser security works. For instance, it's still possible to exploit history.pushState()

There's a lot of reasons I use ad protection addons. I think the worst ads I've come across recently are ones that contain shocking imagery, like people with gross disease.

[QUOTE=Grandzeit;51783573]There's a lot of reasons I use ad protection addons. I think the worst ads I've come across recently are ones that contain shocking imagery, like people with gross disease.[/QUOTE] Oh, please. Thanks to Juicyads I got ransomware once.

Especially when you are trying to jackoff and they keep telling you about how some guy can fix your pipes

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51783499]And my dad works for Nintendo etc. etc. What kind of programmer? How long have you been a programmer? I mean just because you're a programmer doesn't mean you know how browser security works. For instance, it's still possible to exploit history.pushState()[/QUOTE] What kind of exploit? The only thing I can find about pushState is that it could be used to freeze the browser. That doesn't put you in any danger though, it just requires your browser to be restarted

[QUOTE=uber.;51783632]Oh, please. Thanks to Juicyads I got ransomware once.[/QUOTE] Shit you get through ads is almost always super easy to get rid of, though. I'd rather get some budget malware than get surprised by a close-up of someone's disgusting ear infection. Getting neither works for me, too. :v:

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51783954]What kind of exploit? The only thing I can find about pushState is that it could be used to freeze the browser. That doesn't put you in any danger though, it just requires your browser to be restarted[/QUOTE] Yes, that kind of exploit. Now add that to an advertisement, and you've managed to cause a slight inconvenience. I'm not sure what your argument is though. That bowsers are secure because the people who makes the browser says so, and you've never tried it? [URL="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/11/08/bug-chrome-mobile-android-malware/"]It's still a thing[/URL] though, to have drive-by malware.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;51774878]It's not my responsibility to uphold a failed business model.[/QUOTE] If it weren't for the security risks ads tend to bring, I'd be anti-adblock just on principle- as a business model, ads are a lot friendlier to the consumer than paywalls or selling user data to third-parties. They're basically the price of admission. But thanks to malware, there are good reasons to block ads, so it is what it is. So while I agree that it's not your responsibility to risk your security for the sake of someone else's profit, I'm genuinely concerned about what the end of advertisement as a revenue stream is going to mean. Enough websites currently depend on ads that it's going to have an effect.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51784247]Yes, that kind of exploit. Now add that to an advertisement, and you've managed to cause a slight inconvenience. I'm not sure what your argument is though. That bowsers are secure because the people who makes the browser says so, and you've never tried it? [URL="https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/11/08/bug-chrome-mobile-android-malware/"]It's still a thing[/URL] though, to have drive-by malware.[/QUOTE] I never said browsers are 100% secure, they're obviously not. What I said was that they're secure enough that it's very unlikely you will get malware from an ad, so using an ad-blocker in order to avoid malware is silly because it's very unlikely that will happen.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51784329]If it weren't for the security risks ads tend to bring, I'd be anti-adblock just on principle- as a business model, ads are a lot friendlier to the consumer than paywalls or selling user data to third-parties. They're basically the price of admission. But thanks to malware, there are good reasons to block ads, so it is what it is. So while I agree that it's not your responsibility to risk your security for the sake of someone else's profit, I'm genuinely concerned about what the end of advertisement as a revenue stream is going to mean. Enough websites currently depend on ads that it's going to have an effect.[/QUOTE] I doubt it'll make much difference really other than force people who rely on advertising to come up with a different method, of which there are plenty such as patreon, promotional products, donations, selling a service, etc. Paywalls are not at all viable for most websites unless you know for sure a good percentage of your users are willing to pay, either way you're going to cripple your user base and future growth, plus most of the time what is behind the wall can be found somewhere else for free (I.E news stories). As for selling user data I don't really see an issue, many websites will do it reguardless and advertising is just as intrusive, a lot of information these days is mainly collected through scraping instead which costs nothing. [QUOTE=djjkps2;51784363]I never said browsers are 100% secure, they're obviously not. What I said was that they're secure enough that it's very unlikely you will get malware from an ad, so using an ad-blocker in order to avoid malware is silly because it's very unlikely that will happen.[/QUOTE] I don't see any evidence to back up your claims, and my personal experience is the exact opposite, I've seen plenty of cases where malware has infected a PC directly through a browser exploit. Even if the risk is small like < 1% that's still unacceptable in my opinion.

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51784363]I never said browsers are 100% secure, they're obviously not. What I said was that they're secure enough that it's very unlikely you will get malware from an ad, so using an ad-blocker in order to avoid malware is silly because it's very unlikely that will happen.[/QUOTE] So if I live in an area with a low crime rate then locking my doors is silly because it's very unlikely someone is going to try to break into my house? How do you not get how stupid your argument is? If there is a chance of something bad happening and you can take reasonable steps to mitigate that chance somewhat then what logical reason do you have to not do so?

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51784363]I never said browsers are 100% secure, they're obviously not. What I said was that they're secure enough that it's very unlikely you will get malware from an ad, so using an ad-blocker in order to avoid malware is silly because it's very unlikely that will happen.[/QUOTE] Yeha but that kind of trust is one of the ways you get drive-by malware. "They are probably secure because the people who made it says so" is a shit reason when the opposite has been shown. It's sort of like not voting if you think the people who you would vote for wins. Also, you still haven't said what kind of a programmer you are.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51784527]So if I live in an area with a low crime rate then locking my doors is silly because it's very unlikely someone is going to try to break into my house? How do you not get how stupid your argument is? If there is a chance of something bad happening and you can take reasonable steps to mitigate that chance somewhat then what logical reason do you have to not do so?[/QUOTE] In that case, why are you using Windows? You'd be much safer on Linux [QUOTE=gokiyono;51784552]Yeha but that kind of trust is one of the ways you get drive-by malware. "They are probably secure because the people who made it says so" is a shit reason when the opposite has been shown. It's sort of like not voting if you think the people who you would vote for wins. Also, you still haven't said what kind of a programmer you are.[/QUOTE] I didn't come here to brag about myself, all you need to know is that I've worked with security for a while. Anyway, I've not experienced malware from a browser in years, not on my own or on people's computers I've fixed, unless the person has clicked to download a file, and then ran it, or installed a browser extension when the "do you wish to install this extension" came up. [editline]6th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;51784527]So if I live in an area with a low crime rate then locking my doors is silly because it's very unlikely someone is going to try to break into my house? How do you not get how stupid your argument is? If there is a chance of something bad happening and you can take reasonable steps to mitigate that chance somewhat then what logical reason do you have to not do so?[/QUOTE] Are you really comparing browser exploits with "locking your door", really? There's no comparison, it's still far more unlikely you're going to get malware through a web browser without accepting a download/install prompt. It would be more of a comparison to say that it's the equivalent of leaving your door unlocked, someone then opening your door whilst you're in the house and them saying "Can I steal your stuff" and you saying "Sure, why not?"

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51784828] I didn't come here to brag about myself, all you need to know is that I've worked with security for a while. Anyway, I've not experienced malware from a browser in years, not on my own or on people's computers I've fixed, unless the person has clicked to download a file, and then ran it, or installed a browser extension when the "do you wish to install this extension" came up.[/QUOTE] Does your dad work for Nintendo too? And there we have it again. Basically saying "It works on my machine" without giving a reason to trust the people who makes these browsers

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51784828]In that case, why are you using Windows? You'd be much safer on Linux[/QUOTE] This would be a question of usability versus security. I can be somewhat more secure with Linux but at the expense of making basically everything a huge pain to deal with and the overwhelming majority of the software I use is not available on Linux, nor are there viable alternatives for many of them. If you know what you're doing though, Windows can be about as secure as Linux. [QUOTE]Are you really comparing browser exploits with "locking your door", really? There's no comparison, it's still far more unlikely you're going to get malware through a web browser without accepting a download/install prompt.[/QUOTE] It's a completely valid comparison. The point is that insisting on not using an ad blocker is literally inviting malware in. [QUOTE]It would be more of a comparison to say that it's the equivalent of leaving your door unlocked, someone then opening your door whilst you're in the house and them saying "Can I steal your stuff" and you saying "Sure, why not?"[/QUOTE] This part in particular is where you are consistently failing in this entire conversation. What are exploits? You know. Those unintended bugs that pop up in complicated software like web browsers that are often unforeseeable until someone stumbles across it on accident and starts exploiting it for malicious means? You know. Those ones that manage to bypass all those neat security features that browsers have and all that jazz. You seriously have no idea at all what you're talking about here. And your aversion to answering gokiyono's question only convinces me that you were bullshitting about even being a programmer. I find it difficult to believe that someone who calls themselves a programmer could be this ignorant about computer security. Edit: [QUOTE]I didn't come here to brag about myself, all you need to know is that I've worked with security for a while. Anyway, I've not experienced malware from a browser in years, not on my own or on people's computers I've fixed, unless the person has clicked to download a file, and then ran it, or installed a browser extension when the "do you wish to install this extension" came up.[/QUOTE] Oh, I overlooked this bit since it wasn't addressed to me. You clearly don't understand this sort of thing at all. You do realize that most people are quite technically inept and have no clue what to even avoid, let alone how to avoid it, right? And even if you [I]do[/I] know what to avoid you're bound to let something slip through eventually. Again, this is a problem you can mitigate by taking the proper steps.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51784884]This would be a question of usability versus security. I can be somewhat more secure with Linux but at the expense of making basically everything a huge pain to deal with and the overwhelming majority of the software I use is not available on Linux, nor are there viable alternatives for many of them. If you know what you're doing though, [b]Windows can be about as secure as Linux.[/b] [/QUOTE] I'd just like to make a point that while that might be true from a practical standpoint, it isn't from a theoretical. Windows can never be as safe and secure, because you have [i]NO[/i] way of knowing whether it actually is or isn't. Comparative to the sciences where you can reproduce experiments to attempt disproving a theory to verify whether or not it stands, so it can be done with most Linux systems. You are able to reproduce them, verify in the code if they're secure or not, and even make them more secure if that be not the case. However, with WIndows you have no way of doing the investigation, nor do you have a way of making it more secure if it is not already.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;51784902]I'd just like to make a point that while that might be true from a practical standpoint, it isn't from a theoretical. Windows can never be as safe and secure, because you have [i]NO[/i] way of knowing whether it actually is or isn't. Comparative to the sciences where you can reproduce experiments to attempt disproving a theory to verify whether or not it stands, so it can be done with most Linux systems. You are able to reproduce them, verify in the code if they're secure or not, and even make them more secure if that be not the case. However, with WIndows you have no way of doing the investigation, nor do you have a way of making it more secure if it is not already.[/QUOTE] I'm not certain I follow. Why would you be able to verify your system's safety on a Linux OS but not Windows?

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51788298]I'm not certain I follow. Why would you be able to verify your system's safety on a Linux OS but not Windows?[/QUOTE] Because Linux is open source, Windows is not. With Windows you have to rely on a company to get bugfixes done. Bugs that are reported by people who only have the error message. On Linux you have to rely on both a company, and the people who love using it. [editline]7th February 2017[/editline] Basically, security through obscurity is shit security

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51788405]Because Linux is open source, Windows is not. With Windows you have to rely on a company to get bugfixes done. Bugs that are reported by people who only have the error message. On Linux you have to rely on both a company, and the people who love using it. [editline]7th February 2017[/editline] Basically, security through obscurity is shit security[/QUOTE] Ah, I see what he means now. I was thinking of something along the lines of Linux somehow inherently having a better way to test security that was unrelated to being open source so it was confusing me, lol.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51788419]Ah, I see what he means now. I was thinking of something along the lines of Linux somehow inherently having a better way to test security that was unrelated to being open source so it was confusing me, lol.[/QUOTE] I suppose being able to install on anything, anytime, is their strong point. (Though it's not why I use it :v: )

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51788419]Ah, I see what he means now. I was thinking of something along the lines of Linux somehow inherently having a better way to test security that was unrelated to being open source so it was confusing me, lol.[/QUOTE] One could always argue the quality of the security/penetration testing tools, but that's not the point. The point is that the system is inherently of higher secure potential simply due the openness of it. I don't know enough about the internals of either platform to make a statement in the regards to any presence of better security through design, but I gather that in the end, the potential for better security through design is still in favour of the BSD and Linux platforms, due to their transparency.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51784884]This would be a question of usability versus security. I can be somewhat more secure with Linux but at the expense of making basically everything a huge pain to deal with and the overwhelming majority of the software I use is not available on Linux, nor are there viable alternatives for many of them. If you know what you're doing though, Windows can be about as secure as Linux. It's a completely valid comparison. The point is that insisting on not using an ad blocker is literally inviting malware in. This part in particular is where you are consistently failing in this entire conversation. What are exploits? You know. Those unintended bugs that pop up in complicated software like web browsers that are often unforeseeable until someone stumbles across it on accident and starts exploiting it for malicious means? You know. Those ones that manage to bypass all those neat security features that browsers have and all that jazz. You seriously have no idea at all what you're talking about here. And your aversion to answering gokiyono's question only convinces me that you were bullshitting about even being a programmer. I find it difficult to believe that someone who calls themselves a programmer could be this ignorant about computer security. Edit: Oh, I overlooked this bit since it wasn't addressed to me. You clearly don't understand this sort of thing at all. You do realize that most people are quite technically inept and have no clue what to even avoid, let alone how to avoid it, right? And even if you [I]do[/I] know what to avoid you're bound to let something slip through eventually. Again, this is a problem you can mitigate by taking the proper steps.[/QUOTE] I love how someone can comment and tell me that I'm not a programmer, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. Typical keyboard warriors, acting as if you know my life. An ad-blocker does barely anything for your browser security, it's designed to block ads. What makes your browser secure is the browser's sandboxing as well as various other security mechanics in your browser. Sure if you're dealing with someone who isn't really technically literate, an ad-blocker can be good because if an ad causes a download prompt/browser extension prompt, then it'll prevent them accidentally accepting it, but technically literate people will know not to accept them. I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not telling anyone not to use an ad-blocker, or that it doesn't increase security. What I'm saying is that it [I]barely[/I] increases security, that's not the purpose of an ad-blocker. I mentioned about Linux seeing as it seemed you were stating that "any" precaution to help increase security should be taken, but as you've mentioned that's not always applicable. That somewhat applies here; not everyone wants to block ads. Someone shouldn't be made to feel as if they're opening their computer to attacks just because they want to view ads, when an ad-blocker does very little for security for users that know not to accept download prompts/browser extension prompts

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51788802]An ad-blocker does barely anything for your browser security, it's designed to block ads. What makes your browser secure is the browser's sandboxing as well as various other security mechanics in your browser. Sure if you're dealing with someone who isn't really technically literate, an ad-blocker can be good because if an ad causes a download prompt/browser extension prompt, then it'll prevent them accidentally accepting it, but technically literate people will know not to accept them.[/QUOTE] This is explicitly not true though. The malware I mentioned getting didn't give a download prompt. (And I definitely wouldn't have saved it if it had.) It exploited a security vulnerability which had been discovered recently enough that it had yet to be patched out. And this was through a Google ad which is the most common and most trusted ad network. [QUOTE]I mentioned about Linux seeing as it seemed you were stating that "any" precaution to help increase security should be taken, but as you've mentioned that's not always applicable. That somewhat applies here; not everyone wants to block ads. Someone shouldn't be made to feel as if they're opening their computer to attacks just because they want to view ads, when an ad-blocker does very little for security for users that know not to accept download prompts/browser extension prompts[/QUOTE] And that viewpoint is perfectly fine to have if you're okay with any increased risks. But what you're saying about it adding very little security is simply untrue at the most basic level. Ads are extremely common all over the place. There was even an article not too terribly long ago where Huffington Post (or Forbes? I actually forget which off the top of my head) started blocking users who had ad blockers enabled from viewing the site's content and yet simultaneously managed to introduce a malware infested ad. They're common enough that you're going to run into one somewhere along the line. Either way though ,if I were to give someone advice to keep their browser more secure I'd recommend something like NoScript or uMatrix instead, so long as they were technically literate enough that I felt it wouldn't be an issue for them. I actually don't even use an ad blocker myself currently, I just rely on uMatrix to block scripts (my default settings block all ads except ones I've explicitly allowed which are always through Project Wonderful anyways) and such that I don't want running and Ghostery to block trackers because I like my privacy.

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51788802]An ad-blocker does barely anything for your browser security, it's designed to block ads. What makes your browser secure is the browser's sandboxing as well as various other security mechanics in your browser. Sure if you're dealing with someone who isn't really technically literate, an ad-blocker can be good because if an ad causes a download prompt/browser extension prompt, then it'll prevent them accidentally accepting it, but technically literate people will know not to accept them. I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not telling anyone not to use an ad-blocker, or that it doesn't increase security. What I'm saying is that it [I]barely[/I] increases security, that's not the purpose of an ad-blocker.[/QUOTE] You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an adblocker does how dangerous it can be to not block ads. You also seem to not know that it isn't just downloads that are the problem. Also you need to stop saying your dad works for Nintendo without actually saying what he does there. Ads don't just cause downloads. Because ads can append Javascript, they can do other stuff, like the following for instance steam just [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/5skfg4/warning_regarding_a_steam_profile_related_exploit/"]been hit[/URL] by an attack. Steam is Chromium based too, just as an FIY. In simpler terms, they can read what you do. Amongst those things are passwords and credit card numbers. The thing about adblockers is, that they don't just block ads. They block access from the advertisers to your computer. Just like modifying a host file. Also, if you ask, I've been doing webdevelopment since 2012