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

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51798873]I've said it happens too, so are we both on the same page? I said it can happen but it's very unlikely, which I hold as true. What happened with Steam didn't actually exploit any security systems in place in the browser, it allowed people to write JavaScript on the page, which yes can download a file or at worst steal private info, but as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) this didn't happen on the login page or account settings pages[/QUOTE] And because unlikely does not mean not likely, whatever argument about it being unlikely falls flat. (Brexit and Trump comes to mind here.) And with Steam, it basically allowed someone to XSS a false login page into profiles, which I would call a security risk. Something that an ad would also be able to do. [editline]9th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=djjkps2;51799192]The fact is, even if I told you I'd done over 8 years of programming work in various languages including a large portion of web development, people would still disagree with what I said, plus it's up to them whether to believe me or not, and if they strongly disagree they would disregard my experience anyway. I simply stated that I'd done programming so I didn't look like I was just making it up. I've had a lot of experience dealing with security, especially on the web side of things. [/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand at all. Nobody would have disagreed with you, if your initial answer was that. But you've spend so many posts doing the exact opposite essentially crying wolf. The fact that you you didn't seem to know how things worked either completely ruined that too.

I come in to see if theres anything useful and if more people had opinions on the adblocker usage going up, and I see djjkps2 being a jackass for two pages.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51799202]And because unlikely does not mean not likely, whatever argument about it being unlikely falls flat. (Brexit and Trump comes to mind here.) And with Steam, it basically allowed someone to XSS a false login page into profiles, which I would call a security risk. Something that an ad would also be able to do. [editline]9th February 2017[/editline] You don't seem to understand at all. Nobody would have disagreed with you, if your initial answer was that. But you've spend so many posts doing the exact opposite essentially crying wolf. The fact that you you didn't seem to know how things worked either completely ruined that too.[/QUOTE] I would still disagree honestly. It's not about what a person knows. What matters is if it is proven and if it can be proven. If a security problem can be proven, then it's a security problem. It's nothing different from the rest of the sciences.

[QUOTE=Exploders;51799237]I come in to see if theres anything useful and if more people had opinions on the adblocker usage going up, and I see djjkps2 being a jackass for two pages.[/QUOTE] What? For having a point of view that people disagree with? Are you that guy that bullies people in school because everyone of your friends is "normal" but the guy you're bullying on is different?

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51798773]I came here to give information, not to post about my personal life. I don't care if you think I'm suspicious, in fact, I don't really care at all if any of you disagree. I came here to help people, but my information seems to have fallen on deaf ears just because I have a right to my own privacy.[/QUOTE] The reason people aren't letting that go is because you are trying to speak from a position of authority and then failing to prove that you actually [I]possess[/I] said authority. I could claim to be a CEO and explain all my views on running a business all I want but unless I back that up with evidence that I actually am a CEO then people are in the right to be skeptical of my claims, especially when said claims run contrary to what they see as true.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51803468]The reason people aren't letting that go is because you are trying to speak from a position of authority and then failing to prove that you actually [I]possess[/I] said authority. I could claim to be a CEO and explain all my views on running a business all I want but unless I back that up with evidence that I actually am a CEO then people are in the right to be skeptical of my claims, especially when said claims run contrary to what they see as true.[/QUOTE] I think we've established that no matter what I said or proved people would still disagree, which is fair enough, everyone has their own point of view which I wouldn't expect to change based on my occupation or professional status.

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51803486]I think we've established that no matter what I said or proved people would still disagree, which is fair enough, everyone has their own point of view which I wouldn't expect to change based on my occupation or professional status.[/QUOTE] Well if you want something a bit more productive, after reading the rest of what's been said since the post I quoted: I think your issue here actually more hinges on you understanding your own security and trying to apply your knowledge to everybody else when most people don't have that knowledge. I mentioned something along these lines earlier in the thread but most people aren't terribly technically literate. They don't have a good grasp of internet or computer security, nor do they know what sorts of things to avoid or how to avoid them. So for those people something like an ad blocker is a legitimate piece of security software. On top of that, something being unlikely doesn't mean it'll never happen as gokiyono pointed out. Something is bound to slip through eventually such as that piece of malware I mentioned having gotten despite being careful and having both an antivirus and Malwarebytes running. If you're fine with any risks regarding not running an ad blocker (though it looks like you run one for unrelated reasons so that's a bit of a moot point) then that's fine. Most of us are just saying that you shouldn't be advocating against them being useful for security reasons for everyone when everyone doesn't necessarily have the same knowledge or experience as you do.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51803493]Well if you want something a bit more productive, after reading the rest of what's been said since the post I quoted: I think your issue here actually more hinges on you understanding your own security and trying to apply your knowledge to everybody else when most people don't have that knowledge. I mentioned something along these lines earlier in the thread but most people aren't terribly technically literate. They don't have a good grasp of internet or computer security, nor do they know what sorts of things to avoid or how to avoid them. So for those people something like an ad blocker is a legitimate piece of security software. On top of that, something being unlikely doesn't mean it'll never happen as gokiyono pointed out. Something is bound to slip through eventually such as that piece of malware I mentioned having gotten despite being careful and having both an antivirus and Malwarebytes running. If you're fine with any risks regarding not running an ad blocker (though it looks like you run one for unrelated reasons so that's a bit of a moot point) then that's fine. Most of us are just saying that you shouldn't be advocating against them being useful for security reasons for everyone when everyone doesn't necessarily have the same knowledge or experience as you do.[/QUOTE] I generally write to address the audience I'm writing to, in this case I somewhat assume most people on Facepunch are technically-inclined enough to know not to accept a download, browser extension or run a file that they don't know what it is. For people that are less technically inclined than that, then maybe an ad-blocker is more ideal. It's worth noting that I never said it could never happen, just that it's unlikely. It's unlikely you're going to get a virus on Windows if you've got an antivirus and don't run unknown files, but it could still happen, however that doesn't mean you're going to install Linux. I guess it's whatever tool fits the job, for people on this forum who probably know not to run unknown files, an ad-blocker won't help much. For your grandparent who might see a download prompt appear and accept it, then it's much more ideal.

[QUOTE=djjkps2;51803486]I think we've established that no matter what I said or proved people would still disagree, which is fair enough, everyone has their own point of view which I wouldn't expect to change based on my occupation or professional status.[/QUOTE] Prove something then. Come with something. This thread has been about you misunderstanding how a lot of things work. We haven't established anything at all. It's you who has concluded that

Make ads less intrusive and safer. Problem solved Some websites have this 'wait x seconds before you can continue to your designated page' and its absolute bullshit

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51803468]The reason people aren't letting that go is because you are trying to speak from a position of authority and then failing to prove that you actually [I]possess[/I] said authority. I could claim to be a CEO and explain all my views on running a business all I want but unless I back that up with evidence that I actually am a CEO then people are in the right to be skeptical of my claims, especially when said claims run contrary to what they see as true.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what his area of expertise is in this instance. He could be Bill Gates and it wouldn't matter. The core issue is that djjkps2 has failed to put up a compelling argument for his beliefs. Him being a supposed "expert" with full proof and credentials wouldn't change shit because his initial argument against using adblockers for security has failed because others have pointed out time and time again how real the risk can be, with citations and evidence of ads being used to compromise a system while accessing reputable websites and ad providers. I think we should stop pursuing this angle, if he doesn't wanna give more details about his job then let him be. It still doesn't change the fact that his argument is bad, and that's what we should be focusing on. That whole business about his job is just a distraction that will mean nothing. [editline]10th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=djjkps2;51803542]I generally write to address the audience I'm writing to, in this case I somewhat assume most people on Facepunch are technically-inclined enough to know not to accept a download, browser extension or run a file that they don't know what it is. For people that are less technically inclined than that, then maybe an ad-blocker is more ideal. It's worth noting that I never said it could never happen, just that it's unlikely. It's unlikely you're going to get a virus on Windows if you've got an antivirus and don't run unknown files, but it could still happen, however that doesn't mean you're going to install Linux. I guess it's whatever tool fits the job, for people on this forum who probably know not to run unknown files, an ad-blocker won't help much. For your grandparent who might see a download prompt appear and accept it, then it's much more ideal.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter. A lot of these exploits don't need to ask your permission to run or begin downloading files. Like you said, it can still happen regardless, but the chances might be relatively low. The problem is, however, that while the chance may be low, it can still happen, and the proposed solution is to install one simple program with virtually no downsides to the user. With an adblocker, the pages will load faster, will be less cluttered, and consume less system resources. This is on top of being extra protection for these exploits. Compare this against installing Linux instead; installing a whole new operating system can be a huge pain in the ass and, in many cases, can cause issues for users when the operating system simply does not work for their use-case thanks to software incompatibilities for work or entertainment. You're comparing a piece of software that will 100% improve the user's security [I]and[/I] improve their lives thanks to usability enhancements against a whole new operating system that won't work for many people. In the case of the ad-blocker it's a no-lose scenario for the user so there's no reason not to use it past vague moral arguments that ultimately lose out against security concerns, no matter how minuscule you may perceive the risk to be. Bringing up a whole different operating system is fallacious. [editline]10th February 2017[/editline] In addition, security isn't just a one-and-done thing; you have many different layers of security and you keep your finger on the pulse of IT to update your approach as needed. You are an expert so you know this yourself. At the top level you have user common-sense, and know not to visit shady sites and to be vigilant against people who may seek to harm you. On the bottom level you have things like antivirus software because humans are not infallible and things can and will slip in under the radar. Another layer might be a reliable firewall and using secured connections. An additional layer would be to have a solid password and access scheme to prevent intrusion on all of your personal accounts. Yet another layer would be browser protection plugins that can prevent things from harming your system that the AV and human user might not catch. For solid security you should deploy as many of these layers as possible. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system, but the more layers, generally the better. And no matter how likely or unlikely a security risk is, if another layer will not harm your user experience or even improve it in the way an ad-blocker might, you should absolutely implement it.