Pale Moon forum

Moonchild wrote:So it all boils down to the website using a service provider that is careful which networks to use, and said networks being careful which advertisers to "let in" and being proactive and short-term reactive in the face of malvertising.
So if Forbes wants to take the right action, they should change ad provider, or make sure their provider has a 0-tolerance policy for bad ads being delivered through their connected ad networks (and cutting off any network that in turn doesn't take proper pro-active and reactive measures).

you can be certain that NO ad network actually filters out all the malware-laced advertisements, nor will they put any effort into doing so.

half-moon wrote:you can be certain that NO ad network actually filters out all the malware-laced advertisements, nor will they put any effort into doing so.

I beg to differ.

That's why we have AdSense on Pale Moon properties and not other service providers.
Not only is Google on the ball about the ad networks used and quality of the ads, they also are very pro-active about any malware spread through their service. On top, as a publisher I also have a measure of control which ads are displayed. For an ad network to be approved by Google, they MUST prevent malware distribution and put effort into keeping it that way.

The problem is usually other service providers who are not as careful and just want to maximize margins and/or offer larger payments for the same space or just allow any and all ad networks to have as large of a pool as possible, including bad ones.

x-15a2 wrote:So, why am I able to get to Forbes.com with ABL enabled, using only Easylist?

It was reported a week ago in the easylist forums ( https://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27592), so apparantly it was updated with these rules for some days now.

Moonchild wrote:

half-moon wrote:you can be certain that NO ad network actually filters out all the malware-laced advertisements, nor will they put any effort into doing so.

I beg to differ.

That's why we have AdSense on Pale Moon properties and not other service providers.
Not only is Google on the ball about the ad networks used and quality of the ads, they also are very pro-active about any malware spread through their service. On top, as a publisher I also have a measure of control which ads are displayed. For an ad network to be approved by Google, they MUST prevent malware distribution and put effort into keeping it that way.

The problem is usually other service providers who are not as careful and just want to maximize margins and/or offer larger payments for the same space or just allow any and all ad networks to have as large of a pool as possible, including bad ones.

TBH, there have been many cases where Malvertising has been spread through adsense.

Isn't there a way to devise an ad blocker that doesn't look like an ad blocker?

Likewise, using a VPN that doesn't look like a VPN (since NetFlix has announced it will block proxies)?

Vultural wrote:Likewise, using a VPN that doesn't look like a VPN (since NetFlix has announced it will block proxies)?

A VPN isn't a proxy

A Virtual Proxy Network is not a proxy?

Vultural wrote:A Virtual Proxy Network is not a proxy?

VPN = "Virtual Private Network," not "Virtual Proxy Network."

Vultural wrote:Isn't there a way to devise an ad blocker that doesn't look like an ad blocker?

Just use NoScript.
The most anti adblock scripts can be blocked with NoScript so you have the ad-less website without any anti-ad-ads.

Vultural wrote:Isn't there a way to devise an ad blocker that doesn't look like an ad blocker?

It depends on what "look like an ad blocker" means. The more sophisticated the test, the more difficult it will be to block ads without being detected.

In most cases, a NoScript surrogate script will probably suffice to shoot down the anti-adblocker script.

Yet another reason why I use a content blocker (uBlock Origin) for my first line of defense and why those Anti-Adblocker websites are in the wrong: https://www.grahamcluley.com/2016/01/ms ... ign=buffer.

Though it's not MSN fault totally, but the third-party who provides the ads for MSN.

Still, I wont surf without a content blocker (uBlock Origin) knowing theres a risk of getting infected by malvertising ads.

LimboSlam wrote:Yet another reason why I use a content blocker (uBlock Origin) for my first line of defense and why those Anti-Adblocker websites are in the wrong: https://www.grahamcluley.com/2016/01/msn-home-page-spreads-malware-myet%20alicious/?utm_content=buffer968f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer.

Though it's not MSN fault totally, but the third-party who provides the ads for MSN.

Still, I wont surf without a content blocker (uBlock Origin) knowing theres a risk of getting infected by malvertising ads.

Hmm.. the article seems to be missing, but I do agree with what you are saying; I use Ublock Origin because of the high risk for catching some really nasty malware.

We already have threads about malvertising in general/on other sites, please don't hijack this one (specifically about Forbes) for it -- take that discussion to the other threads? Thanks.

Moonchild wrote:We already have threads about malvertising in general/on other sites, please don't hijack this one (specifically about Forbes) for it -- take that discussion to the other threads? Thanks.

Sorry about that MC, I'll be more careful about what might be offtopic. But for the record, this article did mention Forbes and other websites taking the stand of being Anti-Adblcoker and how once a user turns off their adblcoker they get served with malicious ads, so I thought it was in the scope because the general discussion has mention ads/malicious ads, adblcokerand anti-adblocker all with relating to Forbes and other websites who are enforcing the same restriction/rule of using an adblocker.


Anyways again, sorry about it.

x-15a2 wrote:So, why am I able to get to Forbes.com with ABL enabled, using only Easylist?

I think that the article said that they are only blocking select adblockers users, as a test. That what Yahoo Mail did when they pulled a similar stunt.

When websites do things like this, they generally like to start off only applying them to a small randomly selected group. That way, they can compare results with a "control" group of people who don't have the changes applied and see what the true results are more clearly before deciding whether to do it with everyone. If it wasn't done that way, they might falsely attribute a larger traffic drop to the changes rather than some other real cause like having boring articles that week or whatever. The reverse is also true- let's say that traffic doesn't drop off much, but its because they had some articles that were heavily shared via email or social media that week- you want a control group to see what traffic is/would be doing without changes.

Scientists do that sort of thing all the time in research and experiments. Having a control group helps eliminate variables and gives the results more credibility.

Additionally, in the specific case of a for-profit website, by at first limiting changes to smaller group, you give yourself more of a safeguard against alienating people. Apply it to everyone, and then if large numbers leave and never come back, you're screwed. Apply it to a more select group, and if you alienate a large percentage of them and they leave and never come back, its only a percentage of whatever percentage of users who were actually shown the adblocker blocking message.

Anyway, I already don't read Forbes, but its for political reasons. I'm a progressive, whereas their owner and editor is failed Republican Presidential primary candidate Steve Forbes (ran in 1996 IIRC), who's main issue was that he wanted a severely regressive 17% "flat tax" that'd have hurt the middle class at the expense of the rich. He was very insistant, he used to compare the tax code to a dragon he wanted to slay- but in the most boring dispassionate way imaginable. Like, I don't think I've ever heard someone speak about battling a dragon, even figuratively, with such a lack of passion.

Anyone know a good financial website that covers things from a moderate to progressive point of view? I'm having trouble finding one.

Getting back on topic- usually if I read or use a site and they do something like put a paywall up or block adblockers for some users, I keep going until I hit their article limit or their adblockers block message and then remove my bookmark for the site. If I never see it or it never affects me, fine. But the second I have to deal with it, I'm done, or, in the case of paywall sites that allow a limited number of free views, only reading links to them from other sites.

I don't cut off my nose to spite mybface and boycott in advance of a problem affecting me, but once it does, I'm pretty quick to move on. Plenty of sites on the Internet. If a few don't want my readership and others do, I can switch. I also I guess fundamentally just don't feel like visiting a site that doesn't want me- if they only want paying readers or readers who'll view their ads, fine by me, see ya. However, I forward a relatively high volume of news, culture, and sports links to family and friends via email- so they are cutting off a revenue stream of my sort of "follow on" readers who don't use adblockers and who they generate profit from just to keep me out.

CharmCityCrab wrote:Anyway, I already don't read Forbes, but its for political reasons. I'm a progressive, whereas their owner and editor is failed Republican Presidential primary candidate Steve Forbes (ran in 1996 IIRC), who's main issue was that he wanted a severely regressive 17% "flat tax" that'd have hurt the middle class at the expense of the rich. He was very insistant, he used to compare the tax code to a dragon he wanted to slay- but in the most boring dispassionate way imaginable. Like, I don't think I've ever heard someone speak about battling a dragon, even figuratively, with such a lack of passion.

Kindly be careful with political opinions in this thread. Please don't generalize - it can be considered offensive.
If you want to discuss political opinion, please take it to a better location.

Companies are starting to block visitors who are using adblock extensions. Forbes.com is one that won't let you in and Wired.com has said they are going to start blocking people in the next few weeks. There may be others.

What can be done about this? Maybe stealthing adblock like virus authors do? Changing whatever code signature that the adblock extension is using on a regular basis?

I wanted to see an article in Forbes tonight but couldn't get in unless I disabled the PM adblocker or whitelisted Forbes:

Can't be done.. Not reliably.. Without specific filters to block detection scripts.. But even then if it doesn't follow the pattern. Also, it is quite easy to detect an adblocker in operation. Just have a script that loads an item that is sure to be blocked and if the item is removed from dom or doesn't load then conclude and adblocker or other such tool is in operation.

Now, you may say.. Block Javascript.. Well in most cases that just busts the site. You will just have to get creative on your own when adding your own filter rules to deal with specific sites you visit.

Has anyone tried Anti-Adblock Killer? Would it work with Pale Moon?
http://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/