3 ms·
So you're saying it's seriously gross negligence and lack of security on the part of ad networks and publishers alike. I can accept that. Due to that negligence
by mnm1 9y ago
So you're saying it's seriously gross negligence and lack of security on the part of ad networks and publishers alike. I can accept that. Due to that negligence, however, they both are, willing or not, part of the threat and have to be defended against.
I also agree that browsers could and should do more to stop unnecessary scripts. At some point, a blacklist will not be enough (I think we're here already) and a whitelist will be the only viable approach going forward. The question is, how to curate a whitelist for the majority of users? Also, why Firefox and other open source browsers don't include things like ad blocking and script blocking by default.
- soared 9y agoI don't think its negligence really, though it is bad. The problem isn't extremely widespread and it seems only smaller networks that don't have the resources are affected (google fixed that problem on youtube very quickly). I don't think white/blacklists are the best solution, though they do work most of the time right now - I'd rather see a flag that publishers can enable to browsers that lets them use more resources. IF your site is a web-app, allow it to use a lot of resources. If its a blog / non-intensive site, simply don't let it use a lot of resources or just ask the user if they want to use more resources. I don't know if sites would self identify or if a browser could just analyze them on the fly, but this approach seems to make sense. (A little rocky at the start, but it would scale effectively).
- fludlight 9y agoI would prefer a(n easily overridable) max resource allowance per tab rather than a whitelist.
- GeorgeCarlin123 9y agobut that already exists, it is called uMatrix