6 ms·

Is there a way to hide adblocking from the site so they don’t even know you’re using it?

by Vaslo 8y ago

et-al 8y ago
Not if your browser extension is blocking the remote Javascript code that's used for displaying the ads. And even if you did manage to reverse-engineer an extension to send a "ads loaded" token to the site, their ad network would update their code a week later. That's why folks call it an arms race.
- malka 8y ago
  as long as the user controls what its cpu execute, they have an edge :) It's a losing race for publishers on desktop.
bluedino 8y ago
They’d just make an Adblock detector detector detector
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  There's an ad block detector called "FuckAdblock", so the tool to circumvent it is called "FuckFuckAdblock". There's probably a fuck^3adblock
rightbyte 8y ago
I assume it's theoretically possible to ghost render and and execute tracking scripts in a sandbox? Just need some browser support ...
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  They'd probably run a suite of microbenchmarks in the sandbox and use that performance profile to fingerprint you. That might be an improvement over the status quo, but I think the basic rule is that if you let tracking scripts phone home, you lose.
JohnTHaller 8y ago
The scripts these user detect that you've blocked the ad load. So, there are now adblock lists that block the block detectors. So, there are not adblock detector block detectors. It's an arms race.
dvh 8y ago
Run a browser without adblock in virtual or headless setup with JS on (so that they can e.g. measure size of loaded images) with custom extension that will in read-only way (all code has to be in anonymous function so that it doesn't leak global variables, no changes to dom, no timers or intervals) extract articles and send them somehow out of this virtual so that you can read them. Extracting code would have to be tailor made for each site. IMHO doable. Alternative is copy paste article title to the Google and find news outlet that doesn't block the adblock.
elorant 8y ago
Not with current technology because all ad blocking does is blocking hosts. So a site can tell if parts of the code have loaded/executed or not. In order to go completely stealth you'd have to let the page load everything and then just don't show it. But that's way more complicated and besides a bit pointless because part of the reason for ad blocking is to make sites load faster by removing all that bloatware. That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever.
- akerro 8y ago
  >Not with current technology because all ad blocking does is blocking hosts That's funny as first adblockers on Firefox used to just hide divs. Browser was still downloading flash object and images, but was not displaying them
- navbaker 8y ago
  >That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever. Interesting concept. Asking as a layman: is this possible? Is the browser sandboxed enough away from the OS that this is a difficult problem? Is that why we haven’t seen solutions that implement this approach?
  - elorant 8y ago
    Possible yes, probable not so much. Building extensions is simpler than building desktop apps. For one you need only JavaScript. While if you move in the OS you'd have to support different versions of systems (you have Windows, OSX, Android, IOS, Linux) and it is much more cumbersome than in the browser.
- gruez 8y ago
  >That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever. that's probably overkill. all you need to do is move the adblocking part further back into the rendering pipeline (ie. outside of the DOM) so that javascript can't detect it.
- 8y ago
oweiler 8y ago
https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net
gruez 8y ago
yes, but it will have to operate outside the DOM. currently adblock killer/detection scripts relies on the fact that resources/scripts fail to load (both can be detected), or an element isn't showing (the nag message is hidden under the place where the ad should be). if your browser is dutifully rendering the ads as intended, but blocks it out in the frame buffer, there's nothing the site can do. no such adblocker exists as of yet.
- detaro 8y ago
  Which means you loose a lot if the benefits of an ad blocker, and thus makes it worthwhile to instead invest in the arms race: You have to watch a black screen for the duration of video ads, ads that pop up overlaying content still get in your way, you loose the bandwidth/memory/CPU capacity for loading and rendering them.
  - jungletek 8y ago
    Loose == !Tight Lose == !Win
    - detaro 8y ago
      right, thanks!
hellojason 8y ago
You could setup something at the network level, which zaps requests before they even make it to your computer. Pi-hole [1] works well. Still using it in conjunction with browser-based ad blockers though, but it works for all devices on your network, even smart TVs and Rokus. [1] https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net

Is there a way to hide adblocking from the site so they don’t even know you’re using it?

by Vaslo 8y ago

Is there a way to hide adblocking from the site so they don’t even know you’re using it?

Not if your browser extension is blocking the remote Javascript code that's used for displaying the ads. And even if you did manage to reverse-engineer an extension to send a "ads loaded" token to the site, their ad network would update their code a week later. That's why folks call it an arms race.

malka 8y ago
as long as the user controls what its cpu execute, they have an edge :) It's a losing race for publishers on desktop.

bluedino 8y ago

They’d just make an Adblock detector detector detector

Rebelgecko 8y ago
There's an ad block detector called "FuckAdblock", so the tool to circumvent it is called "FuckFuckAdblock". There's probably a fuck^3adblock

rightbyte 8y ago

I assume it's theoretically possible to ghost render and and execute tracking scripts in a sandbox? Just need some browser support ...

0xcde4c3db 8y ago
They'd probably run a suite of microbenchmarks in the sandbox and use that performance profile to fingerprint you. That might be an improvement over the status quo, but I think the basic rule is that if you let tracking scripts phone home, you lose.

JohnTHaller 8y ago

The scripts these user detect that you've blocked the ad load. So, there are now adblock lists that block the block detectors. So, there are not adblock detector block detectors. It's an arms race.

dvh 8y ago

Run a browser without adblock in virtual or headless setup with JS on (so that they can e.g. measure size of loaded images) with custom extension that will in read-only way (all code has to be in anonymous function so that it doesn't leak global variables, no changes to dom, no timers or intervals) extract articles and send them somehow out of this virtual so that you can read them. Extracting code would have to be tailor made for each site. IMHO doable. Alternative is copy paste article title to the Google and find news outlet that doesn't block the adblock.

elorant 8y ago

Not with current technology because all ad blocking does is blocking hosts. So a site can tell if parts of the code have loaded/executed or not. In order to go completely stealth you'd have to let the page load everything and then just don't show it. But that's way more complicated and besides a bit pointless because part of the reason for ad blocking is to make sites load faster by removing all that bloatware. That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever.

akerro 8y ago
>Not with current technology because all ad blocking does is blocking hosts That's funny as first adblockers on Firefox used to just hide divs. Browser was still downloading flash object and images, but was not displaying them
navbaker 8y ago
>That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever. Interesting concept. Asking as a layman: is this possible? Is the browser sandboxed enough away from the OS that this is a difficult problem? Is that why we haven’t seen solutions that implement this approach?
- elorant 8y ago
  Possible yes, probable not so much. Building extensions is simpler than building desktop apps. For one you need only JavaScript. While if you move in the OS you'd have to support different versions of systems (you have Windows, OSX, Android, IOS, Linux) and it is much more cumbersome than in the browser.
gruez 8y ago
>That, or we move ad blocking out of the browser and into the OS where sites have absolutely no access whatsoever. that's probably overkill. all you need to do is move the adblocking part further back into the rendering pipeline (ie. outside of the DOM) so that javascript can't detect it.
8y ago

oweiler 8y ago

https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net

gruez 8y ago

yes, but it will have to operate outside the DOM. currently adblock killer/detection scripts relies on the fact that resources/scripts fail to load (both can be detected), or an element isn't showing (the nag message is hidden under the place where the ad should be). if your browser is dutifully rendering the ads as intended, but blocks it out in the frame buffer, there's nothing the site can do. no such adblocker exists as of yet.

detaro 8y ago
Which means you loose a lot if the benefits of an ad blocker, and thus makes it worthwhile to instead invest in the arms race: You have to watch a black screen for the duration of video ads, ads that pop up overlaying content still get in your way, you loose the bandwidth/memory/CPU capacity for loading and rendering them.
- jungletek 8y ago
  Loose == !Tight Lose == !Win
  - detaro 8y ago
    right, thanks!

hellojason 8y ago

You could setup something at the network level, which zaps requests before they even make it to your computer. Pi-hole [1] works well. Still using it in conjunction with browser-based ad blockers though, but it works for all devices on your network, even smart TVs and Rokus. [1] https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net