5 ms·

I call it a malware blocker, rather than an adblocker - here's my reasoning: One day I was on a classifieds site[1], browsing listings, when after a few pages,

I call it a malware blocker, rather than an adblocker - here's my reasoning: One day I was on a classifieds site[1], browsing listings, when after a few pages, I was met with a page redirect to one of those scammy support center sites (taking over the browser), advising that my computer had been infected by a virus (obviously hadn't) and I needed to call in to "Apple's Support Center" immediately. This was on Safari (the newer useless extension-neutered version), on what I considered a reputable site. I tested again to make sure it was indeed the site that produced this, and sure enough reproduced it after browsing a few pages of listings. I advised the site that they likely had a rogue advert in rotation causing this, but as usual, the blame got put on me instead, claiming that it was probably some extension (didn't have any - they're basically useless on Safari now) or it was my ISP, blah blah blah That's the day I decided to use a real browser ("If it doesn't run uBlock Origin, it's not a real browser"), so I switched to Firefox and installed uBO. This is also when I decided to call such utilities as uBO "malware blockers" rather than "ad blockers". Websites can try to deflect the blame all they want[2], but in the end if visiting your website results in any attempts to compromise my computer, it's your site doing it as far as I'm concerned. If the website industry can't regulate itself to prevent such things, then I'm going to do it myself, and I'll push back on any claims that I'm using an "ad" blocker when I'm really guarding against malware attacks. [1] I'm loathe to name it since I don't recall which site it was specifically, but it was a classifieds-style site, with the reputation of, say, eBay-level recognition. [2] https://www.imore.com/content-blockers-bad-ads-and-what-were-doing-about-it https://www.imore.com/content-blockers-bad-ads-and-what-were...

scubbo 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but I think that's actually counter-productive. To present things like uBlock as malware blockers suggests that "any ad which is not malware is fine". I think it's perfectly justifiable to guard against non-malware ads _as well as_ malware (ads or otherwise).
- sebastien_b 5y ago
  I guess what constitutes "malware" is based on what the ad is doing - if it's benign, it's an ad and I'm fine with that. If it's hostile/tracking scripts masquerading as an ad, then obviously that's a problem. I call it "malware blocking" because of multiple past experiences like I mentioned above, and the way to avoid them is with these "ad blockers" (though I guess a more generic term, like "content blocker", is perhaps more appropriate). And I'm sure some would be quick to point out that running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point), and my reply to them is that the blockers typically won't block anything that comes from the same IP/domain as the site (as is explained in one of the linked articles). I think it's up to websites to run their ads in a way that doesn't trigger it to get blocked, because the detection pattern for most blockers is based on past abuse of these techniques.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Even the most "benign" unsolicited ad is still basically malware for your brain.
    - sebastien_b 5y ago
      True - some are most definitively an insult to your intelligence (like most TV ads are). Definitively can't say I miss any of them (web & TV ads).
  - scubbo 5y ago
    > running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point) My point's actually sort-of the inverse of that. My point is that, by describing uBO as a malware blocker, you are suggesting that "ads that are not malware are fine". That's a position you're entitled to take, but I don't agree with it - +1 to the sibling comment that rightly points out that "ads are malware for your brain". Ads are a problem, and they should be blocked. The fact that you happen to be able to also block malware with an ad-blocker is a happy coincidence - but even if that wasn't the case (i.e. even if ad-blockers _only_ blocked non-malware ads), they would still be good, moral, and justified.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Situation is that dire. I think following happens. Actual click through rate on online ads is low. People don't want to pay lots of money for ads that don't increase their revenue. Only ones willing to pay for ads are shady business. We are talking unlicensed pills, scams, crypto etc. Eventually those dry up so they go even lower, malware authors willing to use ads as malware vectors. I browsed once without ad blocker on some webcomic and shit I had delivered was actually malware. As in Defender was activated.
  - account42 5y ago
    > [...] was actually malware. As in Defender was activated. I don't doubt that plenty of ads are malware but let's not pretend that Defender does not have tons of false positives or that MS cares about preventing them.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      While I have encountered false positives with Defender, the fact that ads are deploying something Defender can detect, is hair raising in itself.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  I have an air filter that has 2 stages, a thin, washable filter for large dust particles and a non-reusable hepa filter that has to be replaced every 3-6 months for optimal results. I view pihole and ublock as the washable filter. It takes care of the big stuff, prevents my computer from ever seeing most of the avenues for malware to propagate. Then my antivirus can easily mop up whatever slips through.
recursive 5y ago
If it's not detecting malware, then it's not a malware blocker. As far as I know, ad blockers work based on host name and css selectors. If there was an actual anti-malware that was so trivially bypass-able, it would be laughed out of the room. uBO blocks hosts of advertisers. AFAIK they don't distinguish between malware and non-malware, nor do they detect malware from other sources.
- account42 5y ago
  The people embedding the ads or even delivering them are not neccessarily malicious (in the malware sense at least). Also, as long as most people don't block ads they don't have as much incentive to counteract ad blockers. So at least for now ad blocking remains effective for both malicious and benign ad payloads.
anotherevan 5y ago
I call them HTML firewalls.

scubbo 5y ago

I get what you're saying, but I think that's actually counter-productive. To present things like uBlock as malware blockers suggests that "any ad which is not malware is fine". I think it's perfectly justifiable to guard against non-malware ads _as well as_ malware (ads or otherwise).

sebastien_b 5y ago
I guess what constitutes "malware" is based on what the ad is doing - if it's benign, it's an ad and I'm fine with that. If it's hostile/tracking scripts masquerading as an ad, then obviously that's a problem. I call it "malware blocking" because of multiple past experiences like I mentioned above, and the way to avoid them is with these "ad blockers" (though I guess a more generic term, like "content blocker", is perhaps more appropriate). And I'm sure some would be quick to point out that running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point), and my reply to them is that the blockers typically won't block anything that comes from the same IP/domain as the site (as is explained in one of the linked articles). I think it's up to websites to run their ads in a way that doesn't trigger it to get blocked, because the detection pattern for most blockers is based on past abuse of these techniques.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Even the most "benign" unsolicited ad is still basically malware for your brain.
  - sebastien_b 5y ago
    True - some are most definitively an insult to your intelligence (like most TV ads are). Definitively can't say I miss any of them (web & TV ads).
- scubbo 5y ago
  > running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point) My point's actually sort-of the inverse of that. My point is that, by describing uBO as a malware blocker, you are suggesting that "ads that are not malware are fine". That's a position you're entitled to take, but I don't agree with it - +1 to the sibling comment that rightly points out that "ads are malware for your brain". Ads are a problem, and they should be blocked. The fact that you happen to be able to also block malware with an ad-blocker is a happy coincidence - but even if that wasn't the case (i.e. even if ad-blockers _only_ blocked non-malware ads), they would still be good, moral, and justified.
Ygg2 5y ago
Situation is that dire. I think following happens. Actual click through rate on online ads is low. People don't want to pay lots of money for ads that don't increase their revenue. Only ones willing to pay for ads are shady business. We are talking unlicensed pills, scams, crypto etc. Eventually those dry up so they go even lower, malware authors willing to use ads as malware vectors. I browsed once without ad blocker on some webcomic and shit I had delivered was actually malware. As in Defender was activated.
- account42 5y ago
  > [...] was actually malware. As in Defender was activated. I don't doubt that plenty of ads are malware but let's not pretend that Defender does not have tons of false positives or that MS cares about preventing them.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    While I have encountered false positives with Defender, the fact that ads are deploying something Defender can detect, is hair raising in itself.
BizarroLand 5y ago
I have an air filter that has 2 stages, a thin, washable filter for large dust particles and a non-reusable hepa filter that has to be replaced every 3-6 months for optimal results. I view pihole and ublock as the washable filter. It takes care of the big stuff, prevents my computer from ever seeing most of the avenues for malware to propagate. Then my antivirus can easily mop up whatever slips through.

recursive 5y ago

If it's not detecting malware, then it's not a malware blocker. As far as I know, ad blockers work based on host name and css selectors. If there was an actual anti-malware that was so trivially bypass-able, it would be laughed out of the room. uBO blocks hosts of advertisers. AFAIK they don't distinguish between malware and non-malware, nor do they detect malware from other sources.

account42 5y ago
The people embedding the ads or even delivering them are not neccessarily malicious (in the malware sense at least). Also, as long as most people don't block ads they don't have as much incentive to counteract ad blockers. So at least for now ad blocking remains effective for both malicious and benign ad payloads.

anotherevan 5y ago

I call them HTML firewalls.