How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks?
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers.
On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
block blocks?
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_cont >>ent_block_change/>
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
Get a PiHole.
https://pi-hole.net/
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
If the overhaul goes ahead, Adblock Plus and similar plugins that
rely on basic filtering will, with some tweaks, still be able to
function to some degree, unlike more ambitious extensions, such as
uBlock Origin, which will be harder hit. The drafted changes will
limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly
for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of
Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge.
The webRequest API allows browser extensions, like uBlock Origin, to intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or
redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome
has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be
able to read network requests, not modify them.
"The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users
because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on
the user's behalf," Google's API documentation explains.
In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
the point of the change
The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a
"grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an extension the right to use the API.
On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
the point of the change
In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
the point of the change
The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a
"grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an extension the right to use the API.
Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow"
both to access the API. But if some other extension, that does not
need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of
denying such access.
Worst case, you can still use a proxy serverNormal case, you use a good browser.
Op 26-01-19 om 17:58 schreef Juergen Nieveler:
Worst case, you can still use a proxy serverNormal case, you use a good browser.
Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow"
both to access the API. But if some other extension, that does not
need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of
denying such access.
And of course that works *so* well in all the other cases when something
pops up. [User clicks 'Yes' without reading or understanding.]
In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
the point of the change
The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a
"grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an extension the right to use the API.
Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow"
both to access the API. But if some other extension, that does not
need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of
denying such access.
On 27.01.2019 00:15, Rich wrote:
In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which
is the point of the change
The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a
"grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant
an extension the right to use the API.
Indeed, that would be the far better choice
Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to
"allow" both to access the API. But if some other extension, that
does not need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the
choice of denying such access.
I wouldn't leave the decision with the users... I'd allow it
depending on the category the extension was put in in the app store.
That way, all extensions that want to use such elevated priviledges
would be far more obvious, AND could be subject to more scrutiny
without overloading the review system.
Leaving the decision just with the enduser means just another
exercise in social engineering - you already got the user to want to
install your extension anyway (manual extension installs were already disabled a while ago, weren't they?), so you just need a convincing
argument to explain to the user why you want those permissions that
Google is warning you could do bad things.
Leaving the decision just with the enduser means just another
exercise in social engineering - you already got the user to want to
install your extension anyway (manual extension installs were already
disabled a while ago, weren't they?), so you just need a convincing
argument to explain to the user why you want those permissions that
Google is warning you could do bad things.
A fair point. I was thinking from a standpoint of a technically
competent, and appropriately security skeptical, end user. But the
same users whom years ago had 17 different IE tool bars simultaneously installed in IE6 would also simply authorize all the bad extensions to
use the API.
And google is likely trying to protect those users from
themselves. Their protection at the moment is, unfortunately, the
nuclear option, which does harm the technically competent and
appropriately security skeptical users as part of the fallout.
Get a PiHole.Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
<https://pi-hole.net/>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
block blocks?
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
Get a PiHole.Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
<https://pi-hole.net/>
<https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and tablets.
Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
a second just to do DNS is overkill.
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
block blocks?
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
blockers.
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
<https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
On 2019-02-01, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
I'll let you know definitively soon, since my PiHole hardware arrived
a couple of days ago, and I already run a fairly large hosts file (incorporating the MVPS one), presently [tap, tap, tap] some 18,000
hosts. The PiHole one is larger and it has the ability to blackhole
entire domains, without having to add individual machines, saving
pain like having to add;
0.0.0.0 a.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 b.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 c.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 d.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 e.spammingfucks.com
And so on. Also, the PiHoles lists are automatically updated, saving
me having to do it.
In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
Get a PiHole.Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
<https://pi-hole.net/>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and tablets.
Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
a second just to do DNS is overkill.
Elijah
------
pi-hole also advertises it works for "smart" TVs
On 01.02.2019 01:25, Sn!pe wrote:
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
Much better, as it protects ALL devices in your network. Try editing the hosts file on an iPad ;-)
Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and tablets.
Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
a second just to do DNS is overkill.
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.
<https://pi-hole.net/>
Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? ><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No,
stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium, which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium, which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.
Other parts
are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
you a false sense of security.
In comp.misc Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Get a PiHole.No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium, >>> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts >>> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an >>> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
you a false sense of security.
Seems wise enough if you then switch to a browser that really does
protect your privacy by design,
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 84:53:27 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,097 |
Messages: | 5,276,965 |