I didn't know Adguard has an "allow acceptable ads" feature. Looking at a YouTube video, I do see a "Do not block useful ads" option which appears checked by default. Along with a "Find out which ads we consider useful" link which the reviewer didn't go into. There was also a "Take part in the development of a browsing security module... you agree to submit anonymous security related information to the Adguard server" option I saw. Has anyone here taken a critical look at those two features to assess the privacy/security impact? What are users of those features exposed to?
I think @TheWindBringeth was talking about Adguard for Windows, not about extension. You can read about useful ads here: http://adguard.com/en/whitelist.html From privacy policy: For example, if web page contains suspicious javascript, Adguard will send to our server: page address, threat category and url of suspicious javascript file.
@Freddy: Would that be the "free lite version for Chrome"? Do you know what they consider to be "acceptable ads"? FWIW, the images I found were: I'm not seriously interested in the product, but I am curious to know what types of exposures such features create. Edit... @avatar: Saw your post after I posted mine. That helped avatar, thanks.
Except for the obivious, what's the difference in the extension and the adguard non-extension? Bty avatar, someone should list you with developer status on here.
free lite version of Adguard for Google Chrome ** From the blog A few words about some of it features: 1. Hides advertisements from Web pages and blocks pop-up windows 2. Protects from visiting phishing or malware websites 3. Prevents advertising networks and online analytics nodes from tracking your activities online as they tend to do. How it differs from the full version of Adguard: 1. The ad gets hidden but is still loaded onto the computer: *There is a risk of being infected with viruses disseminated through the ad networks. *You pay for the traffic used to load the ad. *The ad gets hidden at the last stage of page load which may cause the pages to display at a slower speed. *Approximately 30-35% of the ads cannot be blocked due to the technical restrictions imposed on the extensions. 2. Limited protection against phishing and malicious pages: *Due to the restrictions imposed on the extension, the page is loaded prior to being checked, therefore, the possibility of phishing and virus attacks is not completely eliminated. *Checking is done only for the page you are going to whereas in the full version of Adguard, all links from which something is loaded get checked. 3. The extension is compatible only with Google Chrome. 4. We do not provide technical support for the extension but you can find answers to all of your inquiries on our forum.
They just dropped it's ram usage by 30MB in 5.9. Right now it's down to around 160mb usage, all told. But given how ridiculously light, and fast 5.9 is - why is that an issue? Most machines have many GIGS of ram free these days. Unless you are running a 10 year old machine - well you shouldn't be making ram demands on anything old anyway. A stick of ram is $19.00..
I'm just used to the fact that most of the programs that are running on my PC are not using that much RAM.
Memory usage can be lowered to about 60 MB with disabling of the GUI. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2319329&postcount=22 ------- Memory usage: 1. Please lower the memory consumption, it takes 100+ MBs on my machine. It seems a bit too high. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2319957&postcount=27 1) We'll try to lower it in 6.X branch, but currently it's not top priority. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2320382&postcount=28 ------- IMHO, RAM usage it's unacceptably high.
For older machines is. 500 million computers still using Windows XP these days............ Not for older machines. Also not all mobos have spare RAM sockets.
It's not a priority as they said simply because it uses a trivial amount given the huge ram in machines these days, and the fact it does a LOT. (Roughly equivalent to 4 products, and/or extensions) People don't complain about Mbam, and that uses 120-130MB of ram, but does less. My condolences to anyone using an old machine, but the rest of the world moves on, right? I picked up my father in-law a nice Dual Core Refurb with 4GB of Ram, 500GB HD for $139.00 over Newegg's Cyber Monday sales. Not like a 'decent' rig costs any cash these days. In fact, it was this one; http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113248
Hello, Changelog: version 5.9.1081.5529 - http://forum.adguard.com/showthread.php?1089-Adguard-5-9-release&p=25443&viewfull=1#post25443
Sorry for delay, missed your message. If you use portable Firefox and want https-filtration -- you should install our certificate manually: https://kb.adguard.com/index.php?/K...rt-for-https-connections-in-portable-browsers I've tried this portable version. It stores user profile (along with certificates database) in it's own directory, not in %appdata%\Mozilla\ as normal Firefox does.
Hi, I am new to Adguard (coming from Ad Muncher) and so far I am liking what I see One question I have is why I am still gettting warnings about websites i.e. "Be Careful, this site has a poor reputation yada yada yada" when I have Browsing Security disabled? I just want ads to be blocked, I don't want any warnings. How to do this? Thanks....
I really like this program, the memory usage is high but it's very light you cannot even tell it is there. I disabled the assistant as well, didn't find a use for it, I am a minimalist. I'm not sure if I would pay for it, but if I did it wouldn't be more than $10-15 for a lifetime license. Fortunately the only reason I am even trying this was the free endless license giving out by a developer on page 2. If that ever expires or I have to reformat and I lose the license, I doubt I would pay what they want for the program (I am cheap and use a lot of free software).
Glad to have you on board. It's an awesome replacement for Admuncher. To disable all of the browsing security, disable both areas in both screenshots using advanced option toggle;
$10-$15 for a lifetime license on a product this complete, this evolutionary, progressing this month? Wow.. Sign me up.. For the poor house if I was a developer. Right now a standard license to cover 6 PC's in this house is about $210.00 - lifetime - that's forever on all versions, forever on all databases. Not cheap, but given the power of the product - and the fact it's guaranteed lifetime - acceptable. Adguard is the most powerful, and lowest cost game in town for Port-Level Adblocking with a lot of features, and WFP filtration. In fact, it's the only game in town with that these days, and still the cheapest. These guys need our support. I'm just SUPER thankful they saved me from the Admuncher debacle...
Hi! Thank you for pointing at it. Maybe we should disable Web of Trust integration when browsing security is disabled.
Yes please, It would be nice to still keep the functionality of the "Assistant" but receive no dodgy website warnings. Thank you
