...But I want to see advertisements!

Well, sort of...

I have Firefox with AdBlock and was visiting the Major Geeks page, where it is my custom to enjoy the many different slogans they come up with, e.g., "Because sometimes it is rocket science"

So I get there, and my eyes gravitate to the space where the slogan normally is, but in its place is one word: Advertisement. So for the first time I want to see an "advertisement". I highlight the word, and right click, hoping to see an option to reveal the ad. I don't. I click on adblock at the bottem right corner of the screen and it simply lists all of the blockable items on the page, but makes no way of knowing which ad goes with which item.

At this point I realize that I can unblock the whole page, but no... I didn't come this far by giving blank checks to advertizing scumlords... I want to see the slogan, the whole slogan, and nothing but the slogan.

With my awareness now in its alert mode, I keenly note that there is an advertisement on this page that is listed with red letters - nature's way of warning you about dangerous web hazards. The words say Tribal Fusion. This kind of dissappoints! Isn't Tribal Fusion a really horrible depraved thing. But even worse than that...well, never mind...here's my point: Shouldn't adblock at least make some attempt to make it easier to reveal an ad if I want to see it? It is easy, you say? What is the trick, then?

-HandsOff

 

When you go over the items in the list presented by Adblock, don't you get any popup's?, those popup's hold information of the used filter and the item that was blocked.In your case there must me mention of a banner in that list.


greetz
Lamehand

 

i myself dont know how to easily unblock an ad other than to look in the list of blockable items and try to whitelist the blocked entries (blue text iirc). of course, u need adblock plus to do so.

if u go to teh mozillazine forums or adblock plus forums, u can get a better response.

 

I've been to that site just now and the answer to this trouble is that the mentioned word "advertisment" is just that, a word, not a banner.
The banner is placed under that word and is ofcourse blocked by Adblock.
The word itself is not a clickable link it's just a title, so that won't have to be blocked.

regards
Lamehand

 

Hello,
You can load FF in safe mode - extensions disabled and try to see what you want to see. That's one way of handling the problem.
Mrk

 

I'm using the Filterset.G updater, and it blocks the banner without blocking the slogan at Major Geeks. If you're not using Filterset.G, you might give it a try.

 

"MajorGeeks.com - If you wanna be tweaked you gotta get geeked. "

Thanks for the interesting responses - These tools for dealing with advertisements are pretty complicated.

Notok - I am using filterset G!

The slogan was being blocked by NoScript. I have to say, if I don't understand adblock entirely, I understand NoScript even less! Before NoScript I had no idea how prevelent these scripts are. I am confused by the fact that often sites will have many scripts blocked, and yet still function completely normally! Others will not display a thing. It would be nice to have some idea of what the scripts want to do for the purpose of deciding whether to allow them.

Below are the scripts choices for MG's. I chose "Temporarily allow majorgeeks.com" and the slogan was revealed (but not the advertisement!). I suppose I could allow them permanently, but this seems almost as easy.


-HandsOff

 

That's why I don't use NoScript Using FF with AdBlock is really more than sufficient in most cases. You'd be better off using something like DropMyRights or some good security software, IMO.

 

Agreed. I tried NoScript and it broke so many legit sites that I got rid of it after about 5 minutes. Adblock with Filterset G and the auto-updater works like a dream.

 

I disagree. Javascript has often been the cause for vulnerablities (not only) in Firefox - the newest one is described on http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1327 . Noscript is an excellent protection against such exploits.

As for DropMyRights, it's the wrong way. There is at least one other process (namely explorer.exe) permanently running with admin rights which is an easy target for malware using Windows messaging. An interesting read is also http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/188 .

A much better way is using a (restricted) user account. Unfortunately, probably 99% of all Windows users are always logged on as admins - that's one important reason why malware is so wide-spread on this OS.

 

Hello,
I see no problem with Noscript. And if there are sites that don't work - well, too bad for the sites. Pure html is the way to go.
Mrk

 

Well then, why stop there? The best way to go about it is to set up another system without a hard drive and ONLY surf from a Linux LiveCD and never download anything EVER. You should also turn off cookies, javascript, CSS, graphics, not install any plugins, not use email, and never do any online transactions or banking. Would anyone disagree that that is the most secure way to go?

I have no disagreement with the fact that LUA is the best way to go, BUT LUA plus NoScript is probably the most inconvenient way for home users to go. If you know how to handle it and don't mind giving it constant attention, then that's great. But if you enjoy using these things, then there are other ways to go about it. There's no reason that you should have to give these things up, IMO. I would say that for the most part, malware that's going to break out of DropMyRights is also going to break out of a full LUA. Neither of them is a full solution in and of themselves. However if you use them in conjunction with some quality software, you can achieve better protection without the inconvenience.

There's a lot of solutions that will do a lot to protect you. If you use FF with AdBlock, DropMyRights, and some good quality security software, I would say that the increase in security that you would get from switching to a full LUA and/or using NoScript will be very minimal. Personally I've grown very tired of solutions that require constant attention (tweaking or workarounds). There's a point at which you have to decide how much convenience you really want to loose, and how much you're really gaining from the effort expended. When it comes to Firefox, the greatest danger that we've seen is in things that you choose to download, we see very few things automatically installing via Firefox itself. Java and other 3rd party plugins are another story, and the dangerous ones are most often loaded via advertising. This applies to all browsers.

BTW, this is also the reason that I believe Vista will turn out to be not that much more secure than XP. Users are going to demand that the security features be pulled out. I commend MS for trying to do the right thing, but what they've got going is going to be so annoying that people will go to great lengths to get around it. Technology is supposed to make things easier, faster, and more enjoyable, it's my conviction that there is no reason this should not be. Our options are not that limited, all it really takes is some smart "shopping" (I include free solutions with that), just like anything else.

 

Hi Notok, Mr. Kvonic, et all -


Notok, as you peal off alternatives you have to realize that my brain cells are working overtime just to try to figure out what I'm using now! But actually, I am finding myself agreeing with the Pro No crowd on this one. The lesson in this for me is that much, if not most of the time you are better off just allowing the scripts, but it is still a way of limiting exposure which I still believe will work great, once I get a feel for what all these scripts are and why. There are some strong reasons for leaving No Script in place -

a) it can be disabled globally until needed again
b) it can be disabled on a site by site basis, and it remembers your choices.

But consider this, if I find myself sucked into some malware infested site, I have another layer of defense!

In addition, I stick mostly to my select group of sites. Like Mr. K., when sites refuse to work without features that compromise my security, then that is a point against them. Depending on how much I need that site, I'd just as soon look elsewhere. That's a way of encouraging sites to be more security friendly.

-HandsOff

 

Notok, you're making it more difficult as it really is. First of all, I've been doing LUA for years and there are no severe problems in everyday work. Second, what's the problem with Noscript? Let's face it: I bet most of us surf the same websites (Wilders, your email account etc.) day by day for the most part - they are your trusted sites. You have to allow JS for them in Noscript just once, and you`re done! So the only problem is new sites. Many of them will work even with JS blocked, some of them won't - if you trust them it's just one click in Noscript and they are reloaded automatically. If you don't - fine, you're protected against new exploits.

No. Misusing DropMyRights can be done via Windows messaging which is a design weakness of Windows. For misusing LUA you'll need an escalation of privilege attack which makes it a lot harder for any malware.

I disagree. Adblock (Plus) is an excellent extension but it doesn't protect you against Javascript exploits. This can only be done by Noscript.