Prev: Are web sites attacking us even AFTER we disconnect from them?
Next: Firewall Selection Advice
From: Sebastian G. on 6 Nov 2007 20:29
Lars-Erik �sterud wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Uh, oh, that's really special. Unless you consider almost any
>> content-blocking extension for the Mozilla platform under the sun.
>
> Sadly I have to use IE6 and IE7 for things (bad applications).


On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent
security issues. A malicious website could and typically does simply install
its very own program code for displaying the advertisement,
bypassing/undermining the proxy.

> Will AdBlock work then? How does it filter? Does it remove
> images etc before they are fetched (like WebWasher).


Exactly.

> Of course a litt delay since it need to fetch the HTML, parse it, and
> send it to the browser, but it's not noticable at all on my PCs...


For me it is, because I have a working HTTP 1.1 Pipelining.

> How does AdBlock work in comparison, can you explain a bit more?

AdBlock has the huge benefit that the browser already does the parsing, so
it can work on the highly optimized (and well standardized) in-memory
presentation.


From: Sebastian G. on 6 Nov 2007 20:35
Lars-Erik �sterud wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Adblock Plus doesn't even need any additional programs, and it has a huge
>> performance advantage due to the available DOM content.
>
> But is it as customisable as WebWasher (parts of URLs, own list,
> exceptions)?


Sure.

> And does it work both with IE6, IE7, FF and Opera?


No, it only works for the Mozilla browser series. For Opera, there're also
some extensions available even though it only has a slight filter integrated.
Dunno for IE, and I don't care since they're trivially vulnerable to any
kind of malware which does its own way of displaying ads.
From: Volker Birk on 7 Nov 2007 03:38
John Adams <me(a)none.invalid> wrote:
> If it's completely pointless then why did Mircosoft implement the
> ability to block outgoing progs in Vista?

Because people believe in that nonsense and want to buy that.
Metaphysics in Informatics.

It's just like with raw sockets in Windows XP.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Die Funktionsprinzipien des Rechtsstaates sind den Funktionsprinzipien
des Pr�ventionsstaates entgegengesetzt."
Erhard Denninger
Professor f�r �ffentliches Recht und Rechtsphilosophie, Uni Frankfurt
From: Lars-Erik �sterud on 8 Nov 2007 17:15
Sebastian G. wrote:

> On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent

Well, some sites (MS ones too) doesn't wokr OK with FF.
At work (another issue) lots of web applications require IE :-(
And since the IE core files always are on the system
(and are used by applications for "itegrated" web windows)...

Well, one need to protect as good as possible for IE as well
(WebWasher removes ads inside apps using IE and engine too :-)
--
Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605
From: Sebastian G. on 8 Nov 2007 19:20
Lars-Erik �sterud wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent
>
> Well, some sites (MS ones too) doesn't wokr OK with FF.


Show me one. In contrast I can show you many which wouldn't work with IE.

> At work (another issue) lots of web applications require IE :-(


Web applications are something different than webpages. Of course you might
use any insecure application client as long as you run it over an encrypted
and authenticated connection. That's why Windows Update, at least until
Microsoft broke it with version 6, is not a security problem.

> And since the IE core files always are on the system
> (and are used by applications for "itegrated" web windows)...


that's a serious problem. But well, we already know that.

> Well, one need to protect as good as possible for IE as well


There is no even partially tangible protection for IE, by design.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Are web sites attacking us even AFTER we disconnect from them?
Next: Firewall Selection Advice