6 ms·

I feel that we've done ourselves a disservice by referring to them as ad blockers rather than content blockers or, better yet, virus blockers. With malicious ad

I feel that we've done ourselves a disservice by referring to them as ad blockers rather than content blockers or, better yet, virus blockers. With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. Could you imagine visiting a web site only to have it tell you to disable your virus blocker to view the web page? Yet, web sites make the same requests of your "ad blocker" even though the end result is the same. They want you to disable your security protections and risk infection to view a web page.[1] Sadly, I believe we've already lost this battle and are worse off for it. 1. https://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/forbes-malware-ad-blocker-advertisements.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/forbes-malware-...

heretoo 7y ago
> "risk infection" this is how I feel about all advertisements
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And rightfully so, because their whole point is to compromise your mental faculties. They're a memetic hazard.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
Ads in general should be considered malware. They have adware and spyware components and both types of software used to be detected and removed by anti-malware software. Apparently a few lines in the terms of service nobody reads is all it takes to legitimize this abusive software. Because users have "agreed" to be subjected to malware, their use of content blockers somehow becomes immoral.
seppin 7y ago
Or just a way of maintaining the integrity of your own internet experience.
robertlagrant 7y ago
> With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. I don't understand this. How are malicious ads the primary way to compromise a computer?
- korethr 7y ago
  It depends on the ad. In the before time, long ago, ads were a simple static image or body of text. And in that case, while not impossible, it's rather hard to compromise a computer with a static image or block of text. You'd have to have a fairly specific image crafted to adversarially target a specific bug in the rendering of images to get code execution, and thus compromise a computer. It is no longer the before time. In the now time, ads frequently contain not just text or images, but javascript as well. And already having code execution by virtue of javacript, it is a lot easier to escalate the privileges of that code execution from the limited environment of the browser to installing code on the computer running that browser. Want to deploy your bot? Buy an ad that includes your malicious javascript payload. Now, anyone who goes to a site and views your ad will execute your javascript for free in addition to your offer to sign them up for credit score monitoring.
  - mobjack 7y ago
    Are there any ad networks that allow random advertisers to include custom JavaScript in ads? It just seems like a huge security hole and is not in the interest of ad networks for multiple reasons. They might have JS in ads, but isn't that from the ad network's infrastructure.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      In short, yes. Advertisements are a huge way to get malware onto people’s computers. This just one random article from a google search for “malware advertising” but there are tons and it still happens today. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash-of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/big-n...
anotherevan 7y ago
Yes, I call them HTML firewalls.
MaulingMonkey 7y ago
When I'm feeling tetchy I call them malware blockers. RATs, browser toolbars, adware, etc. might not technically be viruses, but they sure as heck are being used as malware.
the_pwner224 7y ago
"malware blockers" Many ads are not computer viruses, but almost all of them are malicious.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lottin 7y ago
I think it's better to just be open about it. I don't like ads so I block them with an ad-blocker. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't have a moral obligation to waste my time watching things that don't interest me or being manipulated in a way that is detrimental to my psychological and material well-being.

heretoo 7y ago

> "risk infection" this is how I feel about all advertisements

TeMPOraL 7y ago
And rightfully so, because their whole point is to compromise your mental faculties. They're a memetic hazard.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

Ads in general should be considered malware. They have adware and spyware components and both types of software used to be detected and removed by anti-malware software. Apparently a few lines in the terms of service nobody reads is all it takes to legitimize this abusive software. Because users have "agreed" to be subjected to malware, their use of content blockers somehow becomes immoral.

seppin 7y ago

Or just a way of maintaining the integrity of your own internet experience.

robertlagrant 7y ago

> With malicious ads being the primary vector for compromising a person's computer, calling these tools virus blockers would not only be more accurate, but it would make it harder for sites to counter their use from a public relations point of view. I don't understand this. How are malicious ads the primary way to compromise a computer?

korethr 7y ago
It depends on the ad. In the before time, long ago, ads were a simple static image or body of text. And in that case, while not impossible, it's rather hard to compromise a computer with a static image or block of text. You'd have to have a fairly specific image crafted to adversarially target a specific bug in the rendering of images to get code execution, and thus compromise a computer. It is no longer the before time. In the now time, ads frequently contain not just text or images, but javascript as well. And already having code execution by virtue of javacript, it is a lot easier to escalate the privileges of that code execution from the limited environment of the browser to installing code on the computer running that browser. Want to deploy your bot? Buy an ad that includes your malicious javascript payload. Now, anyone who goes to a site and views your ad will execute your javascript for free in addition to your offer to sign them up for credit score monitoring.
- mobjack 7y ago
  Are there any ad networks that allow random advertisers to include custom JavaScript in ads? It just seems like a huge security hole and is not in the interest of ad networks for multiple reasons. They might have JS in ads, but isn't that from the ad network's infrastructure.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    In short, yes. Advertisements are a huge way to get malware onto people’s computers. This just one random article from a google search for “malware advertising” but there are tons and it still happens today. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash-of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/big-n...

anotherevan 7y ago

Yes, I call them HTML firewalls.

MaulingMonkey 7y ago

When I'm feeling tetchy I call them malware blockers. RATs, browser toolbars, adware, etc. might not technically be viruses, but they sure as heck are being used as malware.

the_pwner224 7y ago

"malware blockers" Many ads are not computer viruses, but almost all of them are malicious.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lottin 7y ago

I think it's better to just be open about it. I don't like ads so I block them with an ad-blocker. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't have a moral obligation to waste my time watching things that don't interest me or being manipulated in a way that is detrimental to my psychological and material well-being.