adlog

[Tom T.]

reset your host file if you want.it wont make a difference.it will just waste more of your time.

Learning something new is never a waste of *my* time. YMMV.

the ff version was just an observation.lets not take shots at which version has not been supported/upgraded for years,& years.when you only got an update recently after years of nothing.

What do you mean by that? I have the supported Fx 3.6.28 for my default browser, but have had access to 7, 8, 9, 10, and now 11.

Sometimes I will double-check an issue or fix in whatever is the latest stable release, in addition to the (supported) default browser.
So I don't understand the "years of nothing".

[Guest]

just a little more...
it's not about an ad getting through.it's the fact that it was bundled with a tracking cookie.(bs.serving-sys.com)
if it can happen on a legit website like cnet.just image how much damage it can do on a not so legit site full of viruses,& malware???
why aren't you,& Giorgio more concerned???
ff3,& 4 haven't been properly updated for years,but that is irrelevant.

[Tom T.]

it's not about an ad getting through.it's the fact that it was bundled with a tracking cookie.(bs.serving-sys.com)

As has been mentioned repeatedly, NS is not a cookie-manager or ad-blocker.

RequestPolicy fits in very nicely with NS, and will block *all* requests to the undesired site, including still images, cookies, and other things that are not executable, and hence are not the focus of NS, which is a *security* tool focusing on *executable content". Do you understand the difference now? Not being sarcastic; many don't.

Both devs (NS and RP) agree that the two complement each other very nicely.

If a script is getting through without permission, *that* is legitimate concern.
I do intend to remove Hosts blocking and reproduce the issue, as now I'm curious.

ff3,& 4 haven't been properly updated for years,but that is irrelevant.

Please fact-check, and don't class 4 with 3.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/3. ... easenotes/

Firefox 3.6 Release Notes

v.3.6.28, released March 13th, 2012 (Is that recent enough? - T.T.)

What’s New in Firefox 3.6.28

Firefox 3.6.28 fixes the following issues found in previous versions of Firefox 3.6:

* Fixed several security issues.
* Fixed several stability issues.

Sounds like a "proper" update to me. If you mean, all the bells and whistles, those are unimportant to this user, so long as security and stability are being patched as needed -- which is *not* the case with Fx 8.x

[Guest]

sigh...i couldn't care less about cookies,cookie monster,or Request Policy.it was just an example.
if adlog gets through noscript what else could get through?do you understand the risk???(i'm not being mean,or sarcastic either.)
THIS IS A HUGE SECURITY FLAW!!!
DON'T REMOVE THE HOST LIST.mine is there,but adlog still gets through it.
as for the ff version.it was just a compatibility question.not sure why you are stuck on that.(you,me,& therube got different versions.that's why i asked.)
you might be wright,i probably was thinking about ff4.from the logs i'm seeing,there wasn't much going on from 2008-2010 for ff3.(then again,i don't care to check.it's not important.i was just asking about compatibility issues between different versions.)
let it go,just let it go.
i'm tired of repeating the exact same thing a million times.let Giorgio look into adlog.
this will probably be the last time i'm going to post exact same thing.

[Tom T.]

This was easy.

Code: Select all

<img src="http://adlog.com.com/adlog/i/r=6458&sg=1815&o=19409%253a&h=cn&p=2&b=6&l=en_US&site=4&pt=2000&nd=19409&pid=&cid=0&pp=100&e=3&rqid=00phx1-ad-e16:4F67B53C64C89E&orh=cnet.com&ort=&oepartner=&epartner=&ppartner=&pdom=download.cnet.com&cpnmodule=&count=&ra=24%2e233%2e145%2e121&dvar=dvar%255fplatform%253dwindows%2523dvar%255fversion%253d2011&ucat_rsi=%2526&pg=T2gzVwoOYJAAAFELW28AAABe&t=2012.03.20.07.35.51/http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/common/dotclear.gif" HEIGHT="0" WIDTH="0" alt="" style="position:absolute; top:0px; left:0px" />

The ads are images in the page, not served by scripting. No scripts are running from adlog, so this is not a NoScript issue.
NoScript home page has some ads that are displayed as images, not by third-party scripting.


I had to work very hard to get what I think is the tracking cookie -- the "browser ABCD" (or some letters) one.
Needed to remove Hosts blocking, TA com.com and some other things in RequestPolicy, allow script from dw.com.com in NS, AND uncheck Fx Options > Privacy > Allow third-party cookies.

If you're concerned about allowing third-party cookies, why don't you just set Fx to block them? End of problem.

Firefox Tools > Options > Privacy.

Use custom settings for History. Uncheck the next four things. Check Allow cookies, Keep until = ask me every time. (I allow for session only.)
UNCHECK Accept third-party cookies.

I find this more private than "Private Browsing Mode", as it actually offers more finely-grained control.
Interestingly, one of the diagrams at http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Private-Browsing has "Allow third-party cookies" CHECKED.
D'oh.

[Tom T.]

We cross-posted.

Giorgio doesn't need to look into adlog, because adlog SCRIPT is not running. Other than being annoying, how does a still image threaten you?

See above about the cookie.

This is the last time that I'm going to say the same thing, too.

Cheers.

[Guest]

Tom YOU ARE JUST NOT GETTING THIS.YOU ARE NOT SEEING WHAT I'M SEEING.I'M TIRED OF THIS POINTLESS ARGUMENT.
what do you think,i was born yesterday.i do have privacy set up,& 3rd. party cookies blocked.(that's 1 of the first things i do when i set up any browser.)
i guess you are not familiar with malicious code being hidden under an invisible pixel.(ClearClick has absolutely nothing to do with this.)
to the lesser degree look at google-analytics,or i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/common/dotclear.gif.(yes,nothing like that can be utilized for evil.)
if you think that viruses can not be disguised as pictures.guess again.(rare,but it happens.)
if "you think" Giorgio doesn't have to look into this.fine,i no longer care.at this point i want my computer to be attacked instead of having this pointless argument where you,& me are TALKING ABOUT TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Tom thank you for all your help.

@ therube.
thank you very much for all your help.

@ Giorgio.
again,thank you very much for noscript.

I GIVE UP.I NO LONGER CARE.bye,bye.
surge666666.

[Giorgio Maone]

Guest, if you're still there and you're concerned by anything coming from adlog.com.com, just add the following rule to your ABE USER ruleset:

Code: Select all

Site .adlog.com.com
Deny

[Guest]

@ Giorgio Maone.
that is 1 of the first things i had tried.no,it doesn't work.
neither does adlog.com.com,or http://adlog.com.com.

[GµårÐïåñ]

Can I ask what makes you CERTAIN that it doesn't work, what's your proof? Or I should say, how are you validating it works or doesn't? Because I have been watching this topic and you throwing a tantrum since the first post and yet nothing you have to say is ACTUALLY backed up in fact or proof that it fails. Share your methodology for "verifying" that it doesn't work, show us would be even better. As a hacker for more than 20+ years, I can tell you categorically that if you had done the ABE rule ALONE, it would stop it, not even including all the hundred other ways you can do it too. So you are either misinterpreting your data, or just don't know as much as you think about what it is you are "concerned" about.

[Tom T.]

@ Guest:

Yes, I see the clear GIF (tracker) in the source code.
Yes, I know that images have been used to exploit flaws *in Windows image-parsing functions", and been the subject of security updates.

If you don't want to get a cookie-blocker and an ad blocker, then don't complain when you get cookies and ads.

I'm going to test Giorgio's ABE rule, knowing it will work.

On a general note, screaming and insulting those who are trying to help you is not the most productive method of getting assistance or information.

[therube]

With the ABE rule, there is no change from what I posted on the page before, http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... 649#p36649.

adlog.com.com is still there.

WAIT A MINUTE, I HAD ABE DISABLED .... STAND BY ...

Still there, nonetheless.

(ABE require a restart or anything like that?)
<No.>

Perhaps, Inline Script Blockage ?
Or just that fact that it is not using <script>?

Nope that is not it.

ABE is in fact working.

All that it is, is that there are links (<a href="...) to adlog.com.com.
There is no content from adlog.com.com.

It is just like saying here is a link to adlog.com.com: http://adlog.com.com/adlog/.
It is static, doing nothing, unless you click it.
No content from adlog.com.com is being brought into informaction.com, so there is nothing to allow or not allow or to block.

Now setting the ABE rule does block you from following the adlog.com.com link, should you click it.


(I think I've got it. Now just don't ask me to repeat it .)

[Tom T.]

@ Giorgio:

My test confirmed therube's results. Ads are still there, even with ABE rule (and enabled).

The fact that HOSTS blocking doesn't affect this, either, means... maybe, that because the image source is embedded in the page, NS doesn't see, or block, the call from within the page to an external *image* source, and neither does ABE (or Hosts) -- which all would do if a third party, script or otherwise, would do if actually run as an external 3rd party?

Same as ads at noscript.net.

It seems OP is right on this one point, though wrong on the others -- it's not a NS issue at all; nothing NS can do about it: get a cookie blocker and some ad blockers, etc. -- but don't holler at NoScript.

Please try your own ABE rule yourself, and confirm.

Any other way to make the ads go away, short of Greasemonkey, within NS itself?

[Guest]

@ GµårÐïåñ.
i'm not throwing a tantrum.(i'm not sure where you got that idea.)
Tom was just arguing with me about something else.plus,he can not see/confirm what i was seeing.therube has confirmed it though.see,i'm not alone on this.
here's proof:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8104/cnetadlog01.jpg
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/2589/cnetadlog02.jpg
as you can clearly see:noscript is on,the abe rule was in effect,the host file was blocking everything.(including adlog.)
however,adlog still gets through.(believe me,don't believe me.i don't know what to tell you.)
as a hacker for 20+ years you know better than anybody that,"nothing is unhackable."
@ Tom T.
@ Tantrum.you are a funny,funny guy.(who is being insulting now?)
when did i insult you!???
therube has confirmed it,it's there with an abe rule on.(i'm glad you see it now.)
how many times had i told you,"THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COOKIES.I WAS USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE???"
yet,you keep arguing with me about something else off topic for 2 pages.
@ therube.
again,thank you.

[therube]

Tom & Guest, I've edited any number of times (as I have a habit of doing) so reread my above post .

There is no ad from adlog.com.com.
There is only a link to (or through) adlog.com.com.
The ad that you see is generated by cnet itself.

With the ABE rule in place, click the link.
The link is correctly blocked by ABE.