Is this website laughing at me or what?

[polandspringboard2]

Skreemr.com. I'm searching for a song on there. When I forbid cpxinteractive.com or put it on my untrusted list, the ads come though. When it's not forbidden, I can't even see them! I can't even click on them! What's going on? They're animated and everything. It's as if no-script didn't do anything.

[Tom T.]

.....When I forbid cpxinteractive.com or put it on my untrusted list,....

You don't need to forbid it. NoScript blocks everything by default. I just went there without *allowing* anything, and searched successfully for a song. No ads, lots of block-logos where the animations (Flash videos) were blocked.

Is it possible that you have the NoScript functions confused? You don't need to do *anything* to prevent a script from running. You need to do something only if you want to *allow* it. Possibly you're clicking it in the menu, thinking that you're forbidding it, and actually allowing it?

Please try NoScript > Options > Reset. You might wish to Export your whitelist first, but be sure to delete any of the scripts served at skreemr. Let us know what happens then. Thank you.

[Alan Baxter]

Skreemr.com. I'm searching for a song on there. When I forbid cpxinteractive.com or put it on my untrusted list, the ads come though. When it's not forbidden, I can't even see them! I can't even click on them! What's going on? They're animated and everything. It's as if no-script didn't do anything.

I see what you mean. It's weird, isn't it. That ad is coming through an iframe and isn't necessarily implemented with a javascript from cpxinteractive.com. You could try using the site with nothing allowed, like Tom seems to be suggesting, or use the Adblock Plus extension. This filter seems to get rid of that iframe (found in the EasyList filterset).

Code: Select all

http://adserv$domain=~usps.com

[Tom T.]

That ad is coming through an iframe ... You could try using the site with nothing allowed, like Tom seems to be suggesting,...

Alan, as you know, for me, "nothing" means "nothing". Default for me: Go to NoScript > Options > Plugins and check every single box. That includes that iFrame that the OP and you seem to be seeing, which of course I don't see in my standard, full-lockdown mode. The site still worked. Issue resolved/prevented, as it will be in many other sites.

Edit: I just went there and allowed iFrame. No ad. I looked in Adblock Original. The iFrame is indeed being served by adserving.cpxinteractive.com. The reason I couldn't see it, even when temp allowing everything, is that that site is in my Hosts file block list. The Hosts service provided (at no cost) by http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm lists only sites known to drop spyware, adware, web bugs, tracking cookies, etc. Thus no ads for me, regardless of what is allowed in NS -- and no malware from cpx, either. Of course, this is my own opinion only, based only on my own experience, and no third party can be officially endorsed by this site's team members. I relate my personal success with this in the hope that it might be of interest to research for yourself.

[Giorgio Maone]

The ad is an innocuous, albeit annoying, (animated) GIF image, therefore NoScript has no business in blocking it.
Since it's contained in an IFramed, page, NoScript does block it if you've got NoScript Options|Forbid IFrames checked, but that's just an accident.

[polandspringboard2]

Yeah, iframe explains my problems with it. I checked it off in plugins and I see nice happy no-script blocks.

[/quote]
I see what you mean. It's weird, isn't it. That ad is coming through an iframe and isn't necessarily implemented with a javascript from cpxinteractive.com. You could try using the site with nothing allowed, like Tom seems to be suggesting, or use the Adblock Plus extension. This filter seems to get rid of that iframe (found in the EasyList filterset).

Code: Select all

http://adserv$domain=~usps.com

[/quote]

Just curious now, what's usps.com doing in an anti-ad code?

[Alan Baxter]

Apparently "http://adserv" blocks some non-ad content on usps.com, or at least did so at one time. The filter modifier "$domain=~usps.com" instructs Adblock Plus not to apply this filter on usps.com.

[Tom T.]

Yeah, iframe explains my problems with it. I checked it off in plugins and I see nice happy no-script blocks.

iMHO, you will be both a happier and a safer user if you take full advantage of NoScript's capabilities, and block *all* plug-ins by default, then allowing only those which you need and trust -- and only temporarily, unless you visit the site regularly. You can now see that with this method, your issue would never have occurred.

Just curious now, what's usps.com doing in an anti-ad code?

Good question! I wondered that myself when I saw the post!

Apparently "http://adserv" blocks some non-ad content on usps.com, or at least did so at one time. The filter modifier "$domain=~usps.com" instructs Adblock Plus not to apply this filter on usps.com.

Alan, I know that you prefer AdBlockPlus, and I prefer Adblock Original. You say tomato, I say tomahto. These are matters of personal taste only, and there is nothing to debate in matters of taste.

However, here is a case where ABP seems clearly to be over-complicating the situation, as the OP noted. When I open ABO at that site, it's very clear:

Code: Select all

http://adserving.cpxinteractive.com/st?ad_type=iframe&ad_size=728x90&section=255759

No mention of usps.com or of mixing up sites, or mixing ad content with non-ad content. The source and type are clearly identified. In this case, at least, I believe that the simpler solution provided the answer (source of ad) instantly and more clearly. I'm sure that there are other situations where ABP would provide a superior solution, and that it has capabilities that ABO does not. E. g., I have my own set of ad agencies and generics, entered once only. Then if any ads make it through those (not very often) I enter each new ad filter as I see the ad (but never again), rather than constantly import updated lists, which some might prefer. But just to let you know that my personal preference for ABO is supported by examples like this one and many others, and by a negative trial of ABP.

Everyone's system, setup, configuration, usage habits, and tastes vary. Cheers!

[therube]

There is no need to "constantly import updated lists".
Further there is no need to even use or subscribe to ANY lists. You can roll your own as you go along.

[Tom T.]

There is no need to "constantly import updated lists".
Further there is no need to even use or subscribe to ANY lists. You can roll your own as you go along.

Alan specifically cited an imported list as the source of his diagnosis:

This filter seems to get rid of that iframe (found in the EasyList filterset).

I was trying to be fair and balanced in my post, and not disparage Alan's (or your) preferences). If I'm rolling my own anyway, I don't see the advantage of ABP - I found it less user-friendly, and so did my friend with the MSCS, but that's OT here. I still say, to each, their own. What does *your* ABP show about the OP's site and iFrame ad/source?

[Purple]

Edit: I just went there and allowed iFrame. No ad. I looked in Adblock Original. The iFrame is indeed being served by adserving.cpxinteractive.com. The reason I couldn't see it, even when temp allowing everything, is that that site is in my Hosts file block list. The Hosts service provided (at no cost) by http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm lists only sites known to drop spyware, adware, web bugs, tracking cookies, etc. Thus no ads for me, regardless of what is allowed in NS -- and no malware from cpx, either. Of course, this is my own opinion only, based only on my own experience, and no third party can be officially endorsed by this site's team members. I relate my personal success with this in the hope that it might be of interest to research for yourself.

Sorry as I might be posting in the wrong place, just joined and still learning but in the interests of not starting a new topic, I just wondered IF I could use NS with a hosts file in place and know I know I can I know NS does not add entries in your hosts file but being new(ish) to it I just wondered. Anyway thanks and thanks for a great add-on Mr Maone.

[Tom T.]

Sorry as I might be posting in the wrong place, just joined and still learning but in the interests of not starting a new topic, I just wondered IF I could use NS with a hosts file in place and know I know I can I know NS does not add entries in your hosts file but being new(ish) to it I just wondered. Anyway thanks and thanks for a great add-on Mr Maone.

Absolutely. I have been using both NoScript and the Hosts file service for several years. Neither *should* conflict with the other; however, there was an extensive discussion to the effect that Giorgio Maone recommends that you do *not* use the localhost address, 127.0.0.1, for your Hosts file blocklists, which my Hosts provider (and many others) do. I brought this up to the provider of my hosts file, linked in my post above. Let's just say that the two had a difference of opinion , but a common ground was found: both agreed that using IP address 0.0.0.0 for your Hosts redirect was satisfactory. I took that advice and have had no trouble.

Assuming that you are comfortable editing system files (always make a complete disk image backup or system restore point first, and back up your valuable data besides), you can open the Hosts file with Wordpad, use the Edit > Replace function, and tell it to replace 127.0.0.1 with 0.0.0.0. This will take some seconds, as there are about 15,000 entries.

YOU MUST THEN CHANGE THE FIRST ENTRY IN HOSTS FILE BACK TO 127.0.0.1 LOCALHOST.

Save and exit. No reboot is necessary.

DISCLAIMER: This is my own opinion based on my own personal experience, not official advice of this forum, NoScript, Giorgio Maone, or Informaction. I find it works very well for me, and offer this opinion in the hope that it might be of some use to others, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES, AND WITHOUT LIABILITY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THIS INFORMATION. Support for products, services, or procedures unrelated to NoScript or Flashgot are not provided here, but you may be offered assistance as a courtesy only.

I hope this is helpful. I know that Mr. Maone appreciates your thanks. Also, as a freeware product, donations of any size whatsoever are always graciously appreciated, to help continue the support and development of NoScript and to keep it as a freeware product. Cheers!