NoScripters and WebSec nerds of all lands, unite!
https://forums.informaction.com/
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.polandspringboard2 wrote: .....When I forbid cpxinteractive.com or put it on my untrusted list,....
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).polandspringboard2 wrote: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.
Code: Select all
http://adserv$domain=~usps.comAlan, as you know, for me, "nothing" means "nothing". Default for me: Go to NoScript > Options > Plugins and check every single box. That includes that iFrame that the OP and you seem to be seeing, which of course I don't see in my standard, full-lockdown mode. The site still worked. Issue resolved/prevented, as it will be in many other sites.Alan Baxter wrote: That ad is coming through an iframe ... You could try using the site with nothing allowed, like Tom seems to be suggesting,...
Code: Select all
http://adserv$domain=~usps.comiMHO, 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.polandspringboard2 wrote:Yeah, iframe explains my problems with it. I checked it off in plugins and I see nice happy no-script blocks.
Good question! I wondered that myself when I saw the post!polandspringboard2 wrote:Just curious now, what's usps.com doing in an anti-ad code?
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.Alan Baxter wrote: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.
Code: Select all
http://adserving.cpxinteractive.com/st?ad_type=iframe&ad_size=728x90§ion=255759Alan specifically cited an imported list as the source of his diagnosis:therube wrote: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.
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?This filter seems to get rid of that iframe (found in the EasyList filterset).
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 canTom T. wrote: 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.
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 opinionPurple wrote: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
, 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.