this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1159 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3183 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DNS ad blockers are not sufficient to block all ads and often overly broad. So they have much higher rate of false positives and negatives compared to in-browser ad blockers. Differentiating between ads and useful content based on domain names will become more and more difficult. Both might use some url from the same cloud provider, and blocking those breaks a lot of stuff.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)
[–] generic_computers@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's both a browser extension and a DNS filter.

https://adguard-dns.io/kb/general/dns-filtering/#how-does-dns-filtering-work

Edit: It seems the apps can act as a VPN to filter traffic.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

You where talking about "system wide AdGuard", which is not the browser addon, but an app that uses DNS blocking, be it by either letting people set DNS servers manually, or automatically through VPN. Their VPN does not break TLS connection by inserting custom certificates and MITM proxies, so they cannot read/modifiy content.

It might be possible to use TLS breaking proxies for systemwide ad blocking, but even that wouldn't help, because nowadays a lot of content and ads are loaded dynamically via javascript. So a browser is required to filter ads.

[–] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Maybe you are looking for SpamGuard, TrojanGuard, VirusGuard, MalwareGuard, SpywareGuard, RansomWareGuard, etc. instead.