Adblock+noscript, FTW!



  • I am getting tired of ALWAYS being right :trollface:

    related:

    https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/and-this-kind-of-bs-is-exactly-why-i-have-noscript-on-by-default-everywhere/54454/155


  • area_can

    Only a luddite would disable javascript. c'mon, it's 2016!!1



  • Ooh! Permission to brand myself a luddite? Is there like a shiny nametag I can wear or something? :smiley:




  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    I don't visit any of the sites in the list, so... Win?


  • sockdevs

    Given one of the infected ad networks was Google's, I wouldn't be smug just yet...



  • Google's ad network is DoubleClick. It's scuzzy as hell. Always has been.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @RaceProUK said:

    smug

    Not smug, just entertained. From my perspective, the Dark Web extends much farther than everyone else thinks it does.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Yes,

    https://what.thedailywtf.com/users/Vaire/preferences

    It's the input called "Name".

    Just type in Luddite

    Filed Under: Glad to help

    Addendum: By going to my preferences I seem to have broken the forum for a bit... good job, me!



  • I've not seen any of these but I assume using Adblock at home, and the firewall/proxy at work, keeps these things at bay.


  • Dupa

    @Kuro said:

    It's the input called "Name".

    Just type in Luddite

    Also, Discourse is so awesome, that your silver badge earned that way is actually only for a set time: until Saturday. Sometimes on Saturday it will vanish! How's that for automation?



  • I had been resisting doing that, but now I guess I have to :smiley:



  • This is why I won't use the internet at all.

    Or go outside.

    Or make physical contact with people.




  • sockdevs

    @Rhywden said:

    Yes, because Flash and Java have so much to do with Javascript. :rolleyes:

    You're right, they don't really have anything to do with JavaScript. But they are loaded by it.



  • You do realize that you can disable such plugins without gimping your browser at the same time?



  • @Rhywden said:

    You do realize that you can disable such plugins without gimping your browser at the same time?

    NoScript, despite the name, does not have to disable JS. It has some security bits that are useful even when scripts are globally allowed. Blocking plugins until requested to unblock them is one of them. Also clickjacking protection and XSS filter.



  • @CatPlusPlus said:

    Blocking plugins until requested to unblock them is

    a core feature of every major browser.


  • sockdevs

    @Rhywden said:

    You do realize that you can disable such plugins without gimping your browser at the same time?

    You mean via whitelists, which NoScript and other similar add-ons have?



  • @ben_lubar said:

    a core feature of every major browser.

    NoScript's bit more powerful, and additional features make it worth installing anyway. Or uMatrix + uBlock, but that unfortunately lacks clickjacking protection (but at least it can block iframes).



  • Yes, that makes them sooooo useful for me:

    Pupil: "Hey, I want to access that site but it says here that a teacher needs to whitelist it!"
    Other 24 pupils: "Me, too!"


  • sockdevs

    So, whitelists are bad because you can't be arsed setting them up in advance?



  • How exactly am I supposed to whitelist in advance when the task is:

    "Research this topic."


  • sockdevs

    Ah, OK, so whitelists are bad because you're a lazy-ass fuck.



  • If I were to give them a list of 3 websites only which they could use, that would be somewhat contrary to the whole purpose of the task.

    I don't expect a braindead moron like you to understand that subtle distinction.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    OK, so whitelists are bad because you're a lazy-ass fuck.

    No, dingus. Whitelists are bad when you don't know what needs whitelisting.


  • sockdevs

    Ah, OK, so whitelists are bad because you can't be bothered to respond to your students' requests.

    @loopback0 said:

    No, dingus. Whitelists are bad when you don't know what needs whitelisting.

    Really? I wonder how he could find out... I mean, its' not like his students could, y'know, ask him or something; that would be ridiculous.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Ah, OK, so whitelists are bad because you can't be bothered to respond to your students' requests.

    Those lessons I'm already running around, answering questions and removing technical obstacles.

    And now you want to add on top of that and turn me into the equivalent of this:


  • sockdevs

    @Rhywden said:

    removing technical obstacles

    Whitelisting websites is a technical obstacle.

    @Rhywden said:

    And now you want to add on top of that and turn me into the equivalent of this

    Oh yes, because taking some seconds to whitelist a website or two is totally comparable to a 1920s telephone switchboard.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Oh yes, because taking some seconds to whitelist a website or two is totally comparable to a 1920s telephone switchboard.

    My dear, you show that you have no idea at all of how this would work in a classroom. As such, your opinions are worthless. Run along now and go play with the others.


  • sockdevs

    Ah yes, the 'be a condescending fuckwit' defense.

    All you're doing is making excuses to be lazy.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Yes, that makes them sooooo useful for me:

    Pupil: "Hey, I want to access that site but it says here that a teacher needs to whitelist it!"
    Other 24 pupils: "Me, too!"

    Does it have to be a global or teacher-managed whitelist? Extensions like AdBlock/NoScript are usually managed in-browser.



  • If I use a pupil-managed whitelist I might as well not bother because I'll only train them how to whitelist a site very fast.

    The very nature of "research this topic" is not very amicable to whitelisting.



  • @NedFodder said:

    The odd thing about twenty-first century Luddites is that we appear to be the only ones opposing machine breakage.



  • The SpiderLabs researchers speculate the people pushing the bad ads are on the lookout for expired domains containing the word "media" to capitalize on the reputation they may enjoy as a legitimate address.

    Which is odd, because almost every domain name containing the word "media" belongs to some scuzzy advertiser. I block them reflexively. I don't recall ever having a good reason to unblock one, either.



  • If they start grabbing domains with "cdn", we might all be in trouble.


  • mod

    @Rhywden said:

    The very nature of "research this topic" is not very amicable to whitelisting.

    It's not really amicable to noscript either, given the ever-increasing popularity of flash-based and JS-based single-page apps.

    I'm much more a fan of the immutable hard drive image that restores on boot. You can save things temporarily, but you'll need a flash drive to persist them after class, they'll get wiped out at the end of the day when the machines reboot. Feel free to download trojans, the network is isolated and there's nothing of importance on them to steal. It's not perfect, but it goes a long way.



  • That's exactly what our school is doing.

    Granted, instead of a flash drive, the pupils can also save to a network drive - but that is compartmentalized and they don't have access to anything beyond that. So if they catch CryptoLocker or something like that, the damage will be limited to their folder alone.


  • sockdevs

    Why didn't you say so in the first place? Then it would have been clear NoScript is unnecessary.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @RaceProUK said:

    Ah, OK, so whitelists are bad because you can't be bothered to respond to your students' requests.

    @loopback0 said:

    No, dingus. Whitelists are bad when you don't know what needs whitelisting.

    Really? I wonder how he could find out... I mean, its' not like his students could, y'know, ask him or something; that would be ridiculous.

    24 students, ~20 websites to be whitelisted per student, multiplied by how many classes he teaches per day. That would be the only thing that he does. Your statement is idiotic.


  • sockdevs

    How silly of me to forget that whitelisting a website is a massively involved process that takes three hours to- oh, wait, it's just a few button clicks.

    Seriously, if you can't whitelist a site in NoScript in under five seconds, then you're :doing_it_wrong:


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @RaceProUK said:

    How silly of me to forget that whitelisting a website is a massively involved process that takes three hours to- oh, wait, it's just a few button clicks.

    Seriously, if you can't whitelist a site in NoScript in under five seconds, then you're :doing_it_wrong:

    :sigh:

    OK, since you are being argumentative and unreasonable, let's say it takes 5 seconds. 5 seconds * 480 requests still adds up to 40 minutes of class time, per class.

    And, it would take longer than that anyway for decentralized whitelist management to work.


  • sockdevs

    And you think the alternative is to throw security out of the window? I'm glad you don't manage any machine I have to use.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    So now not using NoScript is just "throwing security out the window"?

    Fucking hell. Is the official language of these forums now "Hyperbole"? You're fucking retarded.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @RaceProUK said:

    And you think the alternative is to throw security out of the window?

    Which strawman said that? The alternative is to not use NoScript in this sort of situation but use a different security approach


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Polygeekery said:

    Is the official language of these forums now "Hyperbole"? You're fucking retarded

    Nicely proving that the answer is "yes" :tractor:


  • sockdevs

    @Polygeekery said:

    So now not using NoScript is just "throwing security out the window"?

    You're the one who's failing to suggest an alternative.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Is the official language of these forums now "Hyperbole"?

    now?



  • @Polygeekery said:

    OK, since you are being argumentative and unreasonable, let's say it takes 5 seconds. 5 seconds * 480 requests still adds up to 40 minutes of class time, per class.

    That's also assuming you're just blindly whitelisting every site they ask for - which makes the whole thing pointless anyway. Actually checking them all would take even longer, making it even more of a time sink.

    edit: I accidentally the last sentence.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    You're the one who's failing to suggest an alternative.

    You're the one suggesting it's the only line of defense


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.