JiSingh12

Level 3
BD consumes more cpu
moreoever, it pauses the website and waits for the result from cloud => can slow down your speed during peak hours
in overall, it's a great extension for malwares and phishing but not good against PUPs
So you recommend EBS + WDBP for best performance and protection overall i presume?
 
Reactions: oldschool

Evjl's Rain

Level 40
Content Creator
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
i see, but i lose the Search Analyzer & Tracker Detector feature from BTL, not that i ever looked at the green tick next to the links.. and i think my adblock is blocking most trackers anyway, so i guess no need to worry. EBS it is for definite now
you don't really need those features
tracker detection: you can replace it with proper filters in ublock. It will block. BDTL only detects but doesn't block + BDTL's tracker database is not good
search analyzer: if a website is malicious, you extension will block it anyway. I really think it's redundant. If it's malicious but your BDTL can't detect it and shows green, it will miss that malicious website
 

oldschool

Level 21
Verified
i see, but i lose the Search Analyzer & Tracker Detector feature from BTL, not that i ever looked at the green tick next to the links.. and i think my adblock is blocking most trackers anyway, so i guess no need to worry. EBS it is for definite now

I see your security config looks solid already. (Maybe overkill on browser exts.?) Just follow @Evjl's Rain suggestion when it comes to extensions. I suggest relaxation techniques like meditation :D because if you have good web habits you are fine! (y)
 

legendcampos

Level 5
Verified
Here on my system I am using a combination eset Nod32 + Adguard Basically this I think eset very good against pups, adwares, whenever I visit sites that have bitcoins, adwares, scripts of pages that open themselves... eset always blocks.

I still think WDBP and EBS inefficient against malicious advertisements. A simple test with adguard disabled in site Online Movies

eset.png

And with ESET deactivated they pass unnoticed

desativado.png
 
Last edited:

TairikuOkami

Level 21
Content Creator
Verified
I still think WDBP and EBS inefficient against malicious advertisements.
They are not really meant for that, they are for blocking URLs, ADs are embedded within webpages, they need a different filtering, like uBlock.
It is preferable to block ADs within the system before they reach the browser, like ESET, K9 or via DNS: adguard, alternate, cleanbrowsing.
 

legendcampos

Level 5
Verified
They are not really meant for that, they are for blocking URLs, ADs are embedded within webpages, they need a different filtering, like uBlock.
It is preferable to block ADs within the system before they reach the browser, like ESET, K9 or via DNS: adguard, alternate, cleanbrowsing.
Yes, what you have nowadays is true pages with malicious advertising, so I see no use of these two extensions.
 
Reactions: oldschool

JiSingh12

Level 3
it's enough only if you have proper filters for ublock
for years, I have never had any problem with these malicious scripts
i use blockzilla, adversity, squidblacklist, 1hosts, extreme measures, vxvault, and stevenblack hosts as custom filters.

Also got things like adguard base filter enabled and Disconnect malvertising filter list etc. ticked
 
Reactions: oldschool

Windows_Security

Level 21
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
They are not really meant for that, they are for blocking URLs, ADs are embedded within webpages, they need a different filtering, like uBlock.
It is preferable to block ADs within the system before they reach the browser, like ESET, K9 or via DNS: adguard, alternate, cleanbrowsing.
Why do people complain about AntiVirus companies going through hoops and loops to decrypt HTTPS traffic before it reaches your browser and advice positively on ad-blockers doing seemingly the same thing to block HTTPS encrypted malvertising URL's and redirects?

Can somebody explain this to me why the AV-approach is wrong and Anti-Ad approach (of Adguard, K9 etc) is okay?
 

Arequire

Level 22
Content Creator
Verified
Can somebody explain this to me why the AV-approach is wrong
There's a myriad of issues that can be caused by intercepting HTTPS. Things like breaking or not using certificate validation, using broken or outdated ciphers, degrading TLS connections and using outdated TLS versions, opening up connections to TLS attacks (Beast, Freak, Logjam, Crime, etc.)

and Anti-Ad approach (of Adguard, K9 etc) is okay?
I wouldn't say it's okay (I refuse to use AdGuard for this exact reason and its one of the reasons I don't use a traditional AV) but AdGuard themselves acknowledge the issues that HTTPS interception causes and actively try to avoid them as best they can. AV vendors just seem to be either negligent or indifferent when it comes to this stuff.

Here's a research paper about it if you want to get into the nitty gritty details:
https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/interception-ndss17.pdf
And the conclusion they came up with:
Antivirus vendors should reconsider intercepting HTTPS. Antivirus software operates locally and already has access to the local filesystem, browser memory, and any content loaded over HTTPS. Given their history of both TLS misconfigurations and RCE vulnerabilities, we strongly encourage antivirus providers to reconsider whether intercepting HTTPS is responsible.
 
Last edited: