Poll What kind of ad/tracker blocking do you use?

[piquiteco]

@Jan Willy had already warned me about these ad blocker testing sites that are inaccurate, and @oldschool did too. And one thing he always repeats is, "I stay safe and don't get paranoid." I always remember that saying of his, but instead of taking his advice, I seem to get even more paranoid lol. Maybe it's because of the forum, but if you take everything you hear and read about security literally, my friends, you'll end up going crazy.

 

[Parkinsond]

Maybe it's because of the forum

Yes, MT enhances my paranoia, also security vendors do; to sell their products, they must exaggerate the potential security risks (a common marketing tactic for all products, not just software: if you do not have this home appliance, your life will be misery.

 

[piquiteco]

@Parkinsond Netcraft checks quickly. I submitted a phishing URL they added. Before, they didn't detect it, but now they block it.

Spoiler

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

I've run these kinds of tests before, so this isn't my first time around. To really test my ad blocker, I like to go to sites that I know are loaded with ads. My process is pretty simple, I'll turn off my ad blocker, find those sites, and then turn it back on. Once I clear my history, I'll go back to those sites and see how it performs. Another thing you can do is use other extensions to see how many ads are being blocked in real time.

Let's say you're using a DNS filter. A great way to test it is to pair it with a browser extension like uBlock Origin Lite. The process is pretty simple, disable both your DNS filter and uBlock Origin Lite and find a site. Then, turn on just uBlock Origin Lite to see how many ads it blocks. After that, go ahead and enable your DNS filter and refresh the page to see the difference.

It's a practical, real-world test, instead of relying on a theoretical test, you're using real websites that have a variety of ad types, which provides a more accurate assessment of your blocking setup.

 

[Parkinsond]

@Parkinsond Netcraft checks quickly. I submitted a phishing URL they added. Before, they didn't detect it, but now they block it.

Spoiler

View attachment 290241

I am using four websites for URL check; all are good, but I have noticed K portal sometimes has delay for flagging malicious websites; that what made me think one of McAfee detections was false positive, it was true positive but K flagged it later on.

Safeweb

safeweb.norton.com

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal allows you to scan files, domains, IP addresses, and URLs for threats, malware, viruses

opentip.kaspersky.com

VirusTotal

VirusTotal

www.virustotal.com

Lionic | 鴻璟科技

check.lionic.com

Netcraft is very good for phishing websites detection, but not equally good for malicious ones.

 

[Parkinsond]

I've run these kinds of tests before, so this isn't my first time around. To really test my ad blocker, I like to go to sites that I know are loaded with ads. My process is pretty simple, I'll turn off my ad blocker, find those sites, and then turn it back on. Once I clear my history, I'll go back to those sites and see how it performs. Another thing you can do is use other extensions to see how many ads are being blocked in real time.

Let's say you're using a DNS filter. A great way to test it is to pair it with a browser extension like uBlock Origin Lite. The process is pretty simple: disable both your DNS filter and uBlock Origin Lite and find a site. Then, turn on just uBlock Origin Lite to see how many ads it blocks. After that, go ahead and enable your DNS filter and refresh the page to see the difference.

It's a practical, real-world test, instead of relying on a theoretical test, you're using real websites that have a variety of ad types, which provides a more accurate assessment of your blocking setup.

Evidence-based cyebersecurity.

 

[piquiteco]

Netcraft is very good for phishing websites detection, but not equally good for malicious ones.

K didn't detect it even now through Opentip; of all the products, only alphaMountain detected it. You saw how nothing is 100% perfect; a new phishing website appeared an hour ago. The good news is that only laymen or those with no knowledge of security would fall for it. Just by glancing at the URL, you can tell that it's suspicious.

 

[Parkinsond]

K didn't detect it even now through Opentip

The real dilemma is to decide if K missed or the other vendor is falsely flagging, especially when dealing with reputable vendor such as K; it is easier if it is Dr.Web instead of K, for example.
Anyway, provided my files and accounts are still accessible, and my PC is not getting slow, I assume I am not infected.

 

[Trident]

I am using four websites for URL check; all are good, but I have noticed K portal sometimes has delay for flagging malicious websites; that what made me think one of McAfee detections was false positive, it was true positive but K flagged it later on.

Safeweb

safeweb.norton.com

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal allows you to scan files, domains, IP addresses, and URLs for threats, malware, viruses

opentip.kaspersky.com

VirusTotal

VirusTotal

www.virustotal.com

Lionic | 鴻璟科技

check.lionic.com

Netcraft is very good for phishing websites detection, but not equally good for malicious ones.

They will all have these cases where one will block a website, the other one won’t, when you are comparing their blacklists only.

The only true solution against Phishing is real time analysis of the page and URL, which extensions often don’t provide and even fully installed products not always do properly.

 

[piquiteco]

I am not better than anyone; I am the least experienced among the rest of members, just want to do the job with least possible effort.

Yes, I meant in terms of security. You are using the basics, which are sufficient for your browsing. Not 2 AVs at the same time, and not five extensions. Got it? That's prudence on your part, lol.

 

[Parkinsond]

They will all have these cases where one will block a website, the other one won’t, when you are comparing their blacklists only.

The only true solution against Phishing is real time analysis of the page and URL, which extensions often don’t provide and even fully installed products not always do properly.

I have recently found this website for doing analysis; it takes some time however.

Home - urlquery

urlquery is an online service that scans webpages for malware, suspicious elements and reputation.

urlquery.net

 

[piquiteco]

I have recently found this website for doing analysis; it takes some time however.

Home - urlquery

urlquery is an online service that scans webpages for malware, suspicious elements and reputation.

urlquery.net

In addition to searching the website, does it show the website's IP address? Interesting...

 

[Parkinsond]

In addition to searching the website, does it show the website's IP address? Interesting...
View attachment 290247

Yes, it provides more data, but takes some time to finish processing, not just instant as in the case with Norton safe web for example.

 

[piquiteco]

@Parkinsond I'm going to stray a little off topic. The domain is Chinese, but the language is Portuguese, which is completely different. I assume that .ch domains are cheaper and less bureaucratic to register, and more difficult to take down. Well, I suppose that's the case. That's the case with this phishing. Underneath the urlquery you sent me, it still shows up as if it were an HTTP Transactions (42) diagram.

 

[Parkinsond]

@Parkinsond I'm going to stray a little off topic. The domain is Chinese, but the language is Portuguese, which is completely different. I assume that .ch domains are cheaper and less bureaucratic to register, and more difficult to take down. Well, I suppose that's the case. That's the case with this phishing. Underneath the urlquery you sent me, it still shows up as if it were an HTTP Transactions (42) diagram.

I am not recommending it as a tried and trusted url check site; only presented as Trident referred to analyzing examined websites rather than checking against database as in the case with extensions.
I only trust the major of the major vendors, such as K and Symantec, followed by Norton, McAfee, and B.

 

[simmerskool]

Why not upgrading to W11?

win11 does not like my hardware and I have no desire to force it. ChatGPT says my M4_mini is very secure, and relatively easy transition and playing with linux in VMw.

 

[simmerskool]

Not sure if you know, but Safari has its own Content Blocking API. WIPR2 uses this api, just providing the lists in JSON format.
The Safari Content Blocking API is very efficient (at the very least it is pre-compiled and not interpreted code like extensions). It is very efficient and I love efficiency.

Downside: will not work outside of Safari. Ideally, still combine with DNS adblocking so ads can be blocked in apps as well.

thanks! & yes, it's wipr2.

 

[simmerskool]

Btw the project that checks how many ads are blocked (in %) was down for a while.
Now back and running again.

With my setup, I got 96% blocked (just dns).

Ad Blocker Test | Check if Your Ad Blocker Works

Free ad blocker test for browsers, DNS filters, and VPNs. See whether ads, trackers, and analytics scripts are blocked in one click with detailed results.

adblock.turtlecute.org

ugh -- it wants to me add (or remove) something in ubo to get an accurate reading. stuff like that always makes me suspicious... albeit probably harmless.

 

[TairikuOkami]

In the end it comes down to a simple question, does your current solution work for you? Regardless of stupid tests.
I myself see no ADs and recently Edge/Copilot has introduced ProvenanceData, but not here, I block junk via DNS.

 

[simmerskool]

In the end it comes down to a simple question, does your current solution work for you? Regardless of stupid tests.
I myself see no ADs and recently Edge/Copilot has introduced ProvenanceData, but not here, I block junk via DNS.

fwiw in US in my win10 with Edge version 139.0.3405.102 (Official build) (64-bit) as default browser did not find ProvenanceData...