Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by prawn on Thursday November 03, 2016 @01:35AM (#12861832)

Ads are a security issue. I've had machines hacked in the past simply by visiting a mainstream site with advertising (NBA.com, for example). There is no chance I risk giving up ad blocking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by blahi on Thursday November 03, 2016 @02:44AM (#12862031)

This argument holds only if you block javascript wholesale. Do you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by prawn on Thursday November 03, 2016 @03:06AM (#12862104)

I don't and I also disagree that it invalidates the argument. Advertising scripts are a blackbox for almost every site using them. There are open bidding systems and poor checks in place to validate ads that are submitted (Flash ads, for example, in the past).

In the example I cited, I didn't get a devastating virus from boxscore Javascript on NBA.com, or from some other local script, it was a driveby from a hosted ad. Just not worth the risk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by blahi on Thursday November 03, 2016 @03:50AM (#12862239)

The large chunk of malware distributed via websites is through hacked sites which fire the malicious scipts only a in 2-3 visits out of 100. Ads are responsible for about 20-30% of the malware distribution.

So yeah. Your argument does not hold.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by zajd on Thursday November 03, 2016 @09:33AM (#12863763)

> Ads are responsible for about 20-30% of the malware distribution

Do you have a source for this comment?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pornhub Bypasses Ad Blockers with WebSockets by prawn on Sunday November 06, 2016 @03:25PM (#12886870)

Ads are responsible for about 20-30% of the malware distribution.

How does my argument not hold? 20-30% is huge!

[ Parent | on HN ]