-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 776
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Forcible /g00 adware insertion on newspaper websites #227
Comments
The |
Well is there any solution for this, besides from blocking the inline scripts ? Blocking inline scripts would be the last thing I wanna do, that's why I posted here. |
I will be able to answer when I have the time to investigate. |
I've investigated Instart Logic's crap for the past 3 hours, I now know how they work, how they communicate, how they implement on new customers and etc. @gorhill , If you can arrange private channel maybe an invisible thread on issues.adblockplus.org (just give me access I am using the same username there) I will post there all the details. I don't want Instart Logic people to see my research report. |
@IsraeliAdblocker Please do. If these guys find success, soon all other major blogs and websites will be infested with it and we will be forced to block inline scripts every now and then, so far folks at easylist forum came up with a filter which no longer works and only worsens the situation. |
|
Tried first site in list, I suggest:
Will await feedback. |
The only mentioned site that doesn´t work on my end is |
That does stop the onslaught attack /g00 attack, however manipulates and adds /g00/refferr/i to the domain at the address bar, and still adds referrer tracking cookies.
This one stops the attack from happening at the root page, however cookies are still created and inserted to the browser and occasional /g00 ads get loaded silently after few mins. |
Yes I do, I have page opened in another tab. Please let me finish what I'm testing. Also by cookies I meant third-party cookies which are inserted as first party. https://i.gyazo.com/d40c182c13f113fb41ddee2a4ac4d5fd.png using Wowhead reduced the amount crap cookies being inserted however some are still inserted apart from the main domain, even when I'm blocking 3rd party cookies and site data. Apparently wowhead isn't effective as I thought. I deleted all cookies/site data related to the site sandiegounion tribune and with wowhead filter reloaded again. Website (after few secs) - https://i.gyazo.com/b5fd844104770562743a921908b52b26.jpg Cookies - https://i.gyazo.com/513e196f14fa3587ec624ade2a5c3bcf.png |
Tested with same result as wowhead, ads manage to load after few secs and crap cookies are being inserted. |
@gorhill , Please tell me how can I privately share my research with you? |
@gorhill I can, not reliably, sometimes it works, reproduce a broken So my previous post was inaccurate. The reason that I couldn´t reproduce was that I didn´t |
There are instances of URL with g00 in it, but it's just the URL of the document itself. |
I now tested Edit: |
Tried this With that filter, I tested, both orlando and sandiego, the first load is very slow and takes a lot of time for the loading spinner to stop; still creates some g00 cookies. After refreshing the site upto 3 or 4 times, it becomes normal. /g00 redirection is still there, however it's like a popup defuser, it comes when you click and the URL resets back immediately like it never happened, atleast the website is browsable now. I have yet to test the remaining aforementioned ones for similar behaviour. |
The |
It seems spoofing user agent string to Firefox's ones works perfectly on Chromium. I'm using uMX for spoofing Firefox's UA and it does the job too. So only Chromium based browsers are affected by this. Edit - sandiego one still loads slow and injects g00 cookies and other crapware cookies. Edit2 - doesn't seem to work on sun-sentinel.com, loads ads even after spoofing the UA. |
Yes: https://np.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/5exq2d/wowheadcom_sucking_bandwidth/dagbmie/. The server will serve a different document if Firefox (or "not Chrome"). |
And those 3rd party urls leave their crap cookies with the help of the script which inserts the cookies as first party ? I already have the Block 3rd party cookies and site data activated, so that's the only way around to insert 3rd party data onto my browser. |
Looks like this. |
I find |
There is no obvious site breakage but |
Except for boston, the rest of the lot breaks at root page with thumbnails for the articles and videos at any individual article. |
|
https://realclearpolitics.com seems to be using g00 adware now. It doesn't seem to be on their other 'realclear' sites for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it migrates to them at some point in the future if I were to guess. Screenshot with a sample of the logger is below: |
I'm just leaving this here for future reference IF they manage to break even uBOExtra. The usage is pretty straightforward. You insert a custom user-agent string, e.g. Firefox's, then you add to the "Permanent Spoof List" the domain However, you will probably miss out on some site improvements which are designed for Chrome and you might be logged out from some sites. Don't be creative with user agent strings as you may be blacklisted, please use an actual third-party browser UA string. |
element picker doesn't seem to work video= |
@ghajini That happens when the HTML is replaced by uBO-Extra. |
@jspenguin2017 Can you could please elaborate on your above comment? |
@gotitbro When uBO-Extra aborts the page to replace it, it has the side effect to break element picker. I'm not exactly sure why, I'm guessing that uBO will only inject the element picker once, and it gets overwritten. |
|
Okay, so this g00 crap is to blame for extremely slowing down some sites, apparently. What is the best solution right now? Is there a specific filter? Or using uBO-Extra? |
For old computers, Firefox is probably better. Firefox is hard on CPU and Chrome is hard on RAM, but if you don't have enough RAM, then Firefox will be faster. g00 currently bails out on Firefox, not sure how long will that last though. |
Based on my tests, Chrome is definitely better in this scenario. RAM is less of an issue, it's actually the CPU you will notice the most. Unless you have really ridiculously low RAM. Just one example, really big single HTML documents are a problem, Firefox starts choking very easily while Chrome is still running smoothly. Anyway, I was more interested in how to counter that g00 crap, actually 😄 |
The best way to counter it is to use Firefox or, if you prefer Chrome, use uBO-Extra. |
@okiehsch I wouldn't say so, the script can totally affect Firefox, it is just intentionally aborting on Firefox. It is a switch flip for it to start affecting Firefox. |
I agree, I meant it is the best way to deal with IL-sites at this moment. |
The IL scripts are not served with Firefox, just compare |
You are saying they cannot serve it to Firefox? I highly doubt that. An user agent will accept anything it receives. |
Nowhere did I say this. |
Okay, to conclude, Firefox has the benefit of being unaffected by this plague, at least for now. And with Chrome (which works better on the old systems here), it is uBlock Origin + uBO-Extra, in preference to just uBO or uBO + uBlock Protector. |
uBlock Protector defuses anti-adblock and has uBO-Extra embedded in it. If websites you use don't have anti-adblock then uBlock Origin + uBO-Extra will be faster. |
Example - I haven't tested all but feel free. PS - This is a scriptlet, uBO will have to win the race condition on every page and every refresh, so if it doesn't work for you or works once or twice it's the race condition at play here, nothing wrong with the filter itself. |
Does not seem to work for metacritic.com, for example. First load did work, I think, but doing a hard reload shows old behaviour. |
I'm not receiving any |
Tested on |
Tested on |
Chrome 60.0.3112.113 (64-bit) (Stable, latest version), uBO 1.13.8, without uBO-Extra.
I assumed this meant uBO-Extra would not be required here, sorry if I misunderstood this. |
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, however you may need uBO-Extra for blocking WebRTC connections,although you can use CSP to block them too. |
It does not work, that's the entire point of uBO-Extra. That kind of inaccurate information just add noise and confuse further anybody reading this now too huge thread. I already explained in the past why uBO-Extra is needed. Locking this thread. For any issue with IL stuff, open a new issue at uBO-Extra repo. To everybody: stick to observed facts please, otherwise this just contribute to propagate myths out there. This is what we have:
|
@jspenguin2017 Sorry, you are correct about IL stuff being served on Firefox, I just tested many sites, and I see the IL script at the top with Firefox. I believe this is a new development, I am pretty sure this was not the case until no long ago. So possibly uBO-Extra will be needed for Firefox in the near future. In any case, I rather discuss all this at uBO-Extra itself, the issue has grown too large and anyways it was solved long ago with the release of uBO-Extra. |
URL(s) where the issue occurs
orlandosentinel.com
sandiegouniontribune.com
sun-sentinel.com
mcall.com
boston.com
Those are the ones I have seen so far, there may be more.
Describe the issue
Forcibly inserts g00 adware content and abuses window.location API if blocked by a filter like
/g00^$important
until it turns into a bad request.Screenshot(s)
https://i.gyazo.com/86ab54811f6aaa1785b3d308566d6af6.png
Versions
Settings
Default
Notes
This didn't happen when I visited the website few days ago, however it seems the website is infested with adware as of today, as it keeps trying to load the /g00 stuff when it fails the first time and it also inserts shitty adware cookies too.
Blocking inline script does stop the onslaught attack of /g00 however breaks pictures from loading and possibly other things.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: