subverting adblock detection? [closed] - javascript

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Several questions concern how to detect adblock use, but I couldn't find any that explained how to subvert detection?

Personally, I don't find it appropriate to bypass ad blocking detection, though I know that others may have different viewpoints. If a site doesn't want to offer you their content without you displaying their ads (perhaps their only way of paying for the site), then that seems to me to be their prerogative and if they go to the trouble of detecting the ad blocking, then it seems that that is their right.
That said, there are a number of different ways that they could be detecting that you're blocking their ads. Some could be complicated enough that you couldn't simulate that you had the ads when you didn't. For example, if you are blocking flash and they are trying to communicate with a flash object to verify that it's there, you'd have to simulate that it was really there and that could be quite difficult. If their detection logic was a lot simpler, then it might be possible to fool it with some sort of simulation. But, I suspect this would just be an arms race and if any significant number of folks foiled their blocking detection, they'd just make it more sophisticated.
In that case, all you could do it try to figure out how to patch their actual javascript detection code directly to make it return a false answer. How you would do that would vary from one site to the next and any solution would have to be coded for a specific site. I wouldn't recommend it.

Related

Why is Google.com's source code so messy? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just wondering why Google.com, one of the most minimalist websites, has a so messy HTML source code.
Two main questions:
Is it a sort of obfuscation in order to keep parts of the code "secret"?
Has anyone ever tried to explain it?
Two things I can offer to help understand what's going on with google.com
While the displayed content on the page is simple, there is a lot going on in behind the scenes to understand your browsing history, cookies, etc. to serve up dynamic content such as preset search results and ads, of course. In addition, while every piece of google.com looks simple but has much more going on behind it. The search bar gets populated with a drop down of search results as you type. Apps in nav bars get loaded as you drop in. The language of the site can change instantly. All of this is quite complex.
All of this code has been minimized and files have been concatenated together to reduce page load time, making it look really messy. You're right in that google isn't interested in making the code you can see on their main page understandable. Their goal is to serve you the best possible experience. Hopefully that clears some of it up!
If you're referring to the code you see when you press "View Page Source" on Google, then yes, the code is obfuscated. There are a number of reasons people obfuscate code, but the main ones I've heard of, are for compressing the code to make for faster loading times, hiding the code so people can't read it (which is pretty obvious), and lastly, to prevent people from being able to use the website from phishing. For many websites, you can just copy/paste the source, and make a very similar looking website to do a number of malicious things.
They might be minifying the JavaScript or using their own Closure JavaScript compiler to make it smaller so the page loads faster. Obfuscation just maybe a side effect.

Why do browsers provide an option to disable Javascript? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
It is just a noob question: why do browsers have a "disable javascript" function?
I am just curious and hunger for learning. Thanks!
If you're asking why some browsers might have Javascript turned off, it is a user setting in a browser. The user has the ability to decide whether they want to enable Javascript or not.
Users may choose to disable Javascript for either security or privacy reasons. It seems less common these days because more and more sites are not fully functional without Javascript enabled.
In my opinion, one reason could be some highly technical users may want full control over how they want their browsers to behave. Javascript is one part of browser behavior which some users may wish to control. Thus - it is a question of choice. Sometimes - some Javascript could be too annoying for some choosy techie users and they may wish to turn it off.
Thus - in addition to security and privacy, it is a choice that browsers offer to end users. However it is true that nowadays most sites hardly function without JS. But still there could be those plain old vanilla HTML sites around that may do without any client side scripting.
Regards

What do those "You've won an iPad" Javascript popups at scummy web sites actually do? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
(This might be better asked over at SuperUser, but I'm interested in the vulnerabilities of the Javascript alert box, and what the code might actually be doing, not the effect on my computer.)
We've all gotten these popup boxes with just an OK button and nothing else. I usually close them without hitting OK and go back to safety.
Is hitting OK any worse than just closing the window? What exploit, if any, are these popups trying to use?
I would refer to that type of exploit as clickjacking
There are a variety of exploits that involve putting an image on top of some other control (e.g. a Flash button) and convincing you to click, but registering the click to the hidden control.
At worst, this can mean you are permitting a local installation, etc., allowing the site to have control of your machine.
There was an entertaining one discovered recently in which a malicious site could actually convince you to share control of your webcam (by clicking on a hidden Flash control), allowing them to take pictures of you.

Does Google use GWT for their projects? If not what do they use? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I know this has been asked before but I'd like to ask it here and see what happens.
What do Google's developers use to implement their sites like http://translate.google.com/ for instance. When I look at the source of the page, I'm not immediately seeing anything GWT.
I've been working on a few GWT projects and my experiences with it have been mixed. The advantages are obvious, and I've created dynamic scheme making client-server communication even more transparent. But the downsides have been nagging PITA pretty much. Erroneous hard to find anomalies. Slow building process (I'm familiar with the optimizations and tuning to improve development cycles). Layout hell (css). Plus problems developing for mobiles. No devmode, need various tricks to let me debug and probe inner state. Problems with specific mobiles (eg. Acer A500 disappearing keyboard problem). Mobiles not scaling UI properly. The list of issues goes on and on.
I have the feeling that Google is perfectly well aware of the pitfalls of GWT and use something much better internally for their own apps. Does anyone know how they develop their sites?
The admin pages for Adwords is as far as I know done with GWT, as was wave.
For some projects they have used the Closure library
Gmail is one of these I think.

Fluid or Fixed layout for a social networking web application? [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Folks,
Most of the examples I saw including facebook, twitter and orkut uses a fixed width pattern. It seems to be so easy for development and gives more control to move on. Fluidity screws up the views sometimes.
Why fluidity is more complex? Is it because, browsers are not matured enough?
What is the best way (in terms of visual elements) to do a web application? Pour me some thoughts!
Making fluid designs is more difficult for a number of reasons, hence a lot of sites don't bother with it to start with. When things get more involved, it's hard to add it afterwards.
Browsers can use media-queries, as well as max and min widths to design in this way, and good designers will do that from the start.
One of the harder things is that you can end up serving large images to mobile users unless you have multiple sizes of your images – this means that for a fluid site to be efficient you need to reencode resources at various sizes. This alone is enough to put people off.

Categories