Ad Blocking and best internet extensions

As the team has been discussing way to improve your browsing experience in another thread we decided to share them all in an easy to find new thread...

Ad Blockers:

AdBlock - This is the first one I personally use as it allows me to add custom elements from a page to hide (such as those overlay windows that tell you to sign up, log in or disable your ad blocker (yes you can hide these and use the page still).

Adblock Plus - This is open sourced and allows you to add custom lists.

Addon for Ad Blockers:

* (Obsoleted use below) Anti-Adblock Killer (Reek) - This script (requires Tamper or Grease Monkey) helps you keep your Ad-Blocker active, when you visit a website and it asks you to disable. Some extra scripts allow you to hide Social Media sharing etc to make browsing more Anti Social and more about researching for yourself without distraction.

AAK-Cont - This updated script (requires Tamper or Grease Monkey) helps you keep your Ad-Blocker active, when you visit a website and it asks you to disable. Some extra scripts allow you to hide Social Media sharing etc to make browsing more Anti Social and more about researching for yourself without distraction.


Other Security Extensions:

HTTPS Everywhere - This makes sure that all your sent and received data is not plain text readable even when the pages try to redirect to http:// again.


Tips:
Ctrl + F4 or Ctrl + W will close a browsers Tab - This is handy if you get stuck on a popup with message box shown or any other form of hostile browser hijacking.

The WhiteList of many Ad Blockers allows you to enter a sub domain or top level domain to allow ads to run and the site to not detect you are running an ad blocker, this works best if you have a hosts file installed to stop any redirected sites from actually opening, possibly running scripts or installing malware/Ransomware etc.

Everyone should be running a hosts file to block known bad sites, we use http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ - with some custom entries, they are built in to LastOS7 Tweaks and Last10 Tweaks found in our App repository.

* If anyone noticed the date of this post is old, it's because I recycled my old post so it would be at the top of this thread


---------------------------------------------

Here is another Chrome Extension that I now can not live without, it disables Java on each webpage you want it disabled on:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...je?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher-info-dialog

So if you go to a webpage and it opens a popup window/tab when you click on any element (including buttons and background pictures or following a link) then this will stop it from being able to run the code that does so, VERY handy for stubborn pages that refuse to stop with the ad warfare!

An added bonus is that search features still operate as they are php based and everything is finally right with my browsing experience.

 

I use Adblock Plus -- it's open-source, FYI. I've found it to be pretty aggressive with crap like that. And if a site won't let me "enter" because of it; then I simply go elsewhere. I never turn off my ad-blockers for anyone. No site is worth the way too many problems if you turn it off even temporarily. Forbes comes to mind first but there are plenty of other notable fiascos after sites begged users to turn off their adblockers. Check out, “Turn off your Adblocker” is a Mistake.

For webmail (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail/Outlook, AOL, etc.), there's Webmail Ad Blocker.

I also recommend HTTPS Everywhere (EFF is the developer).

 

I use AdBock, rather than either AdBlock Plus or AdBlock Pro, but I also use HTTPS Everywhere. Many thanks for the Webmail Ad Blocker link. I'll also have to check out AdBlocker. Do you have a link? Or are you talking about the advanced features of the various AdBlock extension? If so, can you point to a tutorial of how to set them up? What about HideMyAdBlocker? Does that work?

Another solution that does work, at least I verified it works at forbes.com, is this script, which also needs GreaseMonkey or TamperMonkey, but I already had that installed anyway, so...

 

Actually I do have an anti-Adblock killer filter placed (subscribed) in Adblock Plus. Currently I'm using the AakList from Reek's but it doesn't always work. Honestly, I haven't really taken the time to add more filters because there's always another site to get the same thing that doesn't require a disabled Adblock.

I don't know anything about HideMyAdBlocker. I'll have to take a look at that.

oh btw, I meant adblockers in general. Not any one in particular.

 

Yeah, I got the adblock message as well. That's a shame, and new to me, because TheWindowsClub used to be a site I got all kind of utilities from.

EDIT: It seems that HideMyAdBlocker is probably not a good extension to install.
1) I tried to install it and nothing happened.
2) There are pages online dedicated to its removal, such as this one.

I would like to figure out a way around this, especially for sites such as TheWindowsClub, since I have liked and used several of their utilities in the past and would like to continue to do so, and check the site for any updates or new apps.

I can pause AdBlock, which will let me look at pages at TheWindowsClub, and I didn't see any ads appear at all. I can also un-pause AdBlock after the page is loaded, with no apparent ill effects, but I then have to do that pause/un-pause cycle again each time I go to a different page on the site. Not a big deal since it's just a button on the browser taskbar, but still ...

 

I love the AntiSocial feature of the above Tamper script, I never knew there was such a thing, now I can browse websites without seeing/avoiding facebook, google, twitter etc etc logo's everywhere so you can easily share articles with your Friends - sorry but I don't interrupt my friends if I can help it

* Any of Team LastOS can edit the main post with new information or just respond here and I will update it with the latest and greatest methods to improve all of our browsing experiences.*

 

Awesome. I never realized those tweaks also added an enhanced host file. It's not something you'd notice just from casual observation.

Ctrl+W (in addition to Ctrl+F4) will also close a Firefox tab.

 

Thought I'd ask our experts on hosts files... From the someonewhocares.org hosts file comment section:

Does anyone know what systems they're talking about that's not compatible with the zero version?

 

I don't know, but I use the 0.0.0.0 links.

 

The reason I ask is I found this humongous list from SteveBlack/hosts:

And his list uses 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1

 

I chatted with a guy, NoelC, over at MSFN awhile back about HOSTS files and learned you have to be careful. If I tried to use one that was too large, it made my response time so bad that even simple browsing became intolerable. Maybe if I had a more powerful machine and/or the absolute fastest connection it might have been OK, I don't know.

 

Here I recently read the following:

Some more stuff I read but not all of it relates to hosts files in particular:

I remember we talked about 0.0.0.0 vs 127.0.0.1 a long time ago, and I think BP was part of that discussion. If I remember correctly, BP at the time preferred the 127.0.0.1 version but I see that has changed now

Since you use SRWare Iron, BP, you could add the addresses to the adblock file inside its directory, no?

Apparently, in Win10/8 Defender thinks the hosts file is malware. Although it says Win10 has now corrected the issue.

For Win7/Vista that page says that larger hosts files can slow down the PC but this can be resolved by disabling DNS service.

 

It wasn't BP who changed opinions it was me who doesn't use 0.0.0.0, firstly if your PC isn't connected to the internet and you have 0.0.0.0 in your hosts file it takes about 40 seconds longer to boot the OS and things just move slower when attempting to get a valid response from the internet because the 0.0.0.0 has to time out, unlike the 127.0.0.1, please keep the 127.0.0.1 as the benefits to using 0.0.0.0 is so minute that it's only relevant to the initial connection to a host as once it's got a packet through it doesn't filter through the hosts file to send multiple packets anyway, so yeah the latency may be .01% faster, but if you happen to lose internet connection or don't have any at all then you may just noticed the extra 2 to 3 seconds for an app to boot up because it's trying to check for an update.

BP a large hosts file is only a major issue in Windows XP, windows 7 had no major problems, the biggest issue with hosts in XP was the sheer memory it consumes in the network svchosts file in XP and also the boot time in XP for a large hosts file was way longer (say 2 minutes longer) to start.

That is as much as I knew on the subject and things could have since been patched/fixed or worked around. it's been a while since I was using XP or came across a PC with no internet

BTW a PC with no NIC was a disaster to use with 0.0.0.0 in the hosts file as it never got a response ever and some of those time outs are 3 minutes and retry a few times.

 

Yeah, you're right, it was you who didn't like 0.0.0.0. I am of the opinion that the 0.0.0.0 version would only be faster on slower systems, so in practice (and with the negatives you mentioned) it probably would not be worth the switch to 0.0.0.0.

 

For help with your HOSTS file, I'd like to strongly recommend HostsMan, ver. 4.7.105 last updated January 2017, a truly marvelous little completely free utility that can do all kinds of very wonderful things, such as:

-- Switch your HOSTS file from 0.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.1, or the other way around, with just a click or two.
-- It can update your HOSTS file from one or several choices, automatically of manually, and you can choose to either replace your HOSTS file with the updates or merge the updates with your existing file. I use the updates from MVPS Hosts, to keep things simple. It comes with a default half dozen or so choices, but you can also add as many others as you want to.
-- Search the HOSTS file for duplicates and delete them, or allow you to keep them, on an individual link basis.
-- It includes a HOSTS file editor, or you can have it open the file in the text file editor of your choice.
-- You can have it automatically run on Windows start or be totally passive and only run when you invoke it.
-- It's available both as an installed app or a totally portable one.
-- It can backup your HOSTS file for your convenience.
-- It runs on all versions of Windows from XP SP2 and later.

We had a ppApp version of this, that was made by you about a year ago, Glenn, ver. 4.6.103, which is how I found out about it, but I don't see it listed in the repo now, I don't know what happened to it.

The same author also offers a free HOSTS Server as a companion app, but I'm not sure what benefits it provides.

The guy I referred to over at MSFN, NoelC, also has his own site/blog. He made his own HOSTS compiler which does similar things to some of the features of HostsMan but is open sourced, the discussion of which can be found here. The latest version is 3.16, available here. ( I provided some help in the coding and testing of versions 3.2 or so through 3.11 of the bat file. ) I suppose you could even use both the HOSTS compiler and HostsMan, both operating manually, if you liked some features of each. They shouldn't interfere with each other unless you had them both set to be automatic.

Anyway Glenn, I'm afraid my experiences during the testing of Noel's HOSTS compiler last year don't match up with your belief that the size of HOSTS is no longer an issue for Windows 7 and later. My current HOSTS is about 25,000 lines. ( I haven't messed with it in quite some time, so I might should add some to it. That actually might help fix some of my current issues. ) One of the alternative sources for updates to your HOSTS is hpHosts. They offer all kinds of options of specialized lists, which are probably fine. But I would very strongly suggest to NOT try adding their complete set of offerings to your HOSTS. Noel and I both tried it, me on my AMD 6-core FX with Windows 7 x64 and he on his Intel dual Xenon processor 24-core Windows 8.1 x64, both of us fully updated as of last June, and both of us instantly removed it. My HOSTS had enlarged to over 435,753 lines and over 14 MB. It just didn't work. Your results might be different, but I wouldn't suggest it.

 

Yes, that is why, BP, we settled on Someonewhocares.org because it was a good compromise between huge and minimal hosts files that seems to work fine for most things most people do online without laying speed to waste.

Anyway BP, I updated Hostsman for you but the older one that Glenn had updated was still in the repo but has been put in archive now. I used it years ago already to add manually in the days I was testing someonewhocares but quit using it for some reason. I do like the 127.0.0.1 - 0.0.0.0 switcher, I hadn't noticed that.

Did you ever try to use adblock.ini in Iron?

 

Thanks T!

Yes, SomeOneWhoCares is an excellent list and a very good compromise that will meet most everyone's needs.

No I've not used adbolck.ini in Iron. I don't know anything about it so I'll have to do some reading. Have you used it?

 

I tried it years go, it's kind of like Iron's own hosts filter but since it was browser-specific I just opted for the hosts file as that would cover all browsers. I remember finding it harder to keep updated than the hosts file but can't remember the details. I want to say another such browser used adblock.ini as well, maybe Opera or no, maybe Dragon by Comodo.

It's weird, I just switched to 0.0.0.0 with Hostsman and I could swear my pages are loading faster, initially (no more start up lag). Hmm

 

Hmmm indeed. LOL

 

I've loaded up the new HostsMan, and now have it use the following sources:

SomeoneWhoCares (Called Dan Polluck's hosts file)
MVPS Hosts
Malware Domain List
Cameleon
Peter Lowe's AdServers List
adaway ( Manually added - https://adaway.org/hosts.txt ) -- [Noel uses this as well]

And I left the "extra" entries that we've added here at LastOS and a small handful that Noel adds, and converted everything to use 0.0.0.0.

My HOSTS now has 36,474 unique entries and a size of 1.08 MB. I'll let you know if I notice any change in behavior.

A note for anyone else that wants to experiment with adding additional sources using HostsMan. Before you add one, backup the HOSTS file first - the included Backup Manager in HostsMan is fine for this. Because if you decide that you don't want the additions and want to revert back, deselecting the source does not remove the entries that were added. But the Backup Manager can easily revert to a previously backed up HOSTS. I used this when I experimented and added hpHosts (Ad and tracking servers only). It more than doubled the size of HOSTS so I decided that it probably wasn't worth it and reverted back.

 

I had HostsMan left to update (as seen above, thanks T, one less app).

I didn't even know people were using Hosts files as big as that BP, if you had to parse any list that big per network request it's gonna slow down a bunch and use a ship load of memory.

I had said the 0.0.0.0 was faster, but the issue where if the PC has no active network adapter everything turns to crap is the ONLY reason I don't recommend 0.0.0.0 over 127.0.0.1, So if you two agree that 0.0.0.0 is worth the ping speed increase, I know I am beat, just make sure if you get weird stuff happening on PC's in the future and they are not on the internet that you remember this can be the cause of problems (memory leaks, high CPU and excessive disk usage that stops the PC going to sleep on it's own), if you have a NIC active then you don't get ANY problems so it seems tame

 

Oh I did Firefox just now, actually still uploading Needed it for my live Win10 1703 install

 

Crap, I was doing firefox uploads now.. guess there is a first time for everything. If your's errors out it's because mine is going.

 

Thanks. Lots of useful info there, BP.

Actually my interest in hosts files came about after I pointed out to BP that our usage of PeerBlock was doing neither of us any good:

I was okay with at least having once-a-week updates, but now... It sucks too that I didn't realize this for quite a while either

Anyway, I'm hoping to find something comparable to PeerBlock but using hosts files instead with the various anti-P2P IPFilter lists like I-Blocklist has; ie, not just for ads and malware sites.

 

Yes, if we could find a list of those anti-P2P addresses somewhere we could add that to our HOSTS. Maybe hpHosts has that available as one of their MANY sub-lists that they have available? I haven't had the time to check.