Author Topic: AdGuard: the better Ad Muncher? (Read 54991 times)

Tuxman · « **on:** July 29, 2014, 05:24 PM »

Basic Info

App Name	AdGuard
App URL	http://adguard.com
App Version Reviewed	5.9
Supported OSes	Microsoft Windows up to 8.1 (currently)
Support Methods	They seem to prefer their support ticket system.
Upgrade Policy	Licensing works per year, independently of the version numbers.
Trial Version Available?	Yes, it is. The (unrestricted) trial period lasts only two weeks though.
Pricing Scheme	1 year: 19.95 US-$ 2 years: 29.95 US-$ Unlimited: 49.95 US-$

AdGuard: the better Ad Muncher?

Intro:

As Ad Muncher 5 (about to be free or something) is heavily discussed all around teh interwebz, people might forget about the alternatives. I'm not talking about Adblock Plus or Adblock Edge, there's more; be it GlimmerBlocker on OS X, be it the free but failing AdFender, be it AdGuard. All of them share one goal: Blocking advertisements and (optionally) other annoying stuff without browser-side restrictions.

Why I think you should use this product

In opposite to ad blocking add-ons for browsers, AdGuard works as a transparent proxy. Browser add-ons usually hog the system, transparent proxies don't. - Also, some of you might use more than one browser (or HTML-capable mail clients), so you'd have to install a pretty decent amount of extra software. Install, fire and forget, never see any ads again. You don't trust Adblock Plus/Edge? Use AdGuard!

(Admittedly, some of them might still come through; you can easily report them though.)

How does it compare to similar apps

Ah, my favorite section in this case:

In comparison to Ad Muncher (at least v4), AdGuard has a better looking multi-language GUI, HTTPS support, a more reliable browser overlay and a larger feature set, including "internet security" (blocks malicious websites).

In comparison to AdFender, AdGuard's built-in filters seem to work much better, AdFender failed to filter the majority of ads for me (regardless of the fact that it's freeware).

In comparison to Adblock Plus/Edge, AdGuard happily ignores which web browser you're using.

Conclusions

AdGuard is a nice ad blocker which definitely needs more attention. If there is one thing to complain, it's its license. No freeware! - Still, let's see how it'll perform compared to Ad Muncher 5 one it's released.

J-Mac · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2014, 11:12 PM »

Still, let's see how it'll perform compared to Ad Muncher 5 one it's released.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for Ad Muncher 5.0. There has not been any reported progress on that for quite some time, and they first announced it back in 2005 (or possible earlier!). That's NINE years now of talking about how great their next major update will be. NINE years! I give up. I'll give AdGuard a try.

Thanks for the review.

Jim

Tuxman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 01, 2014, 05:31 AM »

They announced AM5 to be released this Summer. Looks like winter now.

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** September 01, 2014, 06:35 AM »

They announced AM5 to be released this Summer. Looks like winter now.
-Tuxman (September 01, 2014, 05:31 AM)

Actually, Jeff made it quite clear on their forums they only announced the release of the FREE version of ad muncher this year, not Ad Muncher 5.

Source

AM Post.PNG

Tuxman · « **Reply #4 on:** September 01, 2014, 06:38 AM »

It sounded quite different in Murray's blog.

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** September 01, 2014, 06:42 AM »

It sounded quite different in Murray's blog.
-Tuxman (September 01, 2014, 06:38 AM)

Notice, Murray posted on his blog that they hoped to release whatever product he was talking about by the end of July. Jeff didn't bother replying to the month long topic until the 29th leaving users to create more speculation about these vague announcements.

J-Mac · « **Reply #6 on:** September 01, 2014, 06:44 AM »

And in 2011, 2012, and 2013 Jeff stated that V.5 would be out by the end of the year. Still waiting...

Jim

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** September 01, 2014, 06:49 AM »

I'll just leave this here from this post

highend01 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2014, 07:31 AM »

He's working on HTTP (without S) support... wow. No, wait. Wow! I feel sorry for anyone who is still investing money on that software...

Jibz · « **Reply #9 on:** September 01, 2014, 12:03 PM »

On one hand it is annoying that AM does not filter https, on the other hand from what I understand, AdGuard does it by installing its own certificate and doing a man in the middle on all your https connections, and I don't know how I feel about that.

mwb1100 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2014, 02:19 PM »

On one hand it is annoying that AM does not filter https, on the other hand from what I understand, AdGuard does it by installing its own certificate and doing a man in the middle on all your https connections, and I don't know how I feel about that.
-Jibz (September 01, 2014, 12:03 PM)

I believe that's the only way to do it via a proxy. The only other option would be to do it inside the browser.

Either way you're giving the ad removal software the ability to deal with data that is ostensibly private, so you have to give that software some measure of trust if you want it to remove ads from HTTPS connections. I'm not sure sure which method might make things more vulnerable to other malicious software that might want to exploit the ad removal software's position of trust.

My gut feeling is that it's the proxy with the MITM certificate, but that's just a feeling.

Does anyone know if AdGuard allows you to disable this behavior of proxying HTTPS traffic? I'm currently using Ad Muncher and I don't have any complaints about HTTPS connections having too many ads. However, I think I'm seeing the writing on the wall for AM, so I figure that I'll be moving to something else at some point and I'd rather that my HTTPS traffic just be left alone since I'm not seeing a problem with it.

Tuxman · « **Reply #11 on:** September 01, 2014, 02:23 PM »

Yes, AdGuard needs to intercept HTTPS, that's why using the Android version is a bit dangerous...

Josh · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2014, 02:50 PM »

It is the same way MiTM is conducted on firewall appliances like Palo Alto or A10's thunder series. You have to do some form of MiTM to sniff SSL traffic.

40hz · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2014, 09:13 PM »

I understand, AdGuard does it by installing its own certificate and doing a man in the middle on all your https connections, and I don't know how I feel about that.
-Jibz (September 01, 2014, 12:03 PM)

This.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" still applies.

J-Mac · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2014, 09:22 PM »

YouTube's ads alone have me wanting some sort of https ad control.

Jim

Jibz · « **Reply #15 on:** September 02, 2014, 01:52 AM »

Does anyone know if AdGuard allows you to disable this behavior of proxying HTTPS traffic? I'm currently using Ad Muncher and I don't have any complaints about HTTPS connections having too many ads. However, I think I'm seeing the writing on the wall for AM, so I figure that I'll be moving to something else at some point and I'd rather that my HTTPS traffic just be left alone since I'm not seeing a problem with it.
-mwb1100 (September 01, 2014, 02:19 PM)

It looks like 5.10 added support for disabling https filtering on specific sites, I don't know if there is a way to disable it for all.

YouTube's ads alone have me wanting some sort of https ad control.
-J-Mac (September 01, 2014, 09:22 PM)

I've never had YouTube ads here, and I don't really know why. I don't have an ad-blocker inside Chrome (other than Ghostery) -- perhaps it is because I am loggen in on YouTube?

Now Facebook on the other hand ...

J-Mac · « **Reply #16 on:** September 02, 2014, 04:51 AM »

I've never had YouTube ads here, and I don't really know why. I don't have an ad-blocker inside Chrome (other than Ghostery) -- perhaps it is because I am loggen in on YouTube?

Now Facebook on the other hand ...
-Jibz (September 02, 2014, 01:52 AM)

Now if you are logged in to YouTube the ads are unbelievable. on the page, within the videos. Nearly unbearable.

Jim

Cloq · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2015, 09:35 AM »

Hm.. wonder if AdGuard respects your privacy.

Would be nice if someone knowledgeable would do a packet sniffing/inspection to see if your information (web habits/email/ssl data etc.) is sent back to Adguard or not.

Tuxman · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2015, 09:37 AM »

Depends. AdGuard's "extras" like WOT and malware scans need to exchange a lot of data; so does the automatic regional filter list update.

Zero3K · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2015, 06:25 PM »

The developer of Ad Muncher has no money to spend on developing the new version. So, its not going to come out.

Tuxman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2015, 06:31 PM »

Interesting things (actually, those are 2 devs AFAIK) happen when you decide to give away your things for free.

Zero3K · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2015, 06:36 PM »

Interesting things (actually, those are 2 devs AFAIK) happen when you decide to give away your things for free.
-Tuxman (May 23, 2015, 06:31 PM)

Only one actually. The other guy is the filter list maintainer.

J-Mac · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2015, 11:13 PM »

The developer of Ad Muncher has no money to spend on developing the new version. So, its not going to come out.
-Zero3K (May 23, 2015, 06:25 PM)

Is this a fact? Or just supposition? Is there an announcement about this?

Thank you.

Jim

Zero3K · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2015, 11:18 PM »

The developer of Ad Muncher has no money to spend on developing the new version. So, its not going to come out.
-Zero3K (May 23, 2015, 06:25 PM)

Is this a fact? Or just supposition? Is there an announcement about this?

Thank you.

Jim
-J-Mac (May 23, 2015, 11:13 PM)

It's a fact. I learned about it by asking Jeff about v5's progress via its IRC channel.

J-Mac · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2015, 11:20 PM »

Thanks. Damn, they should finally announce that and make it official. One of the poorest handlings of a software's abandonment I've experienced.

Jim