Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why AdGuard? Why do they detect ad-blockers to begin with?

<< < (3/3)

wraith808:
Are you serious right now?

You can look up in relation to programming stream and find the following definition:

transmit or receive (data, especially video and audio material) over the Internet as a steady, continuous flow.

--- End quote ---

There is no need to separate that for any sort of download, as should be obvious from that definition.  Each one of those connections its own separate communication stream to be rendered in the browser as indicated by the tags.

And the word asset is not "misused", but a standardly accepted term to refer to anything linked from the web page, whether it's external CSS, images, fonts, video, etc.

I have no idea what you mean about "telegram style", other than to toss it out as an aspersion to the fact that I like to get to the point of the matter.  I'm not a long-form writer when it isn't needed, i.e. I don't throw words at something to get my point across, but try to make things as succinct as possible and elucidate complex subjects, knowing that people don't necessarily have time to read multi-page treatises on a simple subject.  To bastardize a phrase by Einstein, Any intelligent fool can obscure his speech with words to make explanations longer and more complex ... it takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.

ital2:
ATTN Sophists You Can Learn Something Here (no, not from me for once):

Even some 3-years-olds in the sandpit are able to play foul already; if you have such people as our boss, more than 20 years later, you're more or less done; change employer asap, without them letting the time to destruct in part your credentials.

When you do the "complete style" (or whatever you like to call it), you type lots of characters, and if you don't redact then - being paid for what you will have written -, there will not only be typos, but also sometimes some obscure elements where you will not have formulated your thought to the best; in many occurrences, the context at least will then indicate what you will have meant.

On the other hand, if you do the very sparse style, there is no context to explain if needed, so you better be perfectly clear, and the above specimens are such wonderful examples of being almost inscrutable that you invariably end up - at the very moment the author announces the break of the "conversation" - with thinking that that's been on purpose; as implied above, we know that style from within the corporate world when it's not about clarifying things together, but to butcher an opponent/subordinate.

For example, if you're able to make any sense of "There are cases where the images are encoded in the streams, but they wouldn't be for this.", you're really, really strong; being sparse, AND leaving out core elements then, is no "conversation" at all.

Btw - and not even mentioning the fact that the usual meaning of streaming is "sending data to the pc, without that data being stored on that pc" (so the usual downloaders cannot save it but by filming the screen) - e.g. pics are indeed embedded in a very weird way sometimes, e.g. in rtf where the whole pic code is simply replicated (copied) into the rtf text, just with some special code before and after that, in case, millions of characters describing the pic; on the other hand, I've never heard of such a thing in web programming, where the pics and other elements are not embedded within the page's code - would that be even possible? -, but linked, for separate download indeed (i.e. all the pic or other code is within its own, dedicated file), be that from the same server or from others; as said, some code complicates things in order to make downloads more or less impossible, by the http links referring not to the special files, but back to the php server code which then sends back (or not) the data, perhaps even just "streaming" it, so that it doesn't get onto your hdd (browser cache) - don't know how they make it, but doesn't matter here.

The above "conversation" is a classic exemple where one participant naively thinks of getting things clarified, whilst the other strives to make appear his "opponent" stupid, systematically just giving away tiniest bits, from which the naive participant tries to get some meaning, instead of saying, early on, if you express yourself in just some sparse words, make them meaningful; just the sudden aggression some sparse posts later will then open his eyes and make him discover the foul play he's being subjected, his naive thinking "he doesn't do it on purpose, he just expresses himself badly, so let's see if we can make any sense out of it anyway" prevents him from seeing the situation as it is.

When in the corporate world, such people begin to aggress you openly, in the end, it'll be already too late, so you're probably well-advised to never even enter such foul play of others, and that means, never try to obscure things but immediately say you don't understand - of course, and as you see here in this current example, they will say that's your fault, so be it, but break their foul play and get a new employer, but don't enter their scheme since you will end up with taking decisions "for them" they will then fervently disown, making you responsible for big losses for the corporation (of which these people give a shit, their agenda being a sadistic one).

Many of you will have (out)lived (or will have been broken in) such a situation, which is a frequent one in the corporate world (or, of course, in public administration); of course, you will not be aware of such a stratagem in "play" situations like ours here, but you should be, at any moment, in professional ones:

Trying to fill up the allegedly unintentional omissions of others is among the most dangerous situation you could ever encounter in your professional life; you'll find yourself on some icecap which then will break under your feet.

Of course it's a shame you'll need to be paranoid in order to survive, but there are indicators for WHEN it's necessary to enter paramode, and the above "conversation" is a classic example of the victim not having seen the strong indicator, so you can indeed learn something here indeed, and be it just for a refresh and reminder.


P.S. That's "website assets" indeed, but quite rarely "assets"; even on Quora, you'll find a "what the hell is that", and the problem doesn't lie within the (unusual) expression, but in the obvious and repeated (above) refusal to clarify, i.e. the will to maintain the misunderstanding.


EDIT: Oh, I forgot: In the old days, there were even school teachers for whom the day wasn't a successful one if, in the way described above, they hadn't made cry at least one of their pupils (10, 12 years old) in at least one of their classes. Those times are over now in civilized countries; corporations and administrations, as said, remain a jungle in which such predators can run rampant still.

hollowlife1987:
I've never heard of such a thing in web programming, where the pics and other elements are not embedded within the page's code - would that be even possible? -, but linked, for separate download indeed (i.e. all the pic or other code is within its own, dedicated file), be that from the same server or from others
-ital2
--- End quote ---

Yes it is possible and used most the time
--- ---<img src="example.png" /> the page code does not include the image directly although that is possible too.

Embedding the image would be more like this
--- ---<img src="" />Lets assume the web developer didn't base64 encode all his images. When loading a web page your browser opens up a few http/https connections to download/stream the resources (The browser downloads a stream of bytes for the image in this case)

Now the same can be done with javascript scripts

--- ---<script src="./ads.js"></script>
Now an adblock program of some kind may assume that ads.js contain well ads and prevent the browser from requesting the resource.
The server doesn't need to know if the resource was requested or not.   Assuming ads.js is an adblock detector script; if the ads.js was requested then the browser would execute the javascript and remove the content dynamically that shows the real page content vs the adblock in use content.  Only when that "fake ad" script gets loaded does the real content get shown.

While there will be exceptions to this, it is the general basis on how to detect adblock is to leverage the blocklists and load fake ad scripts that when blocked from being downloaded and executed the content doesn't show.

Now to the discussion about AdGuard. 
I noticed that some adblock detectors will still pick it up others won't.  Also the https filtering works by MITMproxy and installing its own root certificate into the system.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page