Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

uBlock Origin Criticized for Blocking Content Security Policy

posted by Fnord666 on Monday October 23 2017, @09:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the Digital-Arms-Race dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The popular content blocking extension uBlock Origin blocks CSP reporting on websites that make use of it if it injects neutered scripts.

CSP, Content Security Policy, can be used by web developers to whitelist code that is allowed to run on web properties. The idea behind the feature is to prevent attackers from injecting JavaScript on websites protected by CSP.

CSP reports any attempt of interfering with the site's policies in regards to scripts to the webmaster. This happens when users connect to the site, and is used by webmasters to analyze and resolve the detected issues.

[...] Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, replied stating that this was not a bug but by design. The extension blocks the sending of CSP reports if it injects a neutered Google Analytics script.

Source: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/19/ublock-criticized-for-blocking-csp/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
uBlock Origin Criticized for Blocking Content Security Policy | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 89 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:26AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:26AM (#586770) Journal
    $4 seems pretty steep. I'd be very surprised is sites had any advertisers that paid close to that per unique visitor. The result of a quick search [monetizepros.com] indicates that big sites are making $6.25-22 per 1,000 unique visitors per year, or about 0.2¢/month/visitor for the highest earners. Give them a mechanism whereby they can get 10¢/month/visitor and they'll be raking it in, comparatively.

    The $4 number doesn't pass a basic smell test. If you look at half a dozen sites regularly per month (a pretty conservative estimate), then that's $24/month that advertisers are willing to pay for you. That means that they'd have to be confident that they'd generate an average of (significantly) more than $24/month from sales to each random Internet person (including the ones that are in a completely different country that they can't even sell to). Does that sound likely?

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2